skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I love the concept of FaaS, but the rush to reduce everything to *aaS has omitted intelligent scaling in favor of code atomicity.

Let’s say your function operates on a huge dataset, and requires 120ms responses.

How can you do this consistently on a virtualized shared tenancy platform like AWS where (a) you don’t control the ‘ticks’ allotted your Vcpu and (b) you don’t have control of, or even insight, into the co-tenancy of the host machine?

Easy answer. You can’t.

IMHO, since you can’t control wether another process is awarded priority of Vcpu ticks OR memory, it can’t be done consistently over time on any non-dedicated platform.

I have two full racks of servers, and I am regularly pricing the clouding of those server functions, and have been for years. Not once has the cost of moving to the cloud gone down. At the moment, the cost of moving all my servers to the cloud is $18.8k/mo versus the $2k I pay now, and I would lose all control over the throughput of the instances because a profit-only-motivated host will have final decision over my Vcpu and IOps ratios.

Since my hardware hasn’t changed in several years, and the cost of clouding has increased over 100%, the only explanation is that providers are slowly and consistently slowing down Vcpus to maximize profits.

They may be lowering the per-minute cost, but they’re lowering the Vcpu tick ratios much faster. There just isn’t any other explanation.

For core functions, where latency is key, you either need to find a way to scale the sensitive functions across multiple instances, or host your own fully controlled instances and route only latency sensitive functions to them instead of the cloud.

In the data tables case I mentioned above, you might consider a switch that will spawn multiple requests to FaaS instances with specific ranges of scope, effectively minimizing the work each call must do by systematically decreasing the scope of data it must operate on, and spreading that across (hopefully) multiple virtual hosts that may or may not be on different physical servers.

Or, you could spend $100 a month on a dedicated machine at a colo provider that is honest and well known, and I believe you will find over time what I have...

Profit comes from having control of your on-premise cloud, not farming it out.

Cheers
Ask HN: What are some ways to improve Producthunt. Building a new ProductHunt
I'm looking to build a new ProductHunt. What are some ways i can improve on what ProductHunt already built?

What are the pros and cons of the website?
Okay, so it's just an onboarding-type list but with "dependencies" to structure them like a tree?
I think OP's point is that if the US had a better social safety net, this problem wouldn't be as bad.

So many people in the US - arguably still the world's most prosperous country - live on the precipice of ruin and failure because their country just doesn't give a shit about them (hence the ongoing push to make their _employer_ give more of a shit about them), and it's really heartbreaking.
Extract Text from Image
How is it related to colorblindness? For most types of colorblindness relative comparisons are affected too. And for non colorblind people, all kinds of context in an image can change perception of color, similar to relative pitch (blue/black white/gold dress anyone?).
I always put my phone on airplane mode before going to bed. I just don't want the extra radiation while I sleep.
Africans had European colonies before Europeans had African colonies.

Carthage predates Rome, and Carthage had colonies all over Hiberia, which Rome later conquered.
...and that's a good thing.

Console homebrew. iOS jailbreaking. Android rooting. Those are only some of the freedom-enabling things this and other "insecurity" allows. It's not all bad --- and IMHO it's necessary have these "small cracks", as it keeps the balance of power from going too far in the direction of the increasingly authoritarian corporations.

I always keep this quote in mind: "Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes."
> And what about those conjured celebrities I added as a precaution? All five were all scraped right into Google’s search result pages. It provided undeniable proof that after being turned down, Google simply went ahead and stole the entire database of content CNW took eight years and over a million dollars to build.

I remember a few years ago Google had a big blog post about how they’d injected some fake search results to catch Bing scraping like this. It certainly seemed like they thought it was a bad thing back then.
In 2013, the President of Mali asked France for help in stopping an attack on the capital Bamako by Islamic groups from the North of the country, whose goal was to establish a second Islamic state in the Sahel region, modeled after the Islamic State of Iraq which was developing at that same time. Four fighter jets were sent from France to stop the attackers as they were driving down south in pickups and were just a few hours away from taking the capital Bamako.

7 years later, the French forces are still on the ground, trying to help in stabilizing not only Mali, but also the whole Sahel region. With little stabilization success so far, but a second Islamic state in this area was avoided thanks to this intervention.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barkhane
People rarely call Java a dead end, or irreparably broken, though.
That's 100% it. By Uber advocating for additional regulation, they get to (hope to) design the regulatory capture that entrenches them and makes it harder for upstarts.

It's the same reason Facebook advocates for data protection laws in the US - they're going to happen either way, Facebook wants them to suit them and makes it harder for competition.
> There is a clear indication that US executive branch decided to go after China.

No.

The US executive branch didn't decide that. The machine decided that, during the Obama Administration (not Obama's decision either), and they have been thinking about - plotting about - this confrontation as far back as the early 1990s at least. Four-star general Wesley Clark talked publicly about that the Pentagon has been expecting to have to confront China for ~25+ years.

There are countless article you can dig up on this, through much of the Obama Administration years. Here is a good one:

FAS (Federation of American Scientists) 2012:

"Pivot to the Pacific? The Obama Administration’s “Rebalancing” Toward Asia"

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42448.pdf

"In the fall of 2011, the Obama Administration issued a series of announcements indicating that the United States would be expanding and intensifying its already significant role in the Asia-Pacific, particularly in the southern part of the region. The fundamental goal underpinning the shift is to devote more effort to influencing the development of the Asia-Pacific’s norms and rules, particularly as China emerges as an ever-more influential regional power."

Pivot aka confront China.

Read the section called "Areas of Continuity" where they discuss how Obama's pivot was actually just furthering policies began during the prior Bush Administration. It's a system in action, spanning administrations.

They're doing it in a gradual multi-part rotation. They called it the "pivot to Asia" during the Obama years. That pivot was about dealing with the rising China. Each cycle gets more aggressive and with more resources devoted toward it. With Trump it's called the confrontation with China. They're escalating as they go. The media, as part of the machine, also does its propaganda part as they get their marching orders in part from the military industrial complex: during the Obama years the media called the strategy the pivot to Asia; during the Trump years, they like to use "confrontation" in their news titles; they're providing the cultural atmosphere for what the machine is trying to steer us toward.

The machine, as I'm half-jokingly calling it, is the system of government and power that exists administration to administration and sets continuity policy. It includes structures of power like the Pentagon. That's how the Cold War was operated for example, they didn't entirely flip flop every administration with how the USSR was broadly handled. Most of the government continues from one administration to the next. There are occasionally large, animating ideas that propel the US superpower into action, challenging the USSR was one of those, and China today is another. Nearly the whole of the US system has recognized it can't co-exist with China as previously hoped, most of those pieces that make up the multi-headed power of the US are in agreement to confront China now, spanning from the FBI to the intel community to the US military to the executive branch to almost all of Congress (mostly only varying by degree now).
I wonder if some combination of different materials and different modulations could allow these pulses to arrive at the same point at the same time? If so, how much could you scale that and would it be more useful than just building a higher powered laser?
Seems like a very non-conflictual kind of chess game: https://i.imgur.com/nXBxI5v.gifv
Airplane mode will always remind me of traveling with my trusty iPhone 4S or SE, whose batteries always struggled to get through a full day of maps, camera, messaging, and ad-hoc Google and Wikipedia. My workaround was to keep airplane mode on by default, using Google Maps offline data downloaded ahead of time off airport wifi, only occasionally "going loud" for a few seconds at a time to ration the 100 MB/day of roaming data that was cheap and convenient enough that I never bothered buying a local SIM card. The battery life difference was really dramatic.
Assuming that you have called gcc as `gcc -Wall`, it will warn, but not error. What the author of the article wants, I believe, is the equivalent of some combination of `-Wall -Werror` and `-pedantic -pedantic-errors` by default, and that's certainly unreasonable.

gcc, however, isn't C, just a popular compiler for it, and clang might error on this particular one, but my memory is fuzzy. Someone else might want to chime in here.
You might as well ask if the device honor the command to switch off or it says on a standby state.
> I take it you have never worked outside of software.

You take it wrong, and reasoning by analogy with other fields is a very risky line of logic, because they're not at all similar in terms of internal regulation and professional autonomy.

First of all, in fields like medicine, that kind of responsibility is necessary because clinical autonomy is far wider than any kind of professional autonomy that software engineers have, at any level. And it works precisely because this autonomy doesn't come only with the responsibility of adequate care, it also comes with the ability to say "no" without fearing for your employment or license. Physicians enjoy a great deal (if faltering, and arguably still insufficient!) of protection for defending the interests of their patients, and firing someone for it is a pretty risky and expensive affair. Software engineers enjoy pretty much zero protection in this regard.

If you want engineers to bear that kind of responsibility, that's great, and I'm all for it, too. But in order for it to have any use, you also have to give them the means to defend the standards of professional conduct they must now conform to. Are you also prepared to:

* Defer to an external body of experts to decide if a technology is fit for commercial use or not?

* Forbid an engineer from arbitrarily overriding another engineer's bugfix?

* Have product managers defer to an ethics commission, ran by engineers and engineering ethics specialists, when deciding what features to prioritize or introduce? And if the ethics commission says "no" to a feature, then it's a "no" that not even the board or the executive team can override?

* Make it illegal to ask engineers to introduce a workaround with known flaws, rather than the proper fix, without explicitly informing customers about the known flaws?

* Make it illegal to fire engineers for not executing a manager's order if that order violates the engineers' standards of conduct?

* Defer to an external engineering organization to decide who even gets to call themselves a "software engineer"?

Second, one of the reasons why managing large hospital networks by people without a medical license works (more or less...) is that, for example, there's usually no legal way for the CEO to walk into an OR while cardiac surgery is happening and request the surgeon unplug the CPB machine, even if that means killing the patient. Even if there's no internal regulation being broken, criminal law is more than enough to keep that sort of thing in check. There's hardly anything that would currently prevent the CEO of a software company from walking into an office and requesting that an encryption feature be backdoored, for example.

Without the kind of autonomy and legal protection that would enable software engineers to defend such an oath, its provisions would be completely meaningless. What kind of benefits do you think the software industry, and society in general, would get from an oath that's more risky to defend than to break?
Backwards compatibility for code is important, like progress in language evolution. I have question regarding "C has no ABI that could be affected by this, C doesn’t even respect qualifiers, how are we breaking things?!"

We have language standards for changes like this like '-std=c2x' or '-std=c89' with GNU's GCC. I understand and accept the matter of avoiding breakage. Furthermore C is inherently weakly typed, contrary to C++ which is strongly typed. Something you probably should not change, because that are basic language features. But the option to set the language standard does exist for this situation, to allow changes which will affect users. So why it cannot be used here?

That is not a critic. I'm sure that have their rationale for that and know more than me.

PS: Some changes will break the ABI, in that cases we likely see a PREPROCESSOR variable or something like that which is more complicated. The GCC people used it for some changes to std::string if I remember correctly.
Don't know why this gets downvoted.

Eco-fascism seems to be a valid candidate for the next societal nightmare. The "Right" has not yet discovered ecology as a trigger (especially the "Extreme Right") but I reckon that's only a matter of time.

It might not be any of the organizations that exist today, but the point still stands.

That said; I don't consider combating the climate crisis a "quixotic quest". I consider it the only way forward for humanity.
I see the discourse being more about bringing some basic morality to this amoral system we live in, we have experienced enough the lack of humanism when this system is left unchecked.

Morality here is about treating workers with a minimum level of dignity based on human rights, it's about paying us more fairly given that we are the ones producing value (the maxim that "an idea is nothing without execution" should be taken up by the investor/entrepreneur class also, without workers your idea is fucking nothing). It's also about making corporations abide by the rule of law that every other citizen has to, we need a more moral and just system, this free for all of Darwinian economics is a shit system given our current technological capabilities as humanity.
A wonderful documentary! Although I also loved seeing the old, huge but beautiful 70ies computers at the end that replaced the linotypes.
Except that is what such a system costs a the price the market will pay.

Uber doesn’t make money. It is only insane if it can be done for cheaper.
... are you suggesting that every English dialect spell its words differently, so that we no longer have a written common language? That Americans spell "were" "wur" and Brits spell it "wuh", so that when I read a sentence written in a book I have to know or puzzle out the accent of the person who wrote it?

[As an aside, why did you drop the doubled "p" from "apply" but not the doubled "f" from "different" or the doubled "l" from "spell"?]
The mere fact that he compiled the database isn't sufficient to qualify for copyright protection. He'll have to show that he used a sufficient level of creativity to arrive at the numbers he displayed.

Based on his testimony, I suspect he'd have a reasonable case to argue, but he'd have to show that his researchers carefully weighed different sources and made other judgements for each individual celebrity rather than just running some script over public property records.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_in_lists#C...
Why Do Solar Farms Keep Killing Birds? Call the AI Bird Watcher
That's one way of looking at it. Here's another:

- We collectively have created an economy that has generated spectacular amounts of wealth.

- A small group of people is hoarding the majority of that wealth.

- This is harmful to our society and needs to change.

- Arguments that we can't reduce inequality without destroying that wealth are factually and historically incorrect.
"We didn't need it during SARS" is not the right thought process. "What would we need to combat a 1918 style pandemic if it happened today?" is.
At this point people understand what they want to understand. I don’t know how to fix that.
That's generally my experience, but I appreciate how most articles in the Economist have 1) an attempt to genuinely outline both sides of the argument, and 2) an attempt to clearly -- "clearly" is relative at times -- take a side in the discussion.

Most of the time that side is going to be the free market technocratic solution, hence the parent comment about being able to predict where the article will go, but even then I feel like I have an idea what the argument is and where the sides are.
I googled that and was astonished to discover that orange & whisky marmalade is a thing.
Uber doesn't just compete with taxis. It also competes with public transport.

Also, there is a chance that sole riders would actually be increasing their carbon footprint compared to driving, as the Uber driver is also involved in your trip. Unless Uber is proven to cut car ownership and vehicular use, it is very possible that it is worse for society and the environment than the previous status quo.
Well, I guess Hitler also believed what he was saying.
Let's Build a Game with Vue 3
My experience in London was that Uber radically disrupted things. Yes, private hire cars existed, but the experience was pretty bad. You'd phone a number or go to an office, they'd say "20 minutes" and then, hopefully, a car would turn up. It involved a lot of waiting on streets (especially at night) and sometimes no car would turn up. There was no recourse or way to contact the driver.

Maybe app based hire cars were an inevitable product of smart phones. If not Uber, then someone else. But certainly Uber's business model was incredibly disruptive of that industry. From my perspective it had a really strong effect on how my generation lived in the city.
Induction sucks at making you have reasonable utility bills though.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the radiation from the WiFi and Cell towers in your bedroom regardless of whether your phone is on?
Actually, I work for a small tech company, and have to work around other people's undocumented interfaces all the time just like everyone else in this industry.

Your vision sorta works for software-based startups which are not capital intensive and dominated by labor costs. And I've seen first hand how telecommuting overcomes bad immigration law, allowing people in the west to cut the deals that cannot be done remotely on effectively behalf of foreign workers. Bad immigration law is indeed a government-induced problem, and this is one of the best workarounds we have.

Even then, the idea that no good local education is needed and that some body can just get a laptop, read some docs, and start making money is too optimistic.

But the larger problem is I don't think there is enough demand for YC-type stuff to significantly change the standard of living of a state. Consider how much money is dumped into SV startup before it makes money on average, and how few people SV employs due to the productivity of tech. This is not a good recipe for an entire nation.

The classic export goods are material goods; the far simpler unit economics ensure a steady stream of money back home, and the produced goods can (at least in principle) also be consumed domestically to make increasing in the standard of living not import-dependent. No country has gotten rich in the modern era without some of this, and I don't see this trend changing.
Hmmm... I think my autocorrect had a meltdown.

Hopefully people can figure it out anyway.
Neither will Haskell, Rust, etc. The extra classes of mistakes they can prevent at compile time just aren’t a meaningful volume of mistakes to make a practical difference in the lives of any developers apart from a few niche system engineering use cases.

If you think languages should facilitate type system design patterns that render large classes of application level mistakes impossible, you are just an architectural astronaut falling prey to premature abstraction and unaware that these languages aren’t making your application code safer or more reliable, only more brittle to the inevitable needs to break its core abstractions to solve expanding use cases.
> They'll raise prices appropriately, or decide that expanding the same exact store into every small town in America is no longer a profitable growth strategy.

Or redesign those stores to not depend on as much human labour.
Show HN: Overcast - Minimalist Personal Calendar with Tasks
> (You should read up a bit on this; it’s obvious you have not since you call it “copy written” when the term is “copyright” and a work can therefore be “copyrighted”. The term is about who has the right to copy a given work, and has nothing to do with “writing”.)

You used someone’s grammar as a reason to piss all over a reasonable comment, merely because it didn’t 100% validate your own?

You should read up a bit on basic human decency and even confidence. Otherwise, you just look like a know it all who can’t handle learning new things. That’s weak.
Weird. That's exactly what stock exchanges said before Reg NMS forced them to route orders to each other.

One way of getting drivers more money is to de-fragment these marketplaces through compulsory order routing rules.
Could you provide a link? I’d like to check this out.
> Meanwhile China bans US apps and services. So much TDS out there.

I upvoted (vouched) for your post before googling what TDS meant, which was a mistake.

You would have made a better point with your first sentence alone.

Don't pick fights with people you disagree with. Try to build bridges and find common interests. Both parties right now are taking a critical view on China. This seems to be something you care about, so why not talk about it instead?
Facebook paid the Winklevoss twins like $50 million. Had they gone to a lawyer on day 1 and asked what to do the advice would've likely been, "don't steal their idea."

Get big enough and then use somebody else's money to pay off your multimillion dollar mistakes. Or go out of business and it won't matter anyway.
Someone from reddit found some disturbing things through reverse engineering as well: https://old.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/fxgi06/fmuko1m/

The app resists reversing, and even slightly modifies its behaviour when reversing is detected, and at least the Android version had blatant RCE capabilities.

This is on top of collecting everything it possibly can about the device. I'd presume if you give it the photos permission (which is extremely broad on both mobile platforms unfortunately), it will scrape what it can from there as well, which might include historical location data.