skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I can opine based on my current position, where I interact with both containerized and non-containerized infra, specifically a docker-compose-like system versus direct installs on AWS EC2 instances. In my opinion, a well made containerized system is far superior an experience:

- Deploy times are certainly slower, up to 50x slower than non-containerized. However, we're talking 30s deploys versus 20 minute deploy times, all-inclusive. The sidenote here is that you can drastically reduce containerized deploy by putting in some effort: make sure the (docker) containers inherit from other containers (preferably self-built) with executable version that you need. For instance, you might inherit version X of program A and version Y of program B before building only a container with version Z of program C, as A and B barely change (and if they do, it's just a version bump in the final container). Even better, just build a code container during deploy (so a container with essentially only code and dependencies), and keep all the executable as separate images/containers that are built during development time;

- Containers do allow high-speed fixes, in the form of extremely simplified rollbacks. It is built into the entire fabric of containers to allow this, as you just change a version number in a config (usually) and can then rollback to a non-broken situation. Worst case, the deploy of fixed code in my case does take only 20 minutes (after the time it takes to fix/mitigate the issue, which is usually much longer);

- Local environment is _so much easier_ with containers. It takes 10 minutes to setup a new machine with a working local environment with containers, versus the literal hours it can take on bare metal, disregarding even supporting multiple OS'es. On top of that, any time production wants a version bump, you can start that game all over again without containers. Most of my devs don't ever worry about the versions of PHP or Node they are running in their containerized envs, whereas the non-container system takes a day to install for a new dev.

Containers can be heavy and cumbersome, but in many cases, a good responsibility split can make them fast and easily usable. In the specific case of docker, I find treating the containers like just the executable they are (which is a fairly default way of dealing with it) works wonders for the easy-and-quick approach.
I have a hard time reading anything on dev.to TBH, I find it's way too pop-culture-unicorns-everywhere for how pragmatic programming is (should be?) in its essense
Thanks - So it's around the speed of certain numerical operations?

So you could still use python and just wrap Julia libraries for those operations it's optimized fors
Lately I can’t help wondering how emergence of aggregating platforms like YouTube (your video is in the same place as “500 Funniest Fails 2020”) or Spotify (your song appears next to generated muzak by fake artists) and arrival of mobile devices (your work, no matter how special to you, can be absorbed by someone sitting on a toilet) are shifting the context in which art is perceived and affecting the art itself.
Vast majority of people who contract this illness don't even show symptoms at all. That's what's weird about this disease. It seems to affect the elderly disproportionately but for younger people and people with no risk factors, the risk is exceedingly low that one will experience SARS at all.
These are valid questions a lot of people new to Rust have, so:

1. Rust is "backward compatible" in the sense that Rust code can use C libraries and C code can use Rust libraries - both ways via CFFI [1]. Security gaurentees only apply to the Rust code.

2. We've tired static and dynamic analysis of C to find security bugs for decades, there has been a plethora of research and commercial tools in the space. None fix the problem like Rust does [2].

[1] https://michael-f-bryan.github.io/rust-ffi-guide/
[2] https://msrc-blog.microsoft.com/2019/07/18/we-need-a-safer-s...
In the worst scenario, if there is enough public interest to keep an industrial-grade kernel afloat, there is enough interest to keep an industrial-grade browser afloat. Firefox will survive Mozilla Corp like the original Mozilla suite survived Netscape.

TBH I don't think we'll ever get there. Mozilla just need to refocus a bit.
Is there such a cult? I keep reading arguments like "nobody would pay for Google search, therefore they must track everyone and push ads", but I'd happily pay for search if it aligned their interests with mine ("high quality search results").

I'd also happily pay for a browser, but I'm not a big fan of "donate because it's the right thing to do", I prefer "pay because the product is worth it".

As far as I understand, donations to the Mozilla Foundation won't go into development anyway because of the way they're structured.

Don't ask for donations in the browser. Offer a product that people want and sell it to them. My personal approach: focus initially on developers. They're somewhat easy to understand (you have developers on the team), they have more money than the average user, their requirements and desires are clear and a little effort goes a long way, they already pay for tools that do some jobs that could be done in the browser (e.g. Fiddler).
There is some preliminary evidence to suggest that poor sleep can be a significant factor in ADHD.[1]

Do you believe that the various intertwined chemical disregulations of confirmed ADHD diagnoses have no commonality with those who experience poor sleep? There seem to be a lot of studies indicating that poor sleep results in temporary decreases in dopamine receptor availability.[2]

Either way it seems like the authors should specify the control within both samples for confirmed ADHD diagnoses (can't find it if they disclosed it), and shift away from "ADHD-like" if they don't mean to draw an implicit comparison.

[1] https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7MuIr-...

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3433285/
> What is egregious about uber is that they themselves are tapping into the clean water source, extracting the best part for themselves and then leaving only brackish water for all the uber drivers.

Please explain this. Uber is wildly unprofitable. Whether or not you think Uber drivers should earn more, they’re certainly not losing money. Between the drivers, the riders, and Uber...Uber has by far the worst position in this game. Now, they wrote the rules so I certainly won’t lose a wink of sleep over it, but this idea that Uber is making out well in all of this is ludicrous.

The riders make out the best and any future changes will be zero sum between riders are drivers. Uber simply can’t absorb more losses than they already do.
They're compilers, not interpreters - or at least SBCL, CCL, ABCL, ECL, Clasp, CLISP, ABCL, and LispWorks are. I'm not aware of any other alive contemporary Common Lisp implementations.

Lisp is a memory-safe language with automatic memory management, which removes all of the aforementioned classes of attacks that are available in C. In addition, the Lisp compilers are written in Lisp itself, not in C, which further decreases the attack vector.

Also, the currently-in-progress SICL project intends to do away with C completely, even for its garbage collection and OS-interfacing parts.
Hey, does anybody have that documents from Spiegel?
I clicked the link but it says not found. Probably it is from 5 years ago so they take down the pdf documents.
The smiley face was supposed to mean "gotta appreciate the irony of that statement". I should've been more clear I suppose.
Zero Trust Architecture: NIST Publishes SP 800-207 [pdf]
Sure. Do you have any arguments why it isn't broken and go against the arguments linked in the related HN discussion? Is CPython in some way immune to overflows, use-after-free, double freeing, and so on? How much of CPython is actually implemented in C, and how much in itself and/or in Python?
TBH unless you're on Intel you'll still probably have some trouble. That's still a problem though - you shouldn't have to (within reason) select your hardware carefully, ignoring a large part of the consumer market, to have Linux do basic things.
Please remind me again how a company with a market share of 0.6% [1] is changing global transportation?

It's fascinating to me how people seem to vastly underestimate the actual volume of the global car market while overestimating the impact of unicorns.

In order to even make a dent in the global market, getting into the double digits would be required.

Even in the market "dominated" by Tesla (e.g. plug-in EVs), their market share is a combined 16.6%, meaning more than 83% of EVs are made by other companies [2]...

Tesla is to the car market quite literally what Apple is in the desktop PC and smartphone markets - a "dominating force" with a tiny market share in the global market.

[1] https://www.best-selling-cars.com/international/2019-full-ye...

[2] https://insideevs.com/news/396177/global-ev-sales-december-2...
> Small company gives away software for free.

They have had years of ~$500M of revenue. I don't consider this small.
Nope, not when your choice affects the rest of us.
Cloud Encryption Is Worthless
Apartments costs as much per square feet as detached houses in the same neighborhoods. People overwhelmingly prefer to live closer to stuff and smaller if we look at what they actually pay for, so in Sweden we build a lot of neighborhoods with enough density that you can have all services within walking distance. Therefore such neighborhoods in Sweden are very cheap compared to USA.

And it isn't a lack of space to build, Sweden is less population dense than USA. Lots of people still live away from things in detached houses, those doesn't disappear just because we give others the option to not live like that. And you know, thanks to most people living in denser areas most things aren't that far away from the detached homes either, they benefit from density too.
I'd like to add that Mozilla has relatively limited resources and it's more worthwhile for them to focus on issues that are directly related to what they do (the web) instead of unrelated social issues.

Furthermore Mozilla has the expertise, connections and brand when it comes to the web they can use as leverage to solve web-related social/political issues, but might not have much leverage for unrelated issues so the risk/reward ratio will not be in their favor.
Years ago I worked for a company called Redgate. We bought a widely used free tool called .NET Reflector from its original author. The idea was that the recognition we received from owning and continuing to provide .NET Reflector for free would translate into additional sales of our other tools.

It didn't work.

For other related examples see the numerous social media stars/influencers who have moderate to large followings, but don't necessarily make that much money. The majority don't make enough to give up their day jobs.

Recognition often isn't worth that much. The real test of how much people value something is whether they'll pay for it.
Having all of your products that are absolutely free for everyone just promotes a culture of "gimmie dat opun sauce warez 4 free" cult and relying on donations for supporting 1,000 employees, doesn't make any sense for sustainability for them.

So what's the next step for Mozilla's mission for protecting your privacy? Re-new that contract with your #1 anti-privacy competitor [0] and continue selling free things.

[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/barrycollins/2020/08/13/mozilla...
He was forced to do it voluntarily. "I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse". Or bullying till resignment.

Applies to the current CEO then too. Baker shouldn't be CEO.
> So allow me to make a modest proposal: build in a donations function in Firefox itself — for instance by adding a simple “Please support us” message to the update page you get to see whenever you update the browser, and by adding a Donations item to the main menu.

Agreed. We need a way to directly fund Firefox development, and Mozilla is not currently providing this.
A colleague and I did something similar recently.

We got similar spam mails in our work inboxes. Whipped up a little ruby script that spammed bum login data to the spammer's form url. We had our scripts running on a couple of Heroku instances and all.

At some stage we realized that the password field in the form accepted arbitrarily sized payloads. So we base64 encoded some 10MB file and sent that as the password. The thinking was if we could not DoS them, we can at least clog up their works with some real hefty payloads.

More can be seen here: https://github.com/dj-louw/spamscam
The author suggests getting donations to (partially) finance Firefox. That would never work without changing the culture of Mozilla Corporation in a huge way: Currently, they take every chance to annoy their users, break their workflows, add new unnecessary but costly mistakes. They frivolously spend on side-projects nobody needs. People would be very quick to cease donating if they are being annoyed in such a way. The only reason people currently put up with Mozilla's behaviour is because they didn't pay for the product.

Having people pay, even voluntarily, and having even a small reliance on those payments would just kill Mozilla more quickly without a visible leadership change first.
This is really cool. My only critisism is based on the text below, i can't figure out if the times shown take into accound the 10-20 minuites to fall asleep, or if I should get into bed and shut my eyes 10-20 mins before those times.
Probably as illegal as stealing a cocaine from a drug dealer.
I would think exercise in the sun would also play a role in that longevity.
How to structure a business process management initiative
> While it may be technically illegal, considering the victims are themselves worse criminals caught in the act, I really doubt anyone is going to give you trouble over this.

Depends on who you fear more: law enforcement or organized crime.
I had a bad 'flu' during the first half of March right before we started to work from home and England went into lock down, although I had this year's flu jab in office.

I did not have any breathing issues at all, but the timing has left me wondering what it actually was.

With the number of asymptomatic cases, plus the number of cases with very mild symptoms, I'm sure that many people have had it and are unaware of it.
Open source is not "warez", and "supporting 1,000 employees" to work on an open source project makes zero sense. The best model for developer monetary support comes from individual crowdfunding campaigns by prominent devs, as is common, e.g. in the Rust community.
Shouldn't inflation decrease during a recession?
I used to think that we're not anywhere near a future where most applications came bundled with an entire browser, yet here we are.
> It's refreshing to see an assumption of incompetence rather than malice

To mis-quote Arthur C Clarke, any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
inlets PRO Launch Day
Not just that, being able to afford months and months without salary is quite a privilege, even on relatively high wages like a developer's. Not to mention if you can do that while on minimum wage jobs, you probably aren't a major source of income for the family.
> We'd not only have less 40yo ranting at some 15yo project, because they used React, but also the quality of our work would improve drastically.

I’m not sure what you have against people in their 40s but, it might be worth it to spend 5% of your time learning to respect and have empathy for them.

Side note, people in their 40s aren’t old. Damn.
I think this comes down to the old socialism vs capitalism debate. Industries gain a lot at relying on 'free products' that are most of the time financed by states (think roads, infrastructure, etc...), but you can find counter examples where privately owned & sold products work better.

Concerning software, I agree the situation is a bit different as states are hardly strong players there. But I would disagree on the fact that the 'clut of free' is a sin. The whole industry gained a lot in terms of openness, sharing of best-practices and just innovation. Try finding how to build a washing-machine from scratch or just getting the PCB layout of your radio, it's a really painful process.

But I would agree that I'm worried too on the future of software, but I would rather push for more financing of open source (& free) projects - by states or NGOs - rather than pushing the whole industry to go sales first.
in this case however both sites I "took down" were still accessible afterwards, they just removed their backend. Still got an empty response or 404 with valid http certificate.

So probably the phishers were annoyed with the fake data and moved servers
Even more difficult: for how long? - Compilers get better and CPUs get new instructions one might miss in the manual code. If you have your tight critical loop in assembler one has to regularly verify.
> one year is a very long time in rust land

That's the problem and stabilization doesn't solve it. Only rejecting language changes will.
I think you should add people working in the health-care sector.
The research in question is of low quality. They use of the term ADHD is possibly as research SEO, and to cover-up the fact that they are not measuring a well defined phenomenon, but some self-reported answerers about sleep quality.

I have no interest in discussing ADHD here, and I don't understand why you bring it up.
heroku is a PaaS, it could be running containers internally, you wouldn't know. docker, k8s and the other tools are just building blocks of a PaaS, you are comparing oranges to a full course meal.
> But, somehow, just as with any other job, the good people – those you will actually want to fill that role – want to be paid what the market tells them they are worth.

I would say that's a very naive view that idealizes the process (and I say that as someone who is very pro market), especially as you rise up in ranks and especially in this instance where a non-profit is failing to execute on their core mission.

I've seen people go from board advisors in relatively large companies to IKEA store workers or long term unemployment. It's more about who you know and how you play politics than your ability to provide value to the entity, a lot of politics gets played the higher you climb. The market value for these people could very well be higher this still has nothing to do with the value they provide in their current role - it could very well be that a less qualified (in general market terms) person could be a better fit for this unique organisation.
Remote work plan detailed for Barbados
In this case (with the second page) it looked like after you put in your credentials they put you in a loop while they tried to use your logins.

I assume that if the banking backend told them the verification sms or whatever is sent, they would have asked the user about it and just forwarded it
Infinix hot 10 specs leaks on Google play console
Who is going to pay for Firefox if they fired the people pushing the tech forward (i.e. the servo team)?

If anybody is going to pay for a browser it must be better than its competition.

I would pay for better privacy, adblocking, higher speed, better dev tools and what not.
But Firefox is not so much better than Chromium in any of these points to warrant payment.
Totally depends on how much the Fed prints money. They’re literally buying stocks last I heard.
Can I use this to change my tv channels?
First of all I think it's a net negative value for society; the world is already drowning in advertising and we don't need more of it. If I'm paying for something the last thing I want is for part of that money to go towards annoying other people that haven't asked for anything with ads for a service that might not be relevant to them (plus in the case of Uber their brand is pretty much a household name at this point).

I also think it's an unsustainable business model; even if you do all things perfectly, there are people out there that might be aware of Uber but will still not be using it for various reasons, so over time the payoff from marketing will still be decreasing. If your business is only sustainable because of marketing then over time, all other factors remaining equal, your profitability will still be declining.

> If companies could just not then you need to explain why apparently everyone is putting their money into something obviously unprofitable.

If every company chose not to do it then we'd all be better off. But since one company does it, the others have to follow otherwise they'd be left behind.

There's also the issue of attributing the profitability of ad spending; a lot of companies spend ad dollars without exactly knowing whether it's actually bringing in revenue (if I search for brand X on Google, they'd be the first hit, but then they also put ads up there, if a person clicks the ad it counts as a conversion and Google gets paid, but was that a true conversion or would the user have clicked on the non-sponsored link had the ad not been there?).

When a company allocates budget for marketing the marketing team will usually spend it all and produce results to justify their own paychecks/pay rises/bonuses and yet those results might not be "true" due to the aforementioned issue for example.
Which companies seem to follow these steps? Lyft, Uber, Airbnb, WeWork?
I don't know - most weeks I spend perhaps that amount outdoors (say 8/9 hours hillwalking at the weekend and 6 hours during the week gardening) and that is far more than most people I know.

However, that's in spring/summer/autumn and assuming the weather is OK. In December or January its entirely possible for me hardly to hardly see any sun at all due to short days (say 8am to 3pm) and poor weather - and if I am out I'll inevitably be covered in bad weather clothing.

Edit: I started taking Vitamin D a few years back and saw a dramatic improvement in some areas.

Edit2: Amusingly, I had no idea what Vitamin D was supposed to do when I started taking it, my wife had bought some and asked if I wanted some. It had a dramatic effect on anxiety levels that I was suffering from at the time - it was mid winter. The only side effect I noticed being truly bizarre and vivid dreams - again something that I didn't know about in advance but have read other people commenting on.
> a well made containerized system is far superior an experience

Like everything, it depends on context. Is it good to have separate dev, staging, and production environments? For many companies, the answer is "D'oh!". But if you're one guy trying to get your first p.o.c. out, by all means, deploy directly to production.

Containers is sortof the same thing: if you're a small team, and don't have many customers, the disadvantages of containers (however small) may outweigh the advantages.
One specific problem I always had in Linux but never had on other systems is installing a newer version of a software than the one that is present or supported by the official package manager.

It's most of the time difficult, and sometimes impossible, which is very user hostile; I, the user, should be deciding which version of the software I want to run, not the distribution.
My browser doesn't run javascript by default, and the website is not an webapp, so it appear to be fine