skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
A lot of really bad ideas have been tried and failed to work in this world and we should learn from them - that said I don't know if America's version of a liberal democracy has proven itself to be that great in the long run. There was a period of extreme common wealth growth but after WW2 (about the eighties) that's mostly dried up. While we need to recognize failures abroad (i.e. the Soviet system implemented by Lenin and its offshoots) I think our own system needs some active maintenance to be rebalanced. Lately the extremes have grown too wide and we need to do like Teddy and break up some of the big concentrations of wealth so that the engine can keep running clean for another half-century or so.

It's misleading to think of any democratic style government as being in stasis - the world is constantly in flux.
I'm not sure if I agree - commonly-used packages will have known and documented faults, while validating something you (your organization) created can be challenging.

Dance with the devil you know and all that.
I would choose Rust over TS not for any performance characteristics, but because I strongly prefer it as a language, due in large part to features like pattern matching, sum types, exhaustiveness checking, traits, etc.

I do quite like TS, but you can never really get away from the fact that you’re still limited by many historical JavaScript gotchas, and the type system is nowhere near as powerful as Rust’s.

Edit: That being said, as a business decision, TS will often be a better pick because it’s so much easier to find talent, and the learning curve is much smaller.
Sure, but let's say you're on the other side of the milky way. You can travel at 1% the speed of light. Why would you come to Earth or anywhere near it? It takes 2 million years to get here, so unless you know something is there, that would be an insane trip to make.
That question isn't very useful. A better question would be: “does there exist a more effective system?” (“Does that system have billionaires?” is an interesting question, too.)
That is easy to understand - the old stagnation hates growth with an undying passion and envy. They take what they think they are entitled to (customers) that were never theirs and by doing better make them question their own worth. It is just so much easier to hate than to try to do anything better. And that applies to so many things at all walks of society and the crab-bucket mentality.

The fact it is "nerdy" just ads fuel to the fire given the anti-intellectuslism, that they already committed lives to their existing paths, and that provokes envy far beyond say bankers. They imagine only a lack of money stops them from being rich off of passive income (there are also mentality changes involved including ability to evaluate them but they are ignorant of them) but tech riches? To imagine changing would call for themselves to imagine themselves degraded. Nerds being successful instead of ones to look down upon are abomination to their social order and conception of the world.

The hysteria against "monopolies" with a tortured definition is just an extension of the crab bucket envy. Not wanting help but to drag others down with them.
The "new focus" isn't that new, it's been the same since Baker became CEO, and it's a focus on making Mitchell Baker really, really rich.

Mozilla's privacy branding is in direct conflict with Baker's vision of some kind of corporate entity that can pay her a lot of money. Apple can do this because they are filthy rich themselves, Mozilla's puny market share means that increasing their revenue will require them to use the most valuable coin in the Internet realm, which is user data.

I think a LibreOffice-style hard fork will be necessary at some point with a nonprofit carrying Firefox forward. Another thread mentioned Mozilla Firefox becoming a skin on Chromium ... Microsoft basically has validated this approach, and I can see Baker eliminating most of the rest of their engineering core to do the same.
Hence, a portion of the debate.
License this to Instacart so I can get the proper size package I ordered.
To this day I find the focus on income or wealth inequality to be perplexing. I literally just don't get it. Why should I care whether or not some crazy rich person can buy a yacht? It does me no harm.
Maybe a different way to look at this - "Imagine 400 people in a room. 10 can get all the food they can eat i.e unlimited food. 200 people get one plate of food. 100 people get half a plate of poor quality food. The rest get half a carrot". This situation lasts a week. What would happen?
Yes, but that still does not make Rust a product for Mozilla.

Mozilla should spin Rust out ASAP so they can focus on their core. Rust has enough momentum now that it does not need Mozilla attention to keep it afloat. Or at least, that's the impression I'm getting, if that's not the case then my apologies.

The fact that Mozilla is a browser company seems to be well known everywhere except at Mozilla. I find this odd.

The word 'browser' is mentioned exactly once in that corporate message and it is in a negative way, 'beyond the browser'. Not exactly inspiring hope, that one.
Ask HN: Are there any tools for viewing activity across multiple GitHub repos
I'm interested in seeing the at a glance view across multiple Github repos. Something that can provide me a pulse of what is happening across the many micro-repos that make up a larger project. Are you aware of any good OS solutions to this?
> This isn't untrue but I think it's a naive approach. If that money was divided between the governments to spend for their citizen's welfare then they could also invest it to benefit their citizens.

Especially in the developing world, governments are more likely to piss away money given to them than to invest that money to the benefit of citizens.

If governments were good at investing money communism would have worked. There would be no point having companies like Apple develop cell phones if the government could do it just as well without enriching shareholders in the process. We’d just have a government agency in charge of building cell phones and giving them away or selling them to citizens at cost. We don’t have a private sector for funsies. We have it because we recognize that governments aren’t good at investing money and producing results.
Coughs and hiccups aside, internet seems mostly immune to pandemic pressures
I recall using an unusual library a while ago where the author had embedded their own log4j-style implementation. I couldn't configure that the same way I configured other logging.

Hardly a problem today since I just write to `stderr` and have the container log aggregator push elsewhere but boy was it annoying.
Please explain how it is unfair to startups when the vast majority of technical staff at startups have a practical zero chance of hitting the lottery odds of making good on their startup options to compensate for the lower cash compensation, lesser benefits and additional risk over taking a FAANG or even F500 position. Startups that complain like this generally want FAANG technical talent without even the realistic promise of above-FAANG payoffs in case the venture hits it big.

There isn't an infinite maw for staffing at FAANGs, they aren't going to suck out all the air for all the technical talent in the room. Just the air for other members of FAANG and maybe the second-tier competitors. Startups that want to pay less than F500 compensation packages for greater job insecurity only think they're in the anoxic depths of available technical talent. They're really swimming in a talent-rich pool, they just want a McLaren for a Toyota price.

You can get a helluva lot done with a well-managed fleet of Toyotas, and done right, you'll get to the point where you will afford that McLaren cash-over-the-barrel should you really have your heart set on such managing such talent. Not every problem in the world requires world-class problem solvers, and in fact, most problems are solved every day by everyday people with sufficient time and determination. It just doesn't make for good copy for VC's to read about in the pitch deck.

In any case, rare is the startup I've seen that can even supply the right infrastructure to leverage FAANG talent. Their benefits aren't delivered de novo like Athena leaping from Zeus' head. For example, if you have a Free Electron personally grinding out non-core code and manning your most senior-level support desk fielding rando calls, instead of teaching more junior engineers and wading in only for the most difficult project-endangering parts, you're wasting your and their time, whether you're a startup or a FAANG.

Complaining about not being able to hire FAANG talent with sub-FAANG compensation packages without any discussion of the infrastructure is cargo-culting the effects of FAANG talent.

If you're a startup that must have FAANG-grade talent in specific positions, then pay the market price for that talent. Otherwise, you'll accommodate for lower-skilled staff like nearly any other manager in the world does, and adjust accordingly. The market has evolved so FAANG talent obtains competent legal and financial advice now, so promises without founder-level or even VC-level protections against dilution and other valuation clawback mechanisms are more correctly priced towards the market-priced zero.
Last century companies sold or produced physical goods. You could always tie them to a geographical area. With FAANGs it is a digital world without borders. I think it's different.

Your last point is dead on. FAANGs have carte blanche for now.
> their dominate market power in search to push their own, worse products.

This is the central problem. Yes, Google use market dominance to push their products. But by and large their products were also better. Gmail was better than Yahoo/Hotmail. Chrome was better than Firefox/IE. Maps better than MapQuest. Android was better than what non-Apple phone makers were using.
Right? How much am I worth? How much do you have?
(At least 'traditionally') an IPO is a cash-raising event, seeking new investment just like any other, so it's not really a secret if a company making a public offering wants cash.

If an IPOd company went immediately bankrupt or otherwise laid off all employees (and presumably ceased operating) the new shareholders would be suing (for securities fraud, it not being clear how at risk the company was, or they wouldn't have invested, etc.) and regulators would probably have serious questions for the bank(s) auditing/DDing/valuing prior to listing.

(IANAL/anything relevant, take your salt, etc.)
This article is a good example of "the pie fallacy".

Read http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html for an explanation of what that is, and why it is a fallacy.
Because it's a way to feel and connect with the group. It's a unifying message of propaganda.

Examples: Look at how people argue over fictional characters or franchises.
It is kind of funny reading through these comments. The author's point is that power should be distributed and decisions should be made outside of those with concentrated amounts of wealth. Kind of like a democracy.

Folks on this thread seem to be falling over themselves arguing that billionaires are justified to even be billionaires at all.

The issue isn't that billionaires exist, its that billionaires have cornered all the decision making abilities of the public.
This is one of those obvious killer-apps that with a moment's thought was obviously computationally prohibitive or much too complex for a sole developer. If this is in the pipelines then we can soon also expect a bunch of semantic apps.
I see what you did there...

Also, the book does describe a character's apprehension at climbing to the dizzying heights of a few millimeters off the surface.
The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. Rightly or wrongly, people who have the things you mention start to value them less, and when a FAANG waves a huge stack of green at them it can look very tempting.
How exactly do you know which implementation is correct without a document to point to?
That's the corporate press release, which we usually don't favor (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...), but it's the original source, was posted first, and has the biggest discussion, so I think we'll merge everything thither.
LEDs are the discovery that we didn't actually need as much firewood to bake those pies.

You can't bake pies forever, no. But the stars are vast and many. That's yet another semantic stop sign: a phrase you say when you don't want to think about things any more, just like "it's not zero-sum".
That was a time when Mozilla was focused on Firefox and Thunderbird, two programs that were at that time best in class. The times have - as the article headline suggests - changed since then.
"Giridharadas calls on people to join organizations, membership lists and movements that work toward building cross-racial, cross-class coalitions of people — with a goal to create a future that benefits most people."

Thinking for just a few minutes, there are so many facets and nuances to the issue of improving the world for others that the above sentence is a complete throw-away. One could get involved and sign up, but as the article already points out, how to know if the group you are joining is doing good or doing more harm? Did you join a group of virtue signallers or will you roll up your sleeves for Habitat for Humanity, or Doctors without Borders?

A couple of notions:

- How do you know if your effort is more like bailing water from a sinking ship, or, towing the ship into dry dock for repair? Maybe you have to bail at the same time you're towing.

- What is the actual goal? To ensure that people are able to eat today? Are you trying to right a wrong, like human trafficking or environmental crimes? Are you trying to create a level playing field so people are able to go as far as their determination will take them? If you want a level playing field, what system are you modeling?

The desire to do something is invaluable. I'd suggest two things: 1) keep it close to home. The farther the served are from you the harder it will be to see the results. If your aspirations are far from you, make it a goal to get there and see first hand what you're trying to aid, at least once. 2) Make it something where you can directly observe the results and know that your efforts are having a positive effect overall.
Avoiding dependencies is a noble goal, and something to be valued, but this simple rule is too simplistic.

The problem lies in the fact that there are a great many things I can hack together in an afternoon to "replace" some kind of external dependency, but the quality discrepancy of these hacks is highly variant. My understanding of what can or should be done in an afternoon might differ with my colleagues'.

Unfortunately, like all things in engineering, you have to carefully reason about the pros/cons, requirements, and costs. After that analysis, you can make a judgment on depend vs. build (also, buy vs. build).
> it is also not good faith to assume money as a constant.

Agreed. It's not constant and it's not infinite. The question then becomes at what rate does it grow and is that rate higher or lower than the stratification of wealth. If it's higher, it's either hyperinflation or wealth accumulation appears logarithmic in growth. If it's lower, it's either deflation or wealth accumulation appears exponential in growth.

It appears to be lower and wealth accumulation does, indeed, appear to be exponential. We're also completely glossing over just who it is that's likely to be wealthy and suddenly it's not just an economic issue, but a socioeconomic one.
Depending on why your knees hurt, you might find activity is the cure. I went on a long hike once and hurt my knees. They wouldn't stop hurting so I took a break from hiking. Months went by and I couldn't get them to stop hurting. Finally I just got fed up and started hiking again. My knees have been fine ever since(years later).

Many older athletes will tell you to never stop moving. The pain starts when you take a break. If you don't overcome it, you'll never move again.
The reason you can fly without any ID (even today - try it) is that feds cannot stop citizens from freely moving in the country (see multiple filings from TSA in various cases, incl, for example, Gilmore v. Gonzales). They do not like acknowledging this but you can do it. The procedure is secret and they refuse to explain it (even to the court), but you can do it. i've done it just to see how it would go a few times. It works. You do need to press them on it a bit.

This fee approach will not work for the same reason: it is an impediment to free movement (fee).

You can read more here: https://papersplease.org/wp/2015/04/09/why-did-the-tsa-preve...
I've generally seen high 100s low 200s for L3, mid to high 200s for L4, 300s for L5.

This is total comp. I don't know Apple specifically but I'm basing this off of a few of the FAANGs that I have experience with.
Interesting... I used to have similar ideas about "at least do no harm", but the intolerance of the times radicalized me somewhat and the new mantra is not only to reduce the harm I do, but to also somewhat counter the harm others do: either by negating them or their deeds. Because if we let some harm seep through because we ignored it, that is still not good enough for our society.

Now of course we (the people) look at things differently so me going carbon negative (for example) may encourage others to pollute even more because hey u/kshacker is going to fix it so I know the thought process needs further evolution.
I really think that the Sharp Tools essay is pretty significant. That's an initiative that I'm really trying to push at my work. In the one essay about how adding people can make a project even more late... I think too few people focus on the significance of partionable tasks -- that is, when you're a tech lead, it's very important to understand what tasks should or should not be partitioned, and equally as important, _how_. For example: If you need two long ditches dug and have 2 workers - you might say "you dig ditch A, and you dig B". Or you might say "You start at the north end of A and you at the sound end -- dig towards each other and meet in the middle. Then, repeat for ditch B" But you would NEVER say "You dig the top half of ditch A, and you dig the bottom half, meet in the middle, and repeat for ditch B". Not enough managers/leaders put an emphasis/importance on understanding how to partition a task -- or that it often requires more than MBA knowledge to do so.
I had trouble understanding exactly how this scenario played out. Interestingly, Wikipedia gave some more color on the timing and distance involved [1]:

The death toll could have been worse had it not been for the self-sacrifice of an Intercolonial Railway dispatcher, Patrick Vincent (Vince) Coleman, operating at the railyard about 750 feet (230 m) from Pier 6, where the explosion occurred. He and his co-worker, William Lovett, learned of the dangerous cargo aboard the burning Mont-Blanc from a sailor and began to flee. Coleman remembered that an incoming passenger train from Saint John, New Brunswick, was due to arrive at the railyard within minutes. He returned to his post alone and continued to send out urgent telegraph messages to stop the train. Several variations of the message have been reported, among them this from the Maritime Museum of the Atlantic: "Hold up the train. Ammunition ship afire in harbor making for Pier 6 and will explode. Guess this will be my last message. Good-bye boys." Coleman's message was responsible for bringing all incoming trains around Halifax to a halt. It was heard by other stations all along the Intercolonial Railway, helping railway officials to respond immediately.

Also the Wikipedia about Vince Coleman [2] is missing the details from [1]. I guess this is part of the Wikipedia Wormhole people go through...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Coleman_(train_dispatc...
> being able to pop it in the dishwasher for deep cleaning

How much disassembly does that take? Can't imagine water being too good for the USB hub electronics & such.
> EVERYTHING that was created with human effort is an example of wealth creation.

Without dismissing your point, I would strongly push back against effort being synonymous with wealth creation. Having grown up in post-Communist Eastern Europe, there was no virtually correlation between the two.
mrustc doesn't support all of Rust, its only purpose is to bootstrap the normal Rust compiler; and it only works on x86 and x86_64 Linux and isn't very much optimized (eg. needs about 10GB of RAM for the final linking).

And it's lagging behind by a year or two (which is about 15 intermediate releases of the Rust compiler you need to compile to get the current one); because it only has a single developer and keeping up is a huge amount of work.
JavaScript was definitely designed for web development. Though, at the time web development meant a tiny bit of magic in an otherwise static html document.
no, but income and wealth have diminishing marginal utility, so those with excess should have it redistributed.
It's not the yacht, nor the money per se.
It's the power they wield. A single person can entirely overtake democracy when he has billions.
He can own press, politicians, etc.
Incomes have gone up, including for the unemployed. Fiscal stimulus can accomplish much more than monetary policy through the multiplier so comparing headline numbers doesn't mean anything.

And yeah rich people own assets. That's like the definition of a rich person. Take your ax and grind it somewhere else.
Real-Time Analytics in the Cloud:Running Real-Time A/B Experiments at Scale
This is horrible advice. There's a reason that you don't write your own hashtable implementations.

Yes, I can write a hashtable implementation in an afternoon, but it's going to have bugs that I'll spend the next year fixing, and still not achieve the performance of the pre-built version.

All that work of finding existing solutions and learning how to use them? That's part of the job.

Find a bug in the dependency? Submit a patch.

Worried about the dependency changing? Lock the version.

Too many external repos to retrieve those dependencies? Use a local cache.

Don't reinvent the wheel.
You say the US re Ukraine. It's actually Western European powers, which have dramatically more influence over the situation in Ukraine - they always have, and they always will - than the US does.

It's hilarious that people think the US controls every aspect of planet Earth, such that it can just point its finger at things and make them the way it wants them to be. The bipolar response to US capabilities is the amusing part, the US is either a god toppling governments at will or entirely incompetent, depending on whatever narrative the anti-US contingent needs to push.
If a market isn't growing, it's zero sum.

Lots of markets (most markets?) aren't growing at any particular moment. We should really figure out how to fix our system in the low-growth zero-sum regime because it's common and important.
But Mozilla is not a 'programming languages' company in the mold of Microsoft or former Borland. Programming languages are worth $0 to the market place at the moment. So if Rust gave some unique advantages, great. Use those. And maintain focus. Because if they don't do that then we may end up with Rust and no FireFox and to me that would be net loss.
yes, that's a principle line of criticism of (crony) capitalism, that the efficient allocation condition no longer holds. greater wealth concentration enables greater distortions, and ultimately to the destruction, of free and fair markets that are the crux of capitalism.
The world's 50,000th best yoga instructor can probably make a living running a yoga studio.

I'm not sure the world's 50,000th best yoga instructor can make a living selling online yoga classes.