skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Note that people who object to committing war crimes are not a kind of legalistic automata that require following the letter of the law no matter what. We do not always decide something is a crime because there's a law that says so. For example, the Holocaust would have been a crime even if the powers at the time had decided that it wasn't.

Complicated Chinese (and Japanese) laws about legal and familiar duty are really not the subject under discussion here, but a red herring. Murdering innocent people is an entirely different matter.

Finally, consider there are many people in this world who won't commit some crimes -- such as genocide -- even if there is no way out and refusing will cost them their own lives.
Cars made us wealthier but they also contributed to obesity. It's not exactly clear if reducing obesity by banning cars is worth it.
If a lawyer does something unethical, they could be disbarred. If a doctor does something unethical, their license may be revoked. These end your career.

There are already professional organizations for developers and engineers. ACM's ethics code even includes, "avoid harm." You don't need to be in any of them to write software. We would need to pass laws dictating that Facebook et al can only employ licensed software engineers. Do we really want to impose that level of gatekeeping on the profession?

The important part is that there's an accountability structure outside the company. Without that an oath just consists of words on paper.
You Shouldn't Go to College (Right Now)
Meili raises 1.5M€ for open source search in Rust
> Times have changed. People don't want stable jobs anymore

Citation needed; while I do agree / believe that people want more flexibility in their work (choose how many hours / week, when, etc to work around things like child care, avoid traffic, etc), they still want stability. People (read: I) want a max 5 day / week, max 40 hour / week contract that covers cost of living + luxuries, not a "maybe you'll do 10 hours this week, we'll let you know when you can come in" kinda deal.

The gig economy is telling people that their income depends on how much rides they do, basically forcing them to work 12+ hour, 7 day work weeks to make ends meet. You can claim that's their choice, but if a 'regular' work week doesn't cover the cost, it's not a feasible job.

The gig economy is an extension of what seemed to become the new norm in the US, working multiple jobs to make ends meet. This should not be necessary. If a 40 hour work week is not enough, wages are too low and / or cost of living is too high.
81% of Smartphones powered by Linux (2018)
Nice and concise summary. Thank you!
https://ourworldindata.org/global-economic-inequality#global...

> Global income inequality increased for 2 centuries and is now falling
Most banks in germany do it for free, my bank does 1'000 Instant Transfers for free (incoming + outgoing) after which I have to pay a fee for every additional block of 1'000 transactions. 1'000 is plenty considering the supermarket would still be fine with a next-day standard SEPA, so 3-per-day on average seems reasonable to me.
Good luck convincing the shop owner to accept payment in SEPA instead of cash the next time you get a beer.
You might also find
Michael Woodiwiss'
"Gangster Capitalism: The United States and the Globalization of Organized Crime" interesting.

https://www.amazon.com/Gangster-Capitalism-United-Globalizat...
And replaced with what? While coal is dirtier than natural gas the calorific value is far greater so you get a lot more heat and electricity per unit of combustion by-product. If these coal plants were replaced by gas-burners then emissions haven't been eliminated, only reduced. If we really want to ELIMINATE emissions we need to be looking at base-load sources that emit zero carbon such as nuclear.
Hardened FIPS Compliant Istio with Backyards
> The logic here seems to be "insect populations are dropping so let's forbid some things that are killing insects".

And the counterargument is - let's keep killing them anyway? Why is that more logical?

It's the same logic as - fly/drive/heat less, to reduce carbon release; eat less meat to reduce land usage and methane release; etc.

It seems to me that maybe the primary reason we're doing so much damage to our planet is a combination of

a) for most people, personal convenience > planetary health, and
b) as you say: "I have an extremely hard time believing average citizens are having such a huge effect"

The latter is especially pernicious - we are so successful as a species because, working together, we can achieve tremendous changes that aren't possible alone. But that potential for collective action can also have severely negative effects as well. Even a mountain can be leveled eventually if you keep chipping away at it. As an example of collective action, take a trip to Borneo and drive the 100km route from Tawau to Semporna - palm plantations literally as far as the eye can see in every direction, the whole route; it used to be rain forest. Individuals working together (whether deliberately or unknowingly) have a lot more power than they think.

Am I making sense? I'm not sure what's difficult to grasp about all this.
Pretty much. Those that take the oath would quickly see themselves not hired for certain positions, in favor of those that didn't take the oath.
Generally, you make the rules as simple as possible instead of a complex ouroboros of legislation that requires a full team of lawyers to understand. The other rule would tend towards “no need for government approval.” You shouldn’t have to ask the gov for permission to start working in the space, you should just have rules you need to follow while you do. Approval processes that inevitably take years are by far the most dangerous regulatory moat, if a startup can’t enter the space and start making money quickly that startup is many times less likely to exist.
Because computer programmers played guitar at the time.
Naming Things Doesn’t Have to Be Hard
You have to be very naive to think that there are corners on the internet with more than a thousand users that do not have the presence of every superpower. What do you think they’re spending their resources on?
Yes. If you are making promises to users in your non-TOS site text, you might want to run that by a lawyer too. Patreon is getting its butt handed to them because they didn't understand that. Getting your TOS checked after the legislature has met might not hurt either.
Technically there is a mass of cold air that comes out of the fridge when you open the door. Keeping the door shot keeps this mass of air inside.
Yeah, you don't really want to run down to the basement every time you want some ice cubes or cream for your coffee.

But that's more or less what I do. I have a (not small) fridge in the kitchen and an upright freezer in the basement. (I find chest freezers can become something of a black hole.)

When I had a 48-hour power outage recently, the freezer upstairs was pretty much defrosted--which was mostly fine because I didn't have perishable meat/fish up there. But the freezer downstairs was fine. (Made a point of keeping it buttoned up the whole time.)
Doesn't that just mean that Uber's investors are doing badly? I'm assuming most of their (regular) employees are being handsomely compensated.
Meanwhile China bans US apps and services. So much TDS out there.
It wouldn't surprise me if there are people specializing in ethics violations in exchange for lots of money.
It's worse than that if the amount is non-trivial. Wells Fargo won't allow you to send an amount over $10k instantly without physically entering a branch.
Covid-19 is awful. Climate change could be worse
That is literally what Uber has done though. 99% of Uber drivers were not driving around people in exchange for money before Uber existed. Then Uber built an app, and now you have people making money doing something that they didn't/couldn't do before Uber existed. Uber then literally captures a percentage of this, as they should.
very nice app and landing page!
The "fast" fashion industry maybe, which has been an over-inflated, Brave New World-like market for decades. When it comes down to it, people don't need more than a few items of clothes. And right now we're in a situation where it comes down to it. Comfort and practicality are important now, not whether your outfit is fresh or fashionable.
Too bad the vast majority of those "Linux powered phones" are completely useless without Google's Mobile Services (GMS) which is not only closed source but Google moves more and more functionality into GMS and out of AOSP with every iteration of Android. The Linux layer under Android is getting more and more like the Linux layer in Oracle Linux every year. I am very hopeful that Pinephone and Purism will gain maturity and market share so that a truly open mobile operating system is viable and has a growing app ecosystem.
Indeed, the ultra-cynical view is that they are now desperate for government regulation to ossify the market because without a lock in (similar to what taxi companies used to enjoy pre-Uber) profits drop to 0 and stay there.

Raw capitalism should drive companies like Uber out of business as a billion-dollar company. They can always be undercut by a group of drivers in a locality starting a new app and stealing the local regulars (identical service, lower cost because no Uber premium) leaving Uber with only non-local traffic. Apps are not expensive.
I think this has been borne out for most network technologies: the fundamental benefit is not {human doing old thing over new network} but {machine agent doing old thing for human over new network}.

But the genesis is always a bit counter-intuitive, because people don't build things for which there's no use case.

E.g. Machine agent consumable mobile services were created because people had mobile devices capable of consuming them. Nobody would have wasted time porting physical data into machine-readable format before the devices / use cases existed.

So the killer app, in this case, would be having your phone auto-filter / -alert you if for menu item(s) that match your preferences. Or create an ecosystem where menu costs are negligible, and restaurants are free to pivot to ingredients-of-the-day.
Sure, the word for one was derived from the other, but the recipes are very different, as are the end products. So much so that they occupy separate culinary niches, and I wouldn't consider them to be 'versions' of the same thing.

See also US/British flapjacks.
Given enough time tinkering with the prompt, and assuming the Wired article and website were in the training data, I think GPT-3 could probably suss out the relationship between the critical comments in Wired and the net worth website. It clearly can identify sentiment and maybe from that even infer the strained relationship of the site to Google

Seems plausible that Search could autonomously and possibly without human intent begin deranking sites that directly or indirectly surface negative opinions. At some point we could quite literally have to worry about hurting the feelings of our search engines.
Three Types of Pricing
Low-code platforms and Full-code developers – A match made in hell?
To be clear, they have made bucketloads of revenue, they lost profit. The OPs point was that now that they have practical market dominance, regulations will most likely favor them compared to small start-ups.
Ice cubes always taste funny if used without good ice forms, absorbing the fridge odors. Use the ones with silicone cover. Not a hint of the freezer in the made ice.
How much were the parts?
Humans can also scrap. If CNW employs researchers, they must be using sources. These sources are not referenced in their content. Either CNW is merely making up the net worth figures, or their researchers are pulling data from somewhere to provide information about 25,000+ celebrities. If the second is valid, they aren't that different from what Google is doing.
And Uber doesn't make people need transportation services, or make people need to earn a living by providing transportation services. It's crazy how entitled Americans have become over the past few decades that helping somebody find driving work now counts as "exploitation".
Why do you need to turn your business website into a pro mobile app?
Looks != "outlook on". The post you replied to clearly mentioned his physical looks, i.e. long hair, beard and old clothes.

I'm sure that the things you mention never had 100% approval of the left in the 1970s. In fact I've never met a leftist from that era who held those views, and I'd be quite disturbed if they did.
That’s really only one way to look at flexibility. I’ve had my employment end rather abruptly in the past, and I turned to gig work to get by (it wasn’t Uber, but it was the same sort of employment relationship). The issue I had wasn’t that I could only work certain hours in the day. It was that I needed to start a new job immediately. If only stable long term employment relationships were legal, then I would have had to search for weeks, go through endless recruiting processes, and if I was lucky I could have expected to get my next pay check in a couple of months. That’s what happens when you require employers to make that level of commitment to people. Having a job available that I could essentially just turn up to and start doing immediately, and then stop doing just as quickly, was exactly what I needed. Especially because I was quite young and financially unstable at the time.

It really saved me back then, and if somebody had tried to tell me that they wanted to prohibit me from doing that, because the work I was doing didn’t meet their standards, I would have told them to take a hike. What happens when you try to forcibly impose those standards isn’t that everybody’s working conditions/arrangements magically improve. What happens is the price of labor goes up, the demand for labor goes down, and you end up taking work away from people that were happy to do it, and leaving them with no work at all.
I haven't heard any “Richard Stallman ad-libbed one of his comedy skits badly and made members of the audience feel uncomfortable” stories since 2010 at the latest. I haven't heard he got better; I've just stopped hearing complaints. From this, I infer that he got better.

One of the more hidden benefits of people being more willing to raise concerns like this is that people bad at noticing that they're doing stuff wrong get told it – and then, if they care, they get better. (And if they don't get better, keep shaming them; even if they care, just caring isn't enough.)

I would rather people focused more on legitimate complaints like these, even though they aren't snazzy enough to make newspapers; making up stuff like “Richard Stallman supports child sexual abuse” helps nobody (except sensationalist newspapers, but they're not worth helping), whereas calling out the many small components of systematic injustices (e.g. many women feeling excluded from tech and hackerdom because they're women) helps many.
Biggest Saving on Web Hosting After Black Friday and Cyber Monday
There's the MNT Reform, which is an effort to make a highly serviceable and modifiable laptop.

https://www.crowdsupply.com/mnt/reform#products-top
I was pointing out issues that stems from "supporting multiple databases", which are issues that are the same in Django, Rails (not Ruby), PDO and basically any other ORM out there.

The problem is "lowest common denominator".

Think of it in an extreme way. as a thought experiment: what if you build an ORM that supports flawless migration from PostgreSQL to Redis and back. That abstracts away all the differences.

That ORM would bery extremely limited: it could basically only do key-value storage; would have no WHERE filters on values, for example, or if it did, the performance would be horrible: because redis does not have this.

Most RDBses follow most of ANSI SQL, so on the surface, they appear very similar, and a lot of times a developer never gets to the pieces that differ so much that either the ORM does not support it, or that the ORM gets terrible performance issues when using this.

More practical: if you use `ltree` or `GIS` features, you are now bound to postgres; which is why most ORMS don't offer support for this; or if they do, they only offer support for it when using the underlying engine (in other words: you cannot use e.g. sqlite anymore).
Maybe that is fine and you can avoid using such "database specific features": good for you. But they are there, and are begging to be used; so please don't cludge around with two `BigDecimal` columns `lat:` and `lon:`: you are going to run into problems that have been solved for decades. Please just use PostGIS instead, and accept that this means you are now locked to postgres: you are going to thank yourself later.
But the alternative for most Uber drivers is not a stable job in the fields that the post you're replying to mentioned. It's probably coffee shops, fast food, call center work or similar. If your alternative is that, being your own boss obviously sounds good. The solution here is not just to fix Uber, but generally the circumstances and compensation for these kinds of jobs.
Agreed. That's definitely not the scale we operate at (digitally latent, partially marginal by hn standards industry). Nevertheless, this restricts free software to only "critical" need infrastructure that has high value from the start (rather than being allowed to develop it), doesn't it?
On macOS, use ⌘~ to switch between windows in the same app. Between that shortcut and ⌘-space to open spotlight, the only use I have for the dock is to empty the trash.
There's another reason besides being first: corruption.
Can't make the horse drink unfortunately
I don't know about that but its always great hearing about US-UK attitudes, especially since they almost always tend to "accuse" each other of the same things.
So you're saying that since Lawyers have been around longer as a profession then they should demonstrate the equivalent oath and how to make it work before software engineers.

Sounds brilliant!
> I'm sure there are some cases where the performance difference comes down to skipping more or fewer files

My use case if probably weird, various times I grep for things across about 13k of full rpm package checkouts. So 13k directories, each with their .svn directory, one or more tarballs, possibly some patches/scripts, plus a spec file. I used to specifically tell GNU grep what to search for (grep something /SPECS/.spec), partly to avoid getting too many unwanted matches. Ripgrep is smart and quick enough to not need anything special. I like ugrep because sometimes it's needed to check the sources as well. Total size is 50-70GB, the spec files make up a tiny bit of that.

The distribution recently added a daily updated tarball with just the specs (7 or 20MB compressed depending if the .svn is in there). I'm planning to switch over to that. I'll spare you the details for why it's more difficult than it seems.

Thanks for the -p advice!
i suspect the same. we saw the same exact behavior last year from amazon around minimum wages (https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/11/amazon-ceo-jeff-bezos-chal...)
> Trademarks are per industry/category. So going after companies where the similarly is already questionable and further, the industry isn't the same is not needed.

Most of that is a myth, because people keep mixing it up with protected designs, names and the like. Trademarks are another league, though. Otherwise we'd have plenty of real estate businesses called Coca Cola and Apple with equally designed logos for example, and cases like Apple vs some Café would just disappear or not happen at all. Again, they don't do this for fun and giggles. It costs money and is necessary.
...but you've ommited what I meant "(...) Unlike many dynamic languages, however, Julia has a fairly sophisticated language for talking about types, and you can annotate expressions with types. (...)"

Also other answers have some good information, ie:

" (...) It can also be useful to indicate the argument types to restrict the kind of parameters passed when calling. Our function header for floating point numbers would then look as function mult(x::Float64, y::Float64). When we call this function with mult(5, 6), we receive an error, ERROR: 'mult' has no method matching mult(::Int64, ::Int64 ), proving that Julia is indeed a strongly typed language. It does not accept integer parameters for the floating point arguments. (...) "

...in other words saying that "Julia is dynamic langauge, full stop." doesn't answer the question fully as for many readers it implies "weak typing", however it's dynamic, but strongly-typed, with state of art optimisations available as in statically typed languages, with proper multiple dispatch on all arguments (not single/this dispatch as in ie. java) etc.

It is definatelly worth playing with the language for people who hesiate on learning it - Julia provides some very interesting features not seen anywhere else.
Depending on bandwidth, you could probably stream an over-rendered viewport (e.g. 3D skybox) that allows for local-device-magnitude latency for critical functions (perspective change & location translation), while being backed by streaming servers (especially of the edge variety).
Except the comment is incorrect. The underground nickname came from the movie not vice versa.
Demonstrating to the soviets was a fringe benefit at best.

If you read the accounts from any person at the time. Regardless of the theater or the nationality the overwhelming consensus was that the priority was to get the war over with ASAP so that everyone could go home. Anything else was just a side benefit.
I think what bothers me about many instances of colonialism is the misleading historical representations that we are left with, as history is often written by (if not the victors) those who had the upper hand at the end of the conflict.

There is still an ongoing narrative that the British brought some kind of civilization and industrialization to the region of British India that was unachievable before, somehow advancing it into a new age. In truth, the start of colonization was centered around the deindustrialization and enslavement of workers in Bengal into forced labor and sometimes starvation, destroying factories that produced advanced ships and textiles in the wealthiest region that alone accounted for 10-12% of the world's GDP if I recall correctly. These products were typically for export, generating wealth in the region, and the production was destroyed in favor of tea plantations that proved to be relatively underutilized and unproductive.

Granted, the kingdom was also under external stressors at the time such as conflicts with neighboring regions, so maybe this specific relatively industrialized economy may not have survived until today, but the British certainly hastened the poverty-stricken development of India and other subcontinental countries that the region is still suffering from today.

Do aspects such as the exposure to the English language, now relatively widespread as a second language, make up for this in the long term? Maybe this argument can be made, but it seems like an uphill battle in my opinion.
> If Trump loses, companies like Uber will be facing a regulatory reckoning for things like unemployment insurance.

That's... wishful thinking. Such a reckoning will certainly not come under Trump, I agree; but it's not a given that it will happen under Biden. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that it will not, at least for the first 4 years.
They like flexibility because it's their second job trying to make enough to live on.