skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The norm is for well-run, stable language projects to fizzle. Even massively funded and legislated languages do: consider Pascal, Smalltalk, Ada, and Common Lisp. Ultimately, the numbers count.

C++ in 1990, at 10 years, was very far from mature. Rust has come up fast, but maturity, by definition, takes time.
When Google was forced by the EU to provide prominent search engine options during Android setup, did that mean that Google as a search engine went away? Did all of your search results became crap because DuckDuckGo was available on the device now?

Or were consumers free to keep using Google search the same way they always had, and was there literally no downside at all to the people who wanted to keep using Google?

Nobody is talking about forcing you to sideload apps. If you want to stay in your walled garden, stay there. But the rest of us should get a choice.

There are a bunch of people on HN arguing simultaneously that:

A) Consumers want Apple's walled garden and Apple is meeting their needs,

and

B) The option to install apps from a 3rd party source would immediately cause consumers to jump ship from Apple's official store, and there would be no incentive for companies to release apps on the official store, and security on the device would be ruined forever.

Both of those arguments can't be true at the same time. If you're providing a service that consumers want, you don't have to force them into it. If forcing consumers not to sideload apps is the only reason why consumers use Apple's store, then maybe that's a good sign that consumers don't want what Apple is providing.

If consumers do want what Apple is offering, if consumers do want a unified storefront with strict moderation for everything, then there'll still be plenty of market pressure for most commercial apps to release on the official store.
I’m buying my first pickup. These are not cookie-cutter vehicles. The MSRP is a floor for sticker prices. Once you factor in trim levels, packages, engine choices, etc there’s a continuous gradient that runs from MSRP to 2x MSRP or more. When you have specific capacities for towing and payload that you’re after, plus some other options, it gets complex. The manufacturer’s site did not allow faceted search at the level that I wanted, so I wrote software to scrape the inventory, parse the option codes and stick the results in a Sqlite file so I could track inventory in the region.
Maybe universities should consider adding an optional box to specify if the applicant is willing to give up their potential seat for an affirmative action candidate. /s
Hey thanks for this! I'm a senior dev and I just left my job. I'm going to be learning and studying full time but hopefully it doesn't take an entire year before I can get a job
Will Epic's games be soon available in Steam, then?
> if you judge everyone by (objective) standard tests, Goodhart's Law takes effect, and we breed a generation of highly optimized test takers.

As opposed to a generation of people highly optimized for a fuzzier metric that nevertheless exists. I know a bunch of graduates from elite universities who all just happened to be really into debate/mock trials/mock UN, competed at the national/international level at obscure sports, founded a school newspaper (we had five new school newspapers every year because everyone wanted to be a founder, few of them last once the founder graduates), "founded" a "business", etc in high school[1]. They're all in consulting/banking/law/ML now. Mildly obfuscating the metric doesn't actually make Goodhart's law go away, it just means you have to be in the right crowd to game the metric.

[1] I, on the other hand, actually liked maths and became one of your "highly optimized test takers". Funnily enough, all the elite American schools said no, while Oxford said yes. I am now a PhD student (in maths) at one of the elite American institutions that rejected me as a high school student.[2] If you have a scarce resource, and a system that distributes it, people are going to game the system. The trick is to have better tests so you can't study to the test without actually, you know, learning.

Take a look at the SAT (subject) math section. That's the test that should be distinguishing between the student that goes to Harvard and the student that "merely" goes to Georgia Tech. Obviously it can do no such thing, it's way too easy. This is by design. The American system does not want to distinguish between the top 3% and the 0.5%, because then Harvard would have to take the poor genius over the solidly talented but unexceptional rich legacy kid whose dad is worth billions and will donate tens of millions.

Now take a look at the MAT, the maths test that tells you if you'll be going to Oxford or Imperial. Or the STEP, the analogous test for Cambridge.

[2] Disclaimer: I may be a little bitter to this day. In my defence, I teach the wannabe consultants now, and while some of them are legitimately very competent, boy does the system have false positives.
What was so bad about it?
which suburb?
I view that today's labor market and education system are interdependent on one another, so I don't think we disagree in that regard.

> Status is always bound to be a scarce good

I think this hits the core of the problem. The REAL problem is that these institutions are more or less made in our image. Many people want prestige, status, power, so people create institutions that have zero-sum dynamics. Some people observe that this is just how the world works and will always work. But I'd like to think such observation is more of a complacent justification for the status quo. I believe we have the capacity to innovate for increased sustainability in our institutions and more importantly our lives.
Google actually allows this deal. Netflix, Amazon, I think even Tinder do it.

I didn't post to show Apple is breaking rules. I wanted to show they were 'freeloading', the same thing they are accusing Spotify and Epic of . They aren't worried about 'user experience, security and convenience' here.

Google has a problem with games like Fortnite and PUBG, because then they would lose too much. Kids spend millions on Fortnite.
I would argue the reverse.

I have a HomePod and not an alexa or Google device because Apple has shown it cares about privacy. That's user-centric. Sure, we could be incredibly cynical in saying that "well because you buy it then it is actually Apple-centric", but they clearly care about privacy.

Google to me is entirely Google-centric, which means harvesting as much data about me as possible to sell to advertisers.

I'm fine with Apple's walled garden. It works really, really well. People love iPhones for more than just marketing and status. They're excellent phones. And a not-insignificant piece of that experience is an ecosystem fits together nicely, with central control. Infinite choice isn't better for most people.
IMO the Google vs Apple, Apple vs Epic Games and all other similar cases are secondary. My main issue with Apple is that it is violating user rights - the users, who owns the device - should have the freedom of doing any thing they want (including installing any app they want) with the device. It's not Apple's place to arbitrarily decide what I can or cannot do with my phone.
I get the impulse. But think it through. There is no real possibility that the claim I made is actually false. Of course not every Google employee upvotes Google submissions and not every upvote is from a Google employee. But the influence is clearly large enough to have a huge amount of undue influence.

And how is:

1 point by starfox9833 (Google) 22 minutes ago

not pseudoanonymous? Google has 100k employees.

HN already has email addresses for many (most?) users and could easily map most of those to LinkedIn accounts one way or another. It also knows the IP addresses of users, which are often coming from FAANG corporate networks (at least pre-Covid).

It might cost some amount of theoretical privacy but gain us a huge amount freedom from the dominance of a few major organizations.
> If a console maker charges 10% of revenue it's OK, but if Apple charges 30% it's illegal?

There no such clear cut on what is acceptable or not. In fact, typically console makers charges much more than 10% but not much companies are complaining about that because it's more negotiable compared to the app store situation. The court may decide how to remedy this, but the decision won't be made simply based on the app store cut but take care of other contexts as well.

The real issue is, Apple has designed their product in order to retain complete control on potential customer facing interactions and is blatantly exercising their market power. The game platforms are usually not in a position to do so. Android might be slightly better but IMO this also needs to be addressed.

> There has to be some reasonable standard you can apply that will make sense across time and across companies/industries. What is that standard?

The existing antitrust framework is already capable of handling this app store situation; even assuming Apple is not a dominant player (which is a very optimistic assumption in favor of Apple; app store is likely a monopoly based on hypothetical monopolist test), tying iPhone, App Store and its payment module already brings significant legal risks. Though it still needs to evolve to address other situations such as Amazon or Google.
1984 is still a very popular book to assign in schools.

It's both. The cleverness of this ad isn't just that those that get the reference think it's a great riff but if you don't get the reference that means your first time seeing this legendary ad is not for the Mac but about this issue. In either case it's a great success for awareness and the hashtag at the end doesn't hurt either. Also it's not just an ad they put on YouTube this plays as a cinematic when players launch Fortnite right now.

And of course it's all planned. Not only is it perfect timing to do this but mere minutes after getting banned they posted legal action and pushed a cinematic in game. You can't just do that instantly without having known.
I agree, except 1984 is searchable and kids know how to search:

https://www.google.com/search?q=1984
That a company is obligated to do absolutely anything that will increase revenue is a position often advanced on the internet and never supported.

You cannot have a bonfire and literally burn the companies wealth in your backyard. One may in fact weigh the tangible and non tangible benefits of different courses of actions and make an intelligent decision.

This is covered ably in this article by Cornell

https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/academics/clarke_business_...

If I may reproduce the most relevant segment.

>Third, corporate directors are not required to maximize shareholder value. As the U.S. Supreme Court recently stated, "modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so." ( BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC. ) In nearly all legal jurisdictions, disinterested and informed directors have the discretion to act in what they believe to be the interest of the business corporate entity, even if this differs from maximizing profits for present shareholders. Usually maximizing shareholder value is not a legal obligation, but the product of the pressure that activist shareholders, stock-based compensation schemes and financial markets impose on corporate directors.

Additional reading is linked for the interested.
> This is Tizen, and it doesn't support Android apps at all. It's a completely different operating system, so not entirely clear why Sumsung would want Android apps on it.

It would be impossible to launch a new platform without compatibility for existing apps. There's no way to gain enough developer mindshare to become a serious alternative otherwise.

Jolla had Android app compatibility from the launch in addition to the platform native apps, as they knew that's the only option really.
Nintendo should be forced to allow homebrew games/sideloading. These locked down bits of hardware are a disservice to society.
Add some kind of markup around keys and values in the PDF. While it's important to know the desired field values, their position on the page could be necessary as well.

If you have access to a large number of vendors (invoice templates), these templates are going to be really valuable for creating better models. If you provide samples as a free/open dataset, you could make all invoice models that use your dataset, even if developed by other companies, better on your distribution.
I'm using a 2012 model, won't ever replace it unless it breaks. Has been working perfectly with all updates and upgrades for 5+yrs
I think this sentiment is a few years too late.
While the selection criteria seems pretty subjective, if you want a chance at winning the $10K grant then your work should focus on business growth. They mention examples like launching V1, but the criteria has no real focus on product progress or technical achievements.

In fact, it seems like simply running a successful marketing campaign for your preexisting product would set you up for success in this "sprint".

More specifically, the selection criteria reads:

A panel of qualified judges determined by Sponsor (YC) in its sole discretion will select as the Winners the Participants with the twenty highest-scoring Submissions from among all eligible Submissions received by the Submission Deadline based on the following criteria:

* Participant’s revenue or prospects for revenue in the near term (25%)

* Participant’s business growth as measured by an increase in users, increase in revenues, progress in bookings or improvement in the Participant’s objectives (“Business Growth”) (25%)

* Scalability of Participant’s business (25%)

* Feasibility of implementing Participant’s proposed business objectives (25%)

Source: https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1YSvivbXQGTH8bHLTfIwj...
I wouldn’t have ML engineers doing ML. They should be working on scaffolding, maintenance, production side, etc. The worst ML scientists (producing ML models) I’ve experienced were software developers who transitioned.
> I mean, I see a ton of articles of "newly discovered species" that the locals knew about ages ago. As well as "newly discovered pharmaceuticals" or any of that other stuff. I never attributed this to some kind of patriarchy or male worldview. I think it's totally rational to argue that sometimes the scientific method, which was developed in a european country, takes time to catch up to local knowledge in non-european countries.

Knowledge is more than beliefs that happen to be true. I don't think you can necessarily say that the locals "knew" about a particular species when they didn't have a functional definition of speciation, or "knew" about pharmaceutical properties of certain flora and fauna when they also "knew" about other pharmaceutical properties that were actually not the case.
Unfair rules should not always be followed.

This is probably the most important question: what is fair in a world where there are technological platform providers that are essentially creating two-sided markets of vast size and value? If the platform provider is in a dominant position, their actions or inaction could significantly harm participants in the market. Should they then be permitted to impose their own terms and charges on one or both sides of that market arbitrarily, or should there be some form of regulatory intervention in the interests of the participants in the market (from either side)? And to what extent should competition in whatever form be a factor in this?

There are many examples of harm where a single platform has a kind of quasi-monopoly and/or quasi-monopsony status. Aside from the current topic, consider Google's dominance of web search, and the corresponding effects it can have on web developers, advertisers and searchers. Other online marketplace services might qualify as well if they have come to dominate their niche. Then we have the manufacturers of many other types of device, such as cars or smart home control systems, which are also relatively high value purchases and "sticky", but where clearly there will be an ecosystem building up around them. It may not be in the interests of either the purchaser or those who would provide related products or services to be locked into whatever arrangements the manufacturer wants to impose.

We already have precedent for overriding the wishes of manufacturers in some instances in order to protect more vulnerable parties to the arrangements. For example, various regulatory authorities have acted to prevent car manufacturers from restricting their vehicles in such a way that only approved dealers can repair or service them, and of course there is the wider "right to repair" movement that is based on a similar principle.

But as ever, the law has not necessarily kept pace with the rapid evolution of technologies, and even if certain actions may be legal today as a result, that doesn't necessarily mean they should remain so.
Much of astronomy and astrophysics, for one, doesn’t even have the concept of experiments. They observe past behavior and predict future behavior, but they can’t do anything like the causal trials that define other sciences. Same with geology, the study of weather (sorry I’m blanking on the term), and some fields of biology. Anything that it is impossible to causally affect in a lab.
> They literally got caught for agreeing not to poach each other’s employees.

For anyone who is wondering, Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, Pixar, Lucasfilm and eBay all colluded with each other[1] in order to keep tech employee compensation below market rate.

Also, it's worth mentioning that the layman discussion around whether Apple and/or Google fits the dictionary definition definition of a monopoly is a red herring. The government doesn't determine whether or not a trust is a monopoly based on that definition[2]:

> Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...

[2] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
You can distribute an app for free if you pay Apple $99?
Any more than you can be a credible steward of Republican employees as a Democrat? It is possible to set aside your personal views of people on the job…
You could just not read them. Look at the comments, if you find them useless, just move on instead of talking about whether or not this should be "allowed" because you don't like what some people are saying.
> Why can’t we vote in person

Right now? Pandemic.

In general? Because in-person voting is desirable only if your goal is voter suppression and people voting party lines only with minimal investigation of the individuals on the ballot.
This is so interesting because you could watch a 5 minute video on "limited liability" and dissolve all of those fears.

The company concept is a shield. Money is allowed to pass through to you, outside capital is not a tax event and everything you spend is deducted against the much smaller salary you paid yourself. You can have negative AGI, actually have a high compensation, and still get $1,200 checks signed by the President.

Risk is allowed to stay with the company, whether it has anything left to pay to the aggrieved investor or not. This knowledge alone acts as a deterrent to many risks.

You're really overthinking this.
Voting for and supporting the wrong side is part of the democratic process.

As far as we know Eich was never biased or prejudiced on on that topic as work, his co-workers in that minority never even realized that he held such political opinions, and there is no reason to think he thought lesser of them. He simply wished for the laws not to change.
That's an interesting question.
Couldn't they distribute a "Fortnite loader" through Play store? Since Fortnite is free-to-play, the loader wouldn't charge anything, so it wouldn't technically violate any policy. Seems like an interesting workaround to avoid giving Google the paycut.
Bill Gates on Covid Vaccine Timing, Hydroxychloroquine, and 5G Conspiracy Theory
> Users who want Apple's version of safety and security can stick with the default configuration on their devices and install apps only from Apple's store, just like today.

> while users who insisted on sticking with only Apple's store wouldn't have the same range of apps available to them.

Exactly. From my perspective my i-devices get worse if that happens, for exactly that reason. I'm stuck choosing between availability of software and safety & consistency. Again. Like everywhere else.

> I fail to see how this would restrict consumer choice more than the status quo.

Clearly, the choice of being able to buy a phone or tablet where 100% of the apps available on it, and 100% of payments for digital services in apps, go through one app store and one payment system, would be gone. My choice to buy a device that works that way would be gone, and i-devices would join literally all the other choices I have which do not work that way.
For the majority of those on HN who didn't witness the live event this is a pretty good summary. It really took me back to that day as our entire family was glued to our black and white TV watching the man known to all as Uncle Walter. Watching President Nixon twitch a bit was the only tell that this wasn't real.

Got me to imagining the video where Eisenhower confesses D-Day was a failure, the actual speech he wrote does exist.
Have we checked for extraterrestrial influnce? Seriously it is Larry Niven's straight out of the Known Space's series Puppeteer plot.

In all seriousness it works well if you have a pool sufficiently quality homogenous but would tend towards the mean of the pool.
Isn't Fortnite just some game?
Not this reductionist view of the display poster at the National Museum of African American History and Culture, yet again. "Champions" of "science" love to flash this every time they feel threatened by someone who thinks differently.

Science is fine, science is strong, science is right, science will survive. And, also, at the same time, other people are allowed to have other world-views, and still benefit from science. They are interpreting the world in their own way, and that's OK. They are not threatening you or science, and that doesn't mean they reject science in the scientific realm either. Nor is anyone forcing you to acknowledge they are right in your world-view, but you do have to recognize you don't get to tell them what theirs should be. Western culture is just now discovering that it doesn't need to subjugate and extinguish those other views.

Also, what a twisted way to introduce partisan politics into a discussion and denigrate the other side by associating them with all the anti-science you can name. Personally, I will put more credence in an ancient world-view such as an Australian Aborigine as opposed to a new age pagan, but more power to them to refine their approach to the world.