skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Joel Spolsky has a great write up on this phenomenon [0]. The opening paragraph is great:

> “I don’t know what’s wrong with my development team,” the CEO thinks to himself. “Things were going so well when we started this project. For the first couple of weeks, the team cranked like crazy and got a great prototype working. But since then, things seem to have slowed to a crawl. They’re just not working hard any more.” He chooses a Callaway Titanium Driver and sends the caddy to fetch an ice-cold lemonade. “Maybe if I fire a couple of laggards that’ll light a fire under them!”

0.https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/02/13/the-iceberg-secret...
The Spectre of Caste in Silicon Valley
In software, I think that there is a qualitative difference between managers who have programmed- at any level of experience, even if it was a long time ago- and those who have not. Some exposure gives them a more realistic notion of what is hard, what is easy, and what is bullshit.

Beyond this, programming skills and specific technical knowledge can be useful as a manager, but I'm dubious that they are as essential as this article implies.

I further imagine that a similar pattern holds for other technical fields- you need some basic grounding, but do not need to be a technical expert to manage.
The USSR at least pushed hard for science, engineering and technology education. Political party type and organization aside, the rapid growth of their electrical grid and large-scale engineering projects (hydroelectric dams, airports, nuclear power, hospitals etc) in the post-1945 era was quite rapid.

The Khmer Rouge and its strongly anti-intellectual stance was quite the opposite. You can't return an entire country to an agrarian subsistence agriculture system and literally kill off every educated person that can be found, and expect good results...
> The post you were responding to asked when they would get official ECC support. ECC is not officially supported on Ryzen. If it works on your particular board/BIOS, great, but it's not officially validated or tested, so nobody besides you will actually be testing whether it works, and if it doesn't work in some edge case (or at all) then sucks to be you. If ECC doesn't work right on some future BIOS revision that fixes a security issue or some other critical bug, and there is never an updated version that does support ECC, sucks to be you.

ECC is officially supported on Ryzen CPUs. The feature is present in the chip, and you can RMA it if it doesn't work.

ECC support is not _validated_ on the AM4 platform. That means that a motherboard vendor can market a motherboard that lacks ECC support as being AM4-compatible, and not get a nasty letter from AMD's lawyers. By extension, it also means that ECC support becomes a feature of the motherboard, rather than something you can take for granted that the entire AM4 platform supports.

From the user perspective, it does mean that if you're looking to buy a Ryzen-based platform with ECC support, you need to check to see if the motherboard supports ECC. But once you've made that selection, you will have a fully-functional ECC-capable platform with full support.

> As it stands, you can probably count the number of boards that anyone would bother to validate ECC on on a single hand - Asrock Rack has two server boards, Asus has some "WS" series that might, maybe some of the high-end Asrock consumer boards. And it will never be officially supported by AMD, if there is a critical bug then welp.

All ASRock AM4 boards (that I'm aware of) support ECC, and most ASUS boards do. I can't speak for other brands, but ECC is pretty broadly supported (the motherboard manual will say whether it's supported it or not).

What separates the motherboards you mentioned is that ECC support is _marketed_ as being a feature.

As a data point, I'm currently running an ASRock B450M Pro4 motherboard with a Ryzen 9 3900X and 64 GB of Kingston KSM26ED8/16ME DDR4-2666 ECC DRAM, and it is working with full ECC support.
https://speakerdeck.com/jallspaw/findings-from-the-field-dev...

this reminded me quite a bit of this deck -- in particular, a focus on a shallow metric (in this case LoC) as a proxy for measuring complexity.
Trump response was decent? Jesus. His lack of leadership resulted in many deaths. His base refuses till this day to wear masks and the southern states and Cali are now in the thick of it. He could not be seen wearing the mask. He called the virus a hoax. He told the US people it will go to 0 very soon. The administration buried their heads in the sand and failed to listen to professionals for a long time. Then, continued giving mixed signals.
The Russians seems to be the true master of all evil. They sway elections, they force the us into wars they don't want to and they also always pop up when needed to ensure chaos and deceit. At this point they are a caricature of a Spectre. All Putin is missing is a white cat to stroke. Some critical thinking would be handy around these issues instead of just repeating a mantra.
Sorry, but I think this is a poisonous, thought-terminating cliche.

Python has had multiple ways of doing many things for a very long time, and the longer you program in any language, the more you realize there are often many solutions to a problem and the "best" approach either depends on context or you realize there is no one "best" approach and go on preference.

I think the idea should be judged on its own merits without having to consult the Zen. That said, I seriously don't see the point of it. Python 3 already forced everybody to convert all their print statements to look like function calls, and now GVR wants to bring the old style back as an option? It's just parenthesis, what's the point?

If he wants to put that new parser to work, how about taking another look at multi-line lambdas?
This is rich. I was watching a K8S/Puppet video from 2016 on YouTube today. In that video, the presenter pulls up HackerNews and the 6th item on HackerNews at that time was exactly this:

All Tesla vehicles now have all the hardware needed for full self-driving capability
> I've had my gaming machine on a separate box for awhile now.

I do the same, I bought my box from Sony, it's called Playstation 4. Never had to worry about driver updates, incompatible games, sanboxing, anything. 5/5 would recommend.
Downvoting is an expression of opinion. Opinions aren't owed platforms and never have been. Are all magazines anti-free speech because they don't publish everyone?

And besides, "well-researched" is highly subjective in the best of cases, and in ones like this is usually not accurate in any sense.
I love reading about Steve Jobs, but I get nervous when Apple's moves get put on a pedestal and blindly emulated. I think a lot of industries are tempted by the myth of Steve Jobs to go for vertical integration. Sometimes a better move is for a company to ride on the waves of innovation in layers below them in the technology stack/supply chains. If there's enough innovation below, picking horses like apple loves to do (firewire, etc.) is a bad move. Setting up your company to benefit from innovations below you is what won Microsoft the PC-wars.
As someone else who works in HealthTech, I'd expect someone else in HealthTech talking about HIPAA would mention that HIPAA only applies to Covered Entities.

Doom Eternal is not a Covered Entity (unless they're doing something crazy) and would not be subject to HIPAA in any capacity. This is either an overly protective lawyer or in reaction to a different, non-HIPAA data law.
If they'd done this right at the PY3K transition and only allowed the function-call-without-parenthesis syntax for `print` calls it could have been a good idea. But now that the community paid the decade-long price to get print as a normal function why backtrack?
Not OP, but I'm guessing because it's easier to remember than completely random email address (password manager might solve this?) and more unique than using the same email everywhere.
New feature requests are certainly within a manager’s purview, but designing how those features are implemented is not - that’s your engineer or architects.

Of course, if your organization expects a manager to also be a tech lead, that’s something else entirely (and not common in most non-startup companies).
I find it really rare to find managers who regularly code. Even if they once coded, after a year of two of not coding and they've lost all context and familiarly with the codebase or tooling that they probably shouldn't be coding anyway. Managers should be technically competent but largely be neutral arbiters that encourage and support their teams (ideally you have a 1 manager:2+ team ratio or they tend to micromanage). They should really only be making technical decisions if the team is deadlocked and there needs to be a tie breaker (which should be relatively rare and it's likely both directions are reasonable at that point).

Senior engineers should be kept around to mentor younger engineers to provide that valuable feedback and there should be a career path that doesn't require them to go into management (a lot of companies try to do this but I've never seen it done well and the managers always seem to have broader reach, better compensation, and more promotion opportunities).
Branding perhaps. If 50 tools had been released, called "newInit", "newDns", "newNTP" etc, with each tool succeeding or failing (upstart) on it's own merits, that would be one thing.

There is a perception that systemd has taken over the entire system as a cancer - replacing things that have worked for decades just because it's cool.

One annoyance I get is this: I've just taken an Ubuntu 1604 server running apache and b0rked the config file.

$ sudo systemctl restart apache2.service
Job for apache2.service failed because the control process exited with error code. See "systemctl status apache2.service" and "journalctl -xe" for details.
$

That's crazy. "Something broke, now go look here or there for why". Compare under an old ubuntu 1404 machine I have lying around

$ sudo service apache2 reload
* Reloading web server apache2
* The apache2 configtest failed. Not doing anything.
Output of config test was:
AH00526: Syntax error on line 1 of /etc/apache2/sites-enabled/sd.conf:
Invalid command 'blah', perhaps misspelled or defined by a module not included in the server configuration
Action 'configtest' failed.
The Apache error log may have more information.

That is so much more helpful.

You run the first and it outputs the last few lines of log. Why not output that when I call restart in the first place?

Another one is taking over DNS from resolv.conf. Muscle memory from years of "cat /etc/resolv.conf" (with a tab somewhere in the middle) has been replaced with the ungainly "systemd-resolve --status".

Now all of this is great if you're running servers as cattle - if you have thousands of machines doing web-scale stuff you don't want to see what's happening on a single machine, your layers of automation abstract it all away, your system can cope with machines going down, you probably don't even have an ssh account.

If you are looking after individual machines though, systemd came in and turned everything upside down to presumably make things easier for cattle owners.
Dude! You need to run more servers. 250 should do it. I realize its just a simple page with a pair of boxes for name registration, but that's irrelevant! All the cool kids agree. You need infrastructure. It needs to be done as complex as possible! Complexity-as-a-Service won't just happen, you have to want to make it happen. You don't want to be uncool, do you?

Looks at a specification on the desk Yep. We'll keep the first and last page. Everything else is gibberish. Next!

Edit: Looks like a few people disagree. Perhaps they might like to explain why I saved a bunch of companies around 100k in AWS fees just by pruning their server requirements? No? And yes, one of the projects was a simple set of web forms that required 7 servers to run. We pruned it down to 3 and that was just for redundancy and load. That's just one example.

If you disagree state your why.
another observation from me:

"practical understanding of software systems" != "understanding of computer since"

Through having done CS helps a lot in being flexible enough in how you thing about (technical) things. (Disclaimer: The last thing can be easily misunderstood, the thing is when you do CS you have to do a lot of brain gymnastic about all kinds of things like e.g. that one thing can be seen as two seemingly unrelated things but still be the same in a given context, but not in a other seemingly nearly equivalent context.)
I agree with you on what a manager who doesn't know what they're looking at should do there. You gotta dig in and find out![0]

I've been fortunate recently to not work in orgs where mentoring and collaborating like that is looked down upon - instead, it's encouraged - but my ongoing struggle is to figure out how to quantify it.

I've got two similar but distinct motivations for wanting to quantify it:

* If I have a manager who looks less favorably on it, I want to be able to demonstrate my worth; but also,

* If I'm spending most of my time trying to mentor the rest of the team, I want to see how well I'm doing - and I want to be able to change things and see if it results in positive or negative changes

Sadly I've completely failed at coming up with how to quantify this so far. It all comes down to qualitative peer feedback/manager feedback...

[0] As a technical person, I try to practice the reverse of this: if someone asks for a feature or claims there's a bug, I try to dig until I fully understand why they're asking for what they're asking. So I think asking for similar curiosity and depth from a non-technical person is fair.
> Any attempt to ban it to the wider public would be immediately be met with a legal battle that the US government would lose as there is no legal way for them to implement such a ban, our constitution would forbid it

"National Security"
Another thought: This would create ambiguities in the language that would harm its readability. Maybe not as far as the computer is concerned, but certainly as far as the humans are concerned. Is

print(1, 2, 3)

supposed to print

1 2 3

or

(1, 2, 3)

?

What about

print (1, 2, 3)

?

Are they the same? Should they be different? I know what the answer is in Python 3.8. A few weeks or months of programming in a Python where parens are optional, though, and I wouldn't be so sure anymore.
The USSR pushed hard for science which could improve the nation's global standing, like space missions.

The USSR was no less anti intellectual in other fields like biology:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
Show HN: Twitter Trend Timeline
Explore all top Twitter trends and popular hashtags
Amazon's smart shopping cart knows what you're buying
SEC issues $3.8M whistleblower award
there is so much talk on here that this is about security or that the USA has some hold over the UK. The one and only reason this has gone back to parliment to vote on and that it has been decided not to use Huawei is because due to the sanctions the US has placed on Huawei around procuring chips the UK has come to the conclusion that its not safe to use Huawei due to the risk that replacement devices might become an issue.
It doesn’t stop them from including crap in their invoices now that there’s no printing cost.

Then there’s the emails saying: “your bill is ready”, but you gotta login to see what it is and open a PDF.

Paper is more convenient.
Cross Platform Clipboard Manager that syncs your devices on the same network
Hi everyone,
I am working on a clipboard manager that can sync your clipboard with your devices on the same network. You clips are never leaving your network and available on all your devices. You copy somewhere paste anywhere. You can also exclude apps you don't want to be watched by the clipboard manager. Here's a quick demo of the upcoming MVP

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKauBocoeaE&feature=emb_title

Currently working on Windows version. It will be available on Linux, Android and possibly Mac and iOS

Are you interested? Comment below and join the mailing list :)

https://linkstash.ck.page/1628c75336
It's just a table of definitions pulled straight from the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which defines 11 categories of information, and requires that you disclose if you collect it.
"I found it funny that the author of this post is trying to defend liberal values like the free flow of information on the internet by...making Apple and Google remove Tiktok from people's phones."

This is what the posted article is about. I cannot write a rebuttal to this that is better than what Ben Thompson wrote, and I won't. The section "A Reluctant Prescription" section is directly about this.

I can rebut this, however:

"However, American tech companies manipulate their recommendation algorithms for political reasons (in the loose sense of the word political) all the time and I'm sure not everyone in the world likes that either."

They don't do it in China.
> You've got to have a way better reason to do that to a language than just, "Hey, isn't this cool? And also, I miss the Python 2 vs Python 3 wars, so wouldn't it be fun to give that pot another stir for old time's sake?"

That was my first thought. Why would we turn a simple, binary choice -- "< 3: statement, >= 3: function" into a big old... maybe?

The binary choice hurts, because it dictates changes. Sure. People dislike change, but it's easy to support.

However, there's one thing worse than change, and that's inconsistency and uncertainty. like, in this case, going "zoinks, your change wasn't actually necessary!". Except, now we have both choices. So it'd be even more confusing.
I thought Penrose also has such a theory.
return (boo, hiss)

There is something mature and responsible about a language that tends to refuse a command if the meaning isn't obvious, forcing you to make it obvious. If instead, you assign meanings to every ambiguous statement, and to the inevitable exceptions and exceptions to exceptions, you end up with JavaScript: "Oh, well, too late now"-oriented design.
> Subtler, businesses can try to game their prices to maximize rounding gains; also illegal (jobs: accounting, data analysis).

It's actually illegal there to set prices such that they will generally round in the business's favor? Talk about micromanaging…

If they change the tax rates do you have to update your prices so that they round evenly again?

A fairer policy might be "round random" (e.g. 1.23 rounds to 1.20 40% of the time and to 1.25 60% of the time, since .23 is 60% of the way from .20 to .25). That would be harder to game by manipulating the prices. However, you would need to certify that the rounding was actually random; the result wouldn't be obviously correct for any particular transaction, only in aggregate.
aren't lying
Google is clearly in with the CCP at this point.
Socially awkward coder here, I prefer not to have eye contact most of the time.
One way public outcry is expressed is through lobbying. Honestly, I think the issue here is that people mistakenly believe lobbying consists of shadowy groups slipping bribes under the table to elected officials when in reality it’s just people coming together to advocate for issues they care about.
Marx on the need for a dictatorship of the proletariat, 1850:

"When the Democrats propose measures which are not revolutionary, but merely reformist, the workers must press them to the point of turning such measures into direct attacks on private property; thus, for example, if the small middle class propose to purchase the railways and factories the workers must demand that such railways and factories, being the property of the reactionaries, shall be simply confiscated by the State, without compensation. If the Democrats propose a proportional tax, the workers must demand a progressive tax; if the Democrats themselves declare for a moderate progressive tax, the workers must insist on a tax so steeply graduated as to cause the collapse of large fortunes; if the Democrats demand the regulation of the State debt, the workers must demand State bankruptcy.

Thus the demands of the workers must everywhere be directed against the concessions and measures of the Democrats.... to concentrate as much power as possible in the hands of the State. They need not be misled by democratic platitudes about the freedom of the Communes, self-determination, etc. Their battle-cry must be ‘the revolution in permanence.’”
Don't worry, its not coming back. Just goes to prove the old rule - no one reads beyond the headline :)

----

> Why is this being proposed?
>
> I think we would need a very strong reason to consider this,
> and so far I haven't seen any justification other than "because
> we can".
>

(Guidos response below):

There was definitely something of that... I was looking at the new PEG
parser and realized that if people wanted it this would be easy to do. So
I spent a pleasant hour or two coding it up to my satisfaction.

But I was also trying to satisfy some demand. When Python 3 was young,
print becoming a function was one of the most frequent complaints, and
it's still occasionally seen on Twitter. I found at least two StackOverflow
issues about it, but the combined upvote count was less than 100.

An early post in this thread reminded me that IPython has a feature called
"autocall" that allows exactly this syntax. I don't know how popular it is.
However, apparently there the form `f x+1` ends up calling `f("x+1")` (i.e.
stringifying the argument), so introducing similar syntax in Python with
different semantics would hardly be helpful. (If someone wants to start a
debate on argument quoting, please start a new thread, so we can lay this
one to rest.)

All in all, it's clear that there's no future for this idea, and I will
happily withdraw it.

----
>Even games like Kerbal Space Program, which I loved, harvested all your browsing data. Like, seriously, WTF?

Is the "Unity Analytics" thing? I'm just googling around but I can't find a good summary anywhere.
Are you Muslim? When you, or your hypothetical strawman comic make fun of them, are you punching up or down?

To not mince words here, if your comedy career was wholly dependent on making fun of Muslim cultural practices that have existed for millennia before you were born, in America, a country that totally had no relationship with the Middle East or history of anti-Muslim bigotry prior to 9/11, and you further cannot possibly even conceive of continuing it with some other variety of humor, it probably shouldn't resume. Quit that particular hobby and pick up a history book.
>But that's the problem with self-driving cars. Damn close isn't good enough. A miss is as good as a mile

Maybe close is good enough. The problem as I see it that people usually don't seem to be focused on is that it's impossible for humans to monitor the situation while doing other stuff. You can only do that when you're far away from other things like in a plane or on a boat.

How can we simultaneously believe it's possible to instantly engage with driving and that people can't be trusted to text or make phone calls while driving?
Please pay for quality content or don't complain about clickbait journalism.