skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> No one does it.

Oh, some people do. I used this EXACT phrase when I came in to fix an analytics system at a healthcare company that was plagued with analytics problems. They had 5 senior engineers, fulltime, working on this system for years. It had persistent problems and could not be modified in any meaningful way. Upstream systems sent data through multiple SQS topics (duplicate and out of order data) fed into lambda, fed into a giant cache-db which tried to catch dupes and order data, fed into files, processed in batch. It was a horror show in complexity and costing (despite the near-free lambdas). A distributed set of large data streams we feeding into a singular database which was processed, multiple times and put back in the same database. What's billions of inserts into an amazon postgres db, per hour? The company cloud infrastructure gave 0 other tools to work with. I shored up the batch processing (which had all kinds of try catch everywhere, despite a fixed schema) and went on to another company. Medical company software is always a ball of fail.
Do you know an example of this?
Where's her mean culpa on Israel Palestine then? I see no evidence that she's changed.
RediSearch,RedisJSON,RedisGraph,RedisTimeSeries,RedisBloom Available on Cloud
I admire the hard work that surely went into this, but I have to say: as a former robotics hobbyist, I'm extremely unimpressed with the weight, cost, and limited capabilities of this thing. And that impression is based on the technology we had over a decade ago. With access to a few machine tools and a 3d printer, I'd bet an equally capable prototype would cost no more than a few hundred dollars. No wonder almost no one has a robot in their home.
Should local businesses be investing in video marketing
We don't even get cubicles these days
The problems plaguing customer support today are not technical in nature and AI will not fix them.

> You demand a human. The human is told what to say by the bot

This has always been something I've never understood about customer support. In particular, chat support is bad about this, but I've had it happen on phone support too. Prior to getting connected to the human, the bot wants to take down a short description of your problem. That's fine, but the conversation often goes like this:

> Bot: Please write a short description of your problem.

> Me: Problem I am having.

> Bot: One moment while I connect you.

> (a small eternity later)

> Support: Hi. How can I help you?"

> Ctrl+C problem, Ctrl+V problem*

> Support: I see you are <verbatim repeats problem; with no paraphrasing and no demonstration of understanding, I have no idea if the agent "gets it">. Is that correct?

> Me: :shrug:^W Yes.

… like, why did I ever type that description? Here, a computer (I don't even know if it qualifies as "AI" given how rudimentary of a task it is performing) appears to have failed at the simplest of tasks. And this happens all. the. time.

Phone bots will often "authenticate" me with various credentials, and then connect me to a human who will immediately authenticate me with the same credentials. Whose time was saved?
> Personally, though, I would bet on dedicated, single-purpose robots, working together through wireless communication.

This reminds me of the little swarm of robots that come out of the walls to clean up spills in The Fifth Element.
Look, I believe people can change, but how they've behaved previously, especially as recently as in the case (2 years ago) is relevant to now.

Especially when the very arguments they are making- they were recently, actively working against
I can't definitively determine her exact intent with that paragraph. However the downvotes and response to your comment indicate your interpretation is likely the minority opinion here. Weiss's job is to communicate with the written word. If the most common interpretation of her writing is the opposite of her intent, doesn't that inherently mean she is bad at her job?
I like this and explains the basic mechanics in a simple way for me to understand.

I want to highlight the What counts as revenue section because I think it is the most crucial. Deferred Revenue is well explained and very necessary for SaaS. I think it will also be good to highlight account receivables, where you have delivered the good but haven't received the cash. Even though this rarely occurs in a SaaS model, but it is important to state that account receivable is not revenue, which some awkward mistake can be easily made.
Yeah, this letter she wrote is a joke.
Also they didn't deny him anything. His idiotic vomit ran above the fold online. The Times admitted the opinion editor didn't even read the piece, they just ran it automatically out of deference to the senator.
It's not just the history. It's the same thing with any collectables - first edition books, baseball cards, Star Wars toys...

Some person (or group of persons) crafted this thing.

Some small subset of the original purchasers valued the thing enough to preserve it.

In almost any situation, given freedom from financial constraints and all other factors being equal, anybody is going to choose the original thing over the reproduction.
It's inevitable that the parents that care will still homeschool their kid and those kids will do better than the ones that don't. Humans are a sponge for knowledge when they are young. Eliminating an entire year of education during that period is a lost opportunity.
You're right, we shouldn't account for people's reputation when considering their opinion. On an unrelated note, let's get the opinion of Andrew Wakefield on a COVID vaccine.
The True Trump Believers tend to gravitate towards fringe news sources online. Breitbart and The Blaze are probably the most well known, but there are many others. Most of the others are basically Wordpress blogs with a theme that makes them look like a news site. They run the gamut from “slightly right of center politically”, to “racist and not really trying to hide it”.

All this to say, if you’re consuming popular American news sites and TV channels, you’ll see almost nothing that paints Trump in a positive light. The fringe sources typically portray him as the savior America needs.

I’m not a Trump supporter in the least, but I do scan some of the milder fringe sites periodically just to see what the conversation is like there. It’s useful to see what the world looks like through their eyes. But I don’t linger long, because some of it is truly awful.
I read the Tom Cotton op-ed and didn't find any racist element to it. It would be interesting to have you highlight which paragraph was racist in your eyes.
Trade safety? How? The latest cdc estimate of ifr is only 0.65%, how is that going to destroy the economy?
You won’t find the reasonable discussions if you’re only looking at the outrage inducing, highly retweeted comments.

Without giving much details, it makes 0 point to continue this discussion as I can simply say that you’re not looking at the “nicer parts” of twitter. Its a complex issue and is not amenable to that kind of reductionism.
How about you mention some of the accusations you're referring to instead of making an unsubstantiated accusation of your own.
Nobody still knows what happened to him yet.
Try playing Torment: Tides of Numenera.
If it was only so easy. In the real world, IE might still be required for some obscure critical applications that are difficult and/or expensive to replace.
VR headset and enriched reality....with a sexy manga girl in the right upper corner.
The "I concede you may be right but I simply don't care" argument, a form of "what-about-ism". It's possible to believe in free speech and want to promote marginalized voices simultaneously. You don't need to silence disagreement.
If GitHub really has reason to suspect that op's account is hijacked, they should be able to figure out at least one of op's email address (simply by the fact that email address is attached to the account long before the hijacking happened), and send some communications there? Or provide an official process of "we suspended your account because we have reason to suspect that your account is hijacked. we won't response to your emails either, this is how to contact us to have your account reinstated"?

Also op said they do have 2fa, which makes this excuse even poorer.
It may be ironic, but to pursue truth most rigorously, we should recognize the two points are logically independent.

It's possible that these accusations are true and also that Weiss is a person with a political agenda.
How does FB sell the map of social relations and your information to companies?
Ya but did you know the founder used to work at google?
However good the public think autopilots are, I'm sure they don't think they're more capable than a co-pilot!
Some of the incidents she described sound a lot like a hostile work environment to me...
I was trying to reach USPS about a subtle forwarding issue that takes someone knowledgeable to clear up and the system kept nagging me about online services and long spiels about the covid. Took a lot of menus and "are you really really really sure you want to talk to someone on the phone, for real?? (you horrible person you)" verifications to finally get to scheduling a call-back.
> To anyone reading this from Gitlab, how easy is it to migrate CI/CD off of GitHub Actions to Gitlab?

We have example templates for most common languages and frameworks: https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/ci/examples/.

You can read here for all the supported ways you can create pipelines and define the CI jobs: https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/ci/yaml/

A TL;DR is that all you need is a base docker image and a list of commands to run. Jobs will run in parallel for each stage, or you can define dependency between then, so they run as an independent DAG.

(You can easily import all your projects with a few clicks: https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/import/github.html#i... and we get everything from issues, merge requests, to labels milestones, comments, etc.)
"We're hearing one side of the story" seems to be functioning as a thought-terminating cliche here. Everyone knows we're only hearing one side of the story. The comment you're responding to is asking Github to join the conversation, and noting that the information we have so far looks bad for Github. Nobody is suggesting that Github be summarily executed.
I think what was great about BASIC back in the day on early home computers was that it gave direct access to the hardware. You could PEEK or POKE to any address in memory and write programs that could manipulate any of the features of any attached hardware at the lowest level with individual commands. You didn't even have to write a program, but could just invoke commands imperatively. It was an incredible learning environment. I remember hacking a BBC Micro so that it mapped system memory directly into the video display, so the colour of each pixel on the screen represented a byte of memory, which changed in realtime. Learning Pascal on a Prime minicomputer was fine, but never had the same fun factor.
Simple example: say I use S3 with the Amazon-managed key. Anyone who has a policy granting access to a bucket — and lots of people love to write bucket policies with Resource:* — can read or write objects in that bucket using that key.

If you use a CMK, you can write custom policies which are both far more restrictive and shouldn't change as much as other resource types. That means that I could, say, have a policy which says the key-admin role/group/user is the only principal in the account which can update the key settings at all (even administrator can't do that then), the writer role is the only one with kms:Encrypt, and the reader role is the only one with kms:Decrypt. No matter what S3 access you have, if you aren't one of those roles you won't be able to use the encrypted data. This is probably also in a scenario something like “central group A provisions the KMS, devops group B creates lots of other resources using that key”.

You can add conditions, too — “anyone in our account can encrypt, decrypt requests can only come from this IP address or VPC”, “only requests from this AWS service are accepted” (i.e. that compromised EC2 instance can't use it), “access to data encrypted with this key can only be done in the two regions we approve of that”, “this particular encryption value must be used on all requests”, etc.

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/kms/latest/developerguide/key-po...

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/kms/latest/developerguide/policy...

That adds an extra layer of defense: if I compromise a user, even one with some level of administrative access, who doesn't have the CMK access all I can get are errors or encrypted data rather than the raw data. If you're careful you can architect environments where a person can deploy code without direct access to secrets or a system can stream data through to an encrypted store (if you are storing PII, this can be a huge difference between “all of our users” and “only the ones who used the system during this time period”). In some cases these can be bypassed (i.e. a CMK might not allow Administrator to access it directly but they could possibly issue credentials for a user who does have access) but you're preventing generic attacks which just scrape up everything that compromised credentials have access to, and hopefully increasing both the level access required and the likelihood of producing an audit alert.
The only books I've read in high school were from the "advanced" section - or in other words - non-mandatory.

Unrelated: I still have your Arduino knock-off which you lent me back during our days in a company related to a certain fruit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unum_(number_format)
Here's one I found on the Actions marketplace.

https://github.com/marketplace/actions/mirroring-repository
> "Normal Americans" don't read the NYT anymore, or WSJ, or the Post, they listen to Joe Rogan on Spotify and Youtube

Really? This is the first I've heard of the guy, from anyone anywhere on the political spectrum.
This comment is not explemifying the problem, as you put it. It's pointing out the hypocrisy of this author for condemning something she engages in herself, without taking any blame.
So you're digestion of her letter should not be informed in anyway by the fact that she routinely employed the tactics that she now claims she's a victim of? She's spent her career vilifying and seeking out personal retribution for people who she's disagreed with, I don't know how this doesn't factor into one's purview.
> Bari believes there shouldn't be consequences for saying dangerously wrong things.

I believe it's important to discuss who gets to decide what "dangerously wrong" is.
It is a lot of work.

In terms of making money - we're thinking about paid promotion of packages: allowing maintainers (companies and individuals) to promote their packages, we found there's a big need for that. We want to limit it to a single (clearly marked) promoted package for each category.
Obviously, we would just surface the promoted package, but the package reviews, insights, and metrics are obviously untouched.
Yes, maybe only the sensational stuff bubbles up. But that doesn’t invalidate the excellent work that those in the press corps do every day, just like Oracle or Facebooks shenanigans don’t invalidate the good work most software engineers do even if the shenanigans might be what gets all the attention.
Unfortunately, no: https://github.com/lxc/lxd/issues/7509
Why can't we? Sure he didn't write fundamental software back in the 70s, but he was inspirational for many of the users here.
I still don't see the reason why you would do it the wrong way, and the caption only adds to the confusion.

Why not just rewrite instead of adding a caption that doesn't make sense anyway.
I hope and pray (to the extent that an atheist can pray) that this is what will happen.

There is zero question in my mind that Apple can do what you say, for the reasons you say.

The only potential obstacle is institutional will. You would now have a larger overlap between low-end Macs and the higher-end iPads. In my opinion, this is not a problem because I don't view those product lines as conflicting. But does Apple?
I'd argue that is a completely orthogonal problem. Business have extracted useful metrics out of their "eventually consistent" operations ever since operational research was invented.

That companies have collected more data than they can pay for processing of is a separate issue, I think.
Why Hollywood needs computer games tech more than ever
> Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.

Is it so bad when anti-racist, pro-fact views are considered orthodoxy?

Every publication has to draw the line somewhere of what the acceptable bounds of discourse are. The NYT isn't going to, and shouldn't, print an Op-Ed defending Nazis. And a lot of conservative positions these days are simply in denial of reality and facts. Do they deserve equal space in the paper? A reasonable, or even "centrist", person will say of course not.

She claims Twitter has become "the ultimate editor" of the NYT. This is such a ridiculous strawman, where do you even start? First of all, there are tons of conservatives on Twitter too. Secondly, the NYT doesn't come even close to the ultra-left-wing voices on Twitter she's presumably referring to. Finally, she says "stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences", but seeing that the NYT is the third-most popular newspaper in the country, that would seem to be objectively untrue or else people wouldn't still be buying it.

If the quality of her analysis in her resignation letter is the same quality of work she was turning out at the NYT, no wonder she wasn't welcomed there.
> you should be prepared for your results to be never-consistent

Isn't this a core feature of distributed systems? How can you be "consistent" if there's a network failure between some writer and the stream? How can you tell a network failure from a network delay? How can you tell a network delay from any other delay?

And finally, how can you even talk about "up-to-date" data if the reader doesn't provide their "date" (ie, a logical timestamp)?
There's little evidence this is the case.

This post could be summarized in one sentence: Bari Weiss wanted people fired because they called her names and the NYT refused, so she quit and threatened legal action.
Ah man, I've just been to Krakow too last week.
Too bad but I was still able to snatch a few books here and there.
I'm not familiar with the controversy, so I went looking for actual views of said professors. Wikipedia states 'Massad has characterized Israel as "a racist Jewish state."'

There might be more to this story than Glenn Greenwald frothing at the mouth.
It really makes more sense as a rethorical and argumentative artifact. I guess I misinterpreted the purpose of that statement.
>rather than taking what's being said at face value

Should we?

I don't always do that, hard to imagine doing so all the time, you'd experience constant whiplash of opinions.
Large "private" companies in China are not private as you would think of them in the West. The Chinese government or the CCP will own outright or through holding companies shares in a company. So even at the most benign the government or CCP will have influence in a company's governance. Executives and upper management will always be outwardly enthusiastic about all Chinese government/CCP talking points and decisions.

Due to China's "security" laws security and intelligence agencies have essentially full access to large companies' data. There's no real due process so a "private" company's data is essentially government data. There's also the overt and covert censorship and propaganda imposed by the government.

Company executives serve at the pleasure of the government. Anyone not towing the party line or acting with too much independence will get caught up in "anti-corruption" investigations or just be arrested for crimes they may or may not have actually committed.

Realistically it's better to just assume a priori that a Chinese social media company is pushing propaganda and building dossiers of users. It's certainly safer to assume that.
Not surprising considering the extreme consolidation of mass media corporations over the past 50 years.
i saw the links at the bottom to his about the heater, but totally glossed over the "next" link. i honestly thought it was just a simple write up and was disappointed. thanks for letting me know there was more to be read
> only 0.65%

...
I think at least a 100-level knowledge of bookkeeping is beneficial to nearly every developer. Bookkeeping is, arguably, one of the oldest and longest-practiced "data processing" disciplines. It seems arbitrary and somewhat old-fashioned until you grok the reasoning and history behind it (double-entry sourced from summaries of various different "journals" to facilitate separation of duties, closing periods and rolling-up detail entries into totals because human computational power is limited, an equation that balances implicitly when there aren't entry errors, etc.)

Odds are that your work somehow impacts the revenue or expenses of your business and will need to interface with accounting or finance people at some point. I found it increased my perceived credibility when I could speak using terminology from the accounting or finance person's area of expertise.

I also agree with other posters who would argue that everyone should have some basic proficiency in double-entry bookkeeping. That's probably way too optimistic, though.
Would that suggest that the moderation helped it gain immense popularity? If so how much in your opinion?
The problem with this rebuttal is that it assumes that the high–level writers and editors are not themselves the illiberal and anti–speech proponents, gatekeeping what perspectives are allowed to be represented in the first place.

For example: Harper's Magazine, which published the recent open letter on cancel culture that Bari Weiss signed, doesn't pay its interns [1], ensuring that only those who can afford to work for free are allowed on the lowest rung of the ladder. If these high–level writers were truly concerned about open debate and a culture of curiosity, they might be more concerned about breaking down barriers such as that. Instead, they're worried that they, the people already at the top of the ladder, might get knocked down to the same level as the rest of us.

[1] https://harpers.org/about/internships/
> Do regulators have an idea of what test a car needs to pass to be able to claim certain things?

What "regulators"? There's a lot of different regulatory bodies in different countries and almost none of them has any detailed rules about self-driving-like systems.

Constant claims about "regulators" is Tesla's smoke and mirrors - it's another part of their deceiving marketing. For an outsider, just reading headlines, they make you think that tech is almost ready, "pending regulatory approval".
Right: my point is simply that you have to start with a threat model and make reasoned decisions based on that and your budget. “always argue” is the same as “wrong for a significant number of people” even if it's right for your particular circumstances.
It is incumbent upon all of us to be as credulous about Bari Weiss's stated rationale as James Bennett always was about guest op-eds.
It is very possible (in fact, it would make sense), that the anti-Trump media, and the media that tries to reach outside of America to a worldwide audience, would have almost 100% overlap.