skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>Journalism is not our fact gathering apparatus.

Well then what is? I used to live next door to a journalist - by which I mean someone who went out into the world (haiti, israel/west bank, US immigration policy) and asked questions and collected facts. They didn't always get everything right, and their work seemed to encourage a deliberate sort of fence-sitting with respect to the issues and places that they covered, but they did work that nobody else is/was doing.

Those people on social media who appear to be the "fact gathering apparatus" ? they are just echoing the work of people like my old neighbor.

Without journalists, the ones we sometimes call reporters, we've got nothing to work with.

Now certainly, their job also extends into "sense making" and "relevance deciding". But the important ones - the reporters - are the ones gathering the material that the the rest of us - including the non-reporting journalists - are working with when we try to do the same thing.
You're allowed to subscribe with an address with the + sign, but the unsubscribe endpoint chokes on the + sign.
Reminds me of that time a PHB decided to measure efficiency by kLOC. All the pull requests in the following week had a net negative line count.
Age and activity matters here too. There are plenty of developers who have never paid github but do endlessly important work through it. At the very least flag these accounts for human review.
No, Chinese people will suffer if the US continue to inflame the tensions of cold war for its only financial benefit. The Chinese people would be far better in a world where they are viewed as equal, and freedom will spread when the US respects freedom of every people to participate of the global world. You cannot say that you defend freedom by creating barriers and inflaming wars across the world.
"Tesla Cybertruck (pressurized edition) will be official truck of Mars"

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1197627433970589696

Anecdotally, it's been a meme for years that everything Elon Musk does is about getting to Mars. Solar City? Mars needs solar. Tesla? ICE cars don't work on Mars. Hyperloop? Big vacuum chambers like that don't make sense on earth, but on Mars they might. Personally I'm highly skeptical of this narrative, but I've seen it expressed many times by different people going back years. I think a tweet like the above is Elon Musk playing into it, throwing some red meat to his most ardent fans.

Example comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20044584
You choose the tool chain to fit the anticipated team. If that team is just you, then who cares? Pick the easiest thing for you. But if you’re an expert in the tool chain and you anticipate new people hopping on, then the on-boarding process should definitely be one of your considerations.

The argument for simpler tool chains for simpler projects is that the time it takes to on-board should not outweigh the time saved by the toolchain’s amenities.

So the argument for TypeScript despite its complexities is that you believe its approach to type decorations on top of JS strikes the right balance for ease of on-boarding (IMO fairly straightforward) and supporting code maintainability (IMO a big improvement in 99% of the cases) despite the extra complexity of lengthening the toolchain (IMO it has some counterintuitive parts but you can mostly just forget about it once you find a working setup.)

I won’t use TypeScript if I’m whipping something up quickly, but if I anticipate open sourcing, adding unit tests and CI, etc., then TypeScript feels like a useful addition.
I think people have a warped view of what a hero is. Simplistic morality stories in our entertainment have primed us to think of heroes as better than regular people, and see anyone larger than life who isn't better than regular people as a villain.

In actual fact though, heroes are both better and worse than regular people. The ancient Greeks understood this, which is why their myths are still compelling today.
AMD, we're getting to the point of too many different product lines. I don't think that TR Pro adds anything that couldn't have already fit into regular Ryzen, Ryzen TR, or Epyc. Just for reference, we have:

- Ryzen 3, 5, 7 which was fine

- Ryzen Threadripper because for some reason we couldn't just call it Ryzen with a bigger number (maybe they anticipated needing the 9 later)

- Epyc for servers that supports ECC memory

- Now we have Ryzen 9 because Intel made Core i9 (I guess this makes sense for people comparison shopping)

- Now we also have Threadripper Pro just because we can, not even as a response to Intel

Epyc is the only distinction that needs to be made IMHO. The rest should just be Ryzen 3,5,7,9,11,13... for desktop parts. It's fine if Ryzen 11 and 13 had different sockets (like TR does). I don't need TR and I don't need TR Pro to denote product lines alongside the numbering scheme.

I know this is a minor issue, but it shouldn't be that hard. Yeah, yeah, "there are only two hard problems in computer science..." But look at the crap that consumers have to deal with around USB naming and WiFi naming. Don't make CPU naming follow the same trend.
A consequentialist analysis would say that attacking China when it is almost impossible to influence while ignoring the abuses of your own government is even worse than inaction, because you are giving even more power to a state that is pretty much as bad.

I would be much more amenable to agreeing with the people that claim to be mad at China in the US if the solutions they proposed didn't give more power to US, that has no fundamental difference in foreign policy than China. Economically isolating China, for example, does absolutely nothing to help the treatment of Muslims in Xinjiang, but gives a lot more power to the United States. But if the solutions that were being talked about changed the balance of power towards entities that didn't wantonly abuse human rights, I would entirely agree.

Therefore, I don't think it's whataboutism. It would be whataboutism if the claim was that China actually respects human rights because the US is worse. But the question is different - it's whether we should economically isolate China on the pretext of their human rights abuses, or not. Saying that the party that benefits from this and that is pushing it is fundamentally just as disrespectful of human rights is not whataboutism, it's a question of whether the proposed actions will do anything for human rights at all.

It seems pretty clear to me that they won't.
It's not sinophobia. I've got _zero_ issue with Chinese Americans as long as their English is good enough that their primary news sources still don't still sit in China (for example second generation or greater Chinese Americans). It's the legitimate concern about China pushing remote spying into its software and hardware that is sold overseas as well as the manipulation of people through companies like TikTok aka ByteDance.
Last time I met this, it was 2008 IIRC.
That's easy if you run your own mail server, but how do you apply that to your Gmail, Gsuite, Outlook, Fastmail or Yahoo mail account?
The article specifically calls out harassment on the basis of protected class. But to read this as saying that unwelcome conduct, so long as it is not on the basis of protected class, isn't harassment is not a correct interpretation.

A shape with four equal length sides is a quadrilateral. Does it mean that a shape with four sides of unequal lengths isn't quadrilateral?

Put this in a more concrete scenario. You have a co worker that stops by your desk every hour and says, "Joshua you are a worthless idiot and your team is worsened by your presence" and relentlessly bullies you throughout the day. Is this not harassment because it isn't based on a protected class like race or gender."
By creating artificial barriers against countries, the US is only strengthening totalitarian regimes. The US is doing a disservice to everyone with its crazy persecution to Russia, Iran and China.
Partisanship is a spectrum, hyper just points to the extreme end of the spectrum.

Yes, news outlets have a partisan bias, that's pretty much unavoidable, but there's an expectation that they have some degree of independence and that they do actual journalism and analysis.

On the other hand, hyper-partisan outfits are just mouthpieces for their political masters.
> "megacorporations" are the faceless evil enemy

There are some irony on the text, but to understand this is very naive.

The critic is at malicious/dumb people who latch to technologies without understanding them.

For argument sake, see how many people are defending coreOS etc, and how they claim to have decided to like it based on their superb expertise, yet they will likely fail to explain to you chroot or anything else containers are based on. Or how they will proclaim that LXC is pure garbage and Docker is better (i will not explain the joke, let them downvote :)

Bottom line: we are being sold bad ideas from the past, in new clothing, by the incompetents/malicious people, which megacorp is made of.
For comparison, here's the PR1 from 12 years ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyHWkQcin7I
Why is that "pretty clear"? Why should a count of web sites be indicative of the local population, when the contention is they're deliberate astroturf? Repeating the upthread point: the article claimed it was just measuring "partisan site counts", but in fact it was measuring "hyperconservative site counts", which is a different thing.

And you're replying without evidence that the stuff they didn't measure (and you didn't) must exist, because New England has democrats in it?
Unless you are committing fraud, like falsely trying to claim it has a value other than what it actually does, defacing currency isn't illegal. So trying to pass off a penny as being worth 5 cents today by filing it down would violate that law, but if they really were worth 5 cents, it would be fine.
2 cups min to be alive
3rd cup to ease into serious work
> So then you weren't asking the question in good faith.

Yes, I was.

> When I asked you to clarify you dodged the question. I wouldn't ask if I knew, I asked because I didn't know what you were referring to.

If you didn't know what I was referring to, then you didn't know who you were referring to when you said the following: >> andrewprock already found an example and I agree with his assessment.

> If you want me to talk to you

I have no desire for you to talk to me: that was exactly why I asked you to respond to the other person and not me.
> Ever had to maintain a Gerrit instance?

Yes. [1]

> It takes tens of thousand of lines of support code just to add a new tool to your toolchain.

No, I've added custom compilers and languages to Bazel, and it was not nearly 'tens of thousands of line'. Sure, it's complex, but such is life with inversion of control. It's difficult to get around this complexity if you want to follow the design goals of Bazel.

> gRPC, k8s: see TFA

The article says nothing about why gRPC or k8s are bad. It just uses very emotional language to handwave into the general direction of 'bloat' and 'too complex'.

[1] - https://cs.hackerspace.pl/hscloud/-/tree/devtools/gerrit
I wonder how does Mist compare with OpenNebula, which seems to be in the same area? From a quick glance it looks more complex. (OpenNebula supports LXD directly.)
Even last year she tried to get Eli Valley cancelled. She’s very much a hypocrite that wants to be able to criticize, and try to damage other people, but cry foul whenever she faces any criticism back. Even in this letter she is complaining at some points that she can’t say stuff without being criticized.
I found it interested because so little of it happened in Canada. But yes, I mistook it for real political involvement, but you're right, it's mostly banter. That said, I would say more Americans are at least aware of the political issue of the day, where in Canada many people just didn't care.

My other pet theory is that Canadians get more than enough politics from Canadian coverage of US politics (it's often 30%+ of news coverage) so they feel little urge to do the same with domestic politics.
Technically this is still kind of the best way of doing it.

Guy who wrote this article made a mistake, his keyframe interval is set to 0, which tells his encoder its free to do scene detection... however, he's exploiting the nature of the encoder (the scene never changes, as its a static image) to create extremely large GOPs, but not as big as manually setting it can go.

Twitch, as do other platforms, have recommendations, but they'll ingest pretty much anything you give them. This means, you can send them 15fps or lower with a ridiculously huge keyframe interval of 10 or more (Twitch recommends 2, 1 is a saner choice for low latency usage, 10 is still gives you enough ability to interact with viewers).

I've toyed with code/static optimized streams, and using x264 instead of HW encoding on a Nvidia Turing (currently the best HW encoder), and playing with custom args: -refs 16, -qmin above 10, -keyint_min set to keyframe interval * framerate (allows 1 I frame per GOP, the rest of the GOP could be near-zero bandwidth P frames), and -tune stillimage (which sets lesser known options which sorta helped here). Static views of an IDE would use extremely little bandwidth.

You'd be optimizing for the IDE view part of a stream, not the stream of you, which would be in a corner of the screen.
Oh no, people are using their free speech to criticize the speech of others!
> Put this in a more concrete scenario. You have a co worker that stops by your desk every hour and says, "Joshua you are a worthless idiot and your team is worsened by your presence" and relentlessly bullies you throughout the day. Is this not harassment because it isn't based on a protected class like race or gender."

As I said on your other post, this would not be workplace harassment. It could possibly be criminal harassment, but that is also unlikely, since criminal harassment usually requires threats of violence.

Speech protections in the US are strong. I'm surprised people aren't just telling Weiss to "toughen up". Which to be clear isn't advice I'm giving her, and I empathize with her discomfort, but that is the advice given to people very often, so I'm curious as to the inconsistency here. Perhaps it's not as easy to tell someone to toughen up when you see yourself in them.
I love k8s, think it’s the best thing that happened to distributed computing since .. sliced bread? Anyway, it’s good, but I don’t disagree with the author I just have a different perspective. I see k8s as a vehicle for learning about distributed computing not just for me but the industry as a whole. Same thing about Linux, it’s just a stepping stone for node management and has served us well in figuring out a bunch of problems. K8s removes a lot of duplicated effort in the learning process for the industry, just close your eyes and think back to the past decades of ESB wars.. that was a waste!

“Under the radar” comes a new generation of better systems and components that learns from these learning vehicles of computing and will change how we deliver services fundamentally, but without k8s and Linux we would never have gotten there. Open source RISC-V co-evolved with seL4, WASI, webassembly and NATS comes to mind, but I’m sure the future will take its own path.
It would probably go faster if they just concentrated on length, area, volume, and mass. With those you can make a good case for switching because we routinely deal with quantities of those units over a range of several orders of magnitude.

That means we regularly have use of smaller or larger units than the base unit for each, and in the metric system all those smaller or larger units are related to each other and the base units by powers of 10.

That fits well with our decimal number system, and makes conversions between units nearly trivial. If you have, say, kilometers and you want millimeters it is a lot easier than if you have miles and want inches.

You can make the case that we should switch to metric for length, area, volume, and mass because it is better and because it is used by almost all of the rest of the world.

With temperature, on the other hand, we do not generally deal with a large range, and generally don't use larger or smaller units. We just stick to the base unit (C or F).

The only significant differences between C and F are the size of their degrees and where the 0 point is. Historically, C set its 0 point at the freezing point of water and the degree size indirectly by setting 100 as the boiling point of water. F used the temperature of a specified eutectic mixture to set 0 and tried to set 96 as human body temperature.

(Actually, C originally set 0 at the boiling point of water and 100 at the freezing point, but that was fairly quickly reversed).

F came before C by about 20 years. People decided they liked using freezing and boiling of water as their reference points.

What should have happened is that F should have simply been redefined so that its reference points were freezing of water at 32 and boiling at 212, keeping the same size degree. That would be compatible with the old F. There was no need to come up with a new degree size to switch to a freezing/boiling of water basis.

So because C does not have any inherent superiority over F, unlike other metric units compared to Imperial units, the case for switching comes down to pretty much only that it is what most of the rest of the world uses.

Furthermore, F actually has some advantages. F's smaller degree size means many times an integer temperature is adequate where you might need to add a decimal place with C. On F, 0 to 100 is a pretty good match for the weather in most of the US. That would be about -17 to 38 in C.

So it is hard to make the case to most people in the US that they gain anything tangible by switching to C, let alone gain enough to be worth the switching cost.

Thus, I think US metrification efforts need to table temperature, and just work on the others.
That's the part I disagree with. The NYT isn't following Twitter. Twitter is the modern way to express at the 3rd person ("twitter mob says") what is really meant at the 1st person ("our editor thinks"). You will never see some angry tweet from Trump supporters quoted or even mentioned.

In the old days you would interview enough random people in the street until you found one that said the narrative you wanted to push and that the one you showed on TV / quoted in the article.

Another technique still widely in use today is when you want to attack person x, you go collect some quotes from known opponents to criticize x, and quote a list of criticism as if somehow these were the only relevant reactions.

None of that is subtle or done subtly.
I've been doing js development for years and feel the same pain when I need to look for the npm package with the right balance of functionalities,size,active development,popularity etc. A dedicated site for package recommendation would definitely save lots of time, currently, I use npmtrends.com for this.
I quickly checked for packages on openbase.io for rendering table and found out there were packages only for vuejs. why to exclude react packages?
I also understand it's an mvp but Package results sorting should be there.
Reviews would definitely help but I'd also prefer to see likes/upvotes on those reviews to get extra validation.

On a side note how are you ensuring that all popular packages should be included in your database? Otherwise it wouldn't make sense if user needs to crosscheck on google/npm/github like in this case of rendering table.

I'll be regularly using openbase for package discovery. Wish you all the best!
Comparing language performance isn't the same thing as comparing JIT vs AOT performance.

Generally JIT outperforms AOT for a language like Java by about 20%. For Scala, it's even more. For a more dynamic language like JavaScript or Ruby you don't even try to AOT it at all the difference is so huge.

Even in languages that are normally AOT compiled, profile guided optimisations make a big difference. For C++ I've seen figures in the 15%+ range. That's a lot! Most projects don't use PGO though because it's a pain to deploy.

C2 does auto-vectorisation and it's not a slow compiler. It runs in parallel with the app, it's not a problem. The difficulty with auto-vectorisation isn't how much time you have to compile it, it's more that matching all the different loop constructs to the instructions is a very complicated problem that ends up needing tons of special cases in the compiler. It's a problem of code complexity rather than runtime performance. And it's opaque to the user: if they change their code structure a bit and it's no longer recognised as a vectorizable template, it'll stop being vectorised and performance drops off a cliff. You can't really see that though as a developer ahead of time because it's all just "best effort" optimisation. Game devs in particular hate that and would rather have a compiler error than silently bailed out optimisation passes.

That's why Java is switching to explicit vectorisation. It's not about JITs not having enough CPU time, it's about giving the developer reliable and predictable performance even in the face of arbitrary refactorings.
She's politicizing a totally nonpolitical issue. She was totally fine until she live-tweeted public insults about her co workers during a company meeting. If it were not for her politicizing the issue she would be immediately fired.
If you watch Adam Savage’s stuff on YouTube, he often talks about a particular piece of equipment in his shop, and sometimes mentions that it’s a little expensive. He will follow that by saying something like “at one point, I was making TV show income”. I get the impression that he’s doing well financially but I don’t think he’s got as much money as people might think.
If their profit margin is around 8% or so, which I assume would be reasonable for mining & industrial firms, that's a really small amount and not worth the lobbying cost
Because I have spent time thinking, not merely typing. (The error "programmers are just overpaid typists" is widespread)
Maybe they will get around to fixing their In-Reply-To header removal madness one of these decades too, would be something!

Tired of Microsoft users subscribed to mailinglists constantly breaking threading.
Where was Bari punished? She should have been fired for her terrible piece based entirely on a known fake Twitter account.
It's unfortunate that a major newspaper has a well-known bias (in this case, against Google). Makes it hard to trust anything they say on the subject; although a known bias is certainly better than a surreptitious one.
With three stories you can afford three robots. Imagine being the operator waiting for these things to go up and down stairs, that sucks.
The article said ugly, disabled or poor, not ugly, disabled and poor. You'd think someone on HN would know the difference between the two.
These words have specific legal meanings in specific contexts. What you are describing is technically bullying and not harassment. Bullying is often illegal, but it isn't regulated to the same degree on the federal level as harassment.

I have not seen a single instance of Weiss being targeted based on religion and Weiss provided zero examples in the body of her letter. Like Weiss, I am also Jewish. Criticizing a Jewish person's political opinions on the state of Israel is not inherently antisemitism. If you can point out a specific example of Weiss being targeted based on her religion, I would concede that I am wrong.
The assumption that asking for more information to recreate the bug is a lazy tactic to get out of the bug fix is also a terrible assumption and discredited the opinion IMO.

Often times asking for more information can speed things up and lead to a quicker resolution.
Well, SharePoint is also enterprise, so.
I found these footnote labyrinths¹ hard to follow.

¹See https://xkcd.com/1208/.