skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The antivax group DOES have actual arguments. If you have kids and they have complications from the vaccines maybe you'll do the research needed to help them through their suffering like my wife and I had to do when our 5 year old started screaming, pissing herself and rocking uncontrollably.
I find the connection between the increased connectivity afforded by the Internet and the widespread miasma of supernaut syndrome quite astute. To my knowledge, I haven't seen much serious discussion of this.

In other words, it probably isn't healthy that we are regularly subjected to what is marketed as the best/brightest/most-anything in whatever category we're looking for information on. There's nothing wrong with this, except for the fact that continued exposure to it can change our view on the type of work that _we_ need to be doing to make our way through the world. It might be an overreach, but it smells a lot like the mind virus of so-called incels: "I'm not remarkable, so why do I have worth?"

Escaping that requires an enormous amount of energy.

The truth is pretty much tautological: "you have worth because you exist."
I don't think so, short of setting up robust ad blocking. Start with Firefox + Privacy Badger + uBlock Origin, for example.
> The chutzpah of "big wind" profiteers! pushing their deadly renewables, part of a shadowy cabal holding back the nuclear future.

If you have a point, go ahead and make it. Hiding behind sarcasm is a bit weak intellectually and I believe is frowned upon on this site. There's a trend in society where people say sarcastic stuff to each other in an effort to put the other tribe down and 'show them' how silly they are. I believe this is deeply counter productive and extraordinarily silly. I invite you to resist such tribalistic urges.

Also, I never said 'big wind'. That was you injecting a strawman element so you can counter it with your sarcasm. Like the sarcasm, modifying what I said in order to attack it is also a very weak form of argumentation.

> he does have a PhD in particle physics

We have a different epistemic perspective. Very different. I guess you can say I don't like sophism.

> but it is nonetheless good journalism

I'll invite you to read the definition of journalism and try to objectively consider if this article fits it:

> Journalism is unbiased production and distribution of reports on current or past events based on facts and supported with proofs or evidences.
Nobody Wants More
it's not because of the Tour de France type of "cycling", but rather because of this:

"Steroids are often used in patterns called "cycling." This involves taking multiple doses of steroids over a specific period of time, stopping for a period, and starting again."

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/ster...
Even more convenient is the metre, defined as the distance travelled in one such second by light in a vacuum divided by 299,792,458, and "only within a spatial extent sufficiently small that the effects of the non-uniformity of the gravitational field can be ignored."
Agree, the author doesn't paint the picture of what might be coming. Would love to hear from the HN crowd on what's coming next in API design. I see a lot of buzz around grpc, will this be the next standard?
I have a different view :)

I feel this book is the ideal companion for intermediate to advanced Python developers/data scientists. People who know pandas pretty well, and so are comfortable with numpy array operations too. They have probably used scikit-learn's fit/predict API in a black-box way, but have never quite had time to look at the code underneath.

I love "ML from Scratch" because it leverages my math and Python/numpy knowledge (even if some of it is rusty and half-forgotten) to show me high quality, well-commented, mathematically rigorously explanations of how I might have implemented the types of algorithms I use from sklearn. While the maths is formal, it is totally straightforward in its presentation.

It will definitely be my bedtime reading for the next few nights.
HiSmile Teeth Built a Multi-Milion Dollar Empire Using Influencers
"Steroids are often used in patterns called "cycling." This involves taking multiple doses of steroids over a specific period of time, stopping for a period, and starting again."

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/ster....
Just an anecdote but if you go to most baseball data departments, where there is real competition between teams, you don't just have PHds. You have people with undergrads/domain knowledge, and people with PHds.

This isn't to say that PHd knowledge isn't valuable but if you look at firms in finance that have had success with data i.e. RenTech, they hire very smart people with PHds but it isn't only the PHd. You need someone who has the knowledge AND someone who has common sense/can get results. That is very hard to do correctly (and yes, some people who come from academia literally do not want anything to do with business...it is like the devs who come from a CS PHd and insist on using complicated algo and data structure everywhere, optimising every line, etc.).
I have an American one, but they don't handle international. Part of that good old American insularity, "what's A4"?
But thank you.
We need to find a drone motor that produces more laminar and less turbulent flow than the current ducted fans do.
That article is clearly not saying that you shouldn't read philosophy at all. It's arguing that there is a lot of crap philosophy, but there's plenty of articles arguing there's a lot of crap physics, psychology, and economics. That doesn't mean we should do that research.

Edit: Actually, rereading this article, the author is clearly saying basically the opposite. The author is saying philosophy is useful if it is critical.

"""Unfortunately, many important problems are fundamentally philosophical problems. Philosophy itself is unavoidable. How can we proceed?"""

How can you point to this article as proof that we shouldn't be studying philosophy when the article says it is unaviodable?
CX Can Drive Your Revenue and Growth
New Architectures, Much Faster Chips
I think this is the right response.

OP is complaining about the workflow/process not about the tool. Instead of all that big process described, the team could simply git-clone upstream, work on their local main (formerly master) branches, then "git commit && git push && git pull" all the time and that's it: you got your old workflow back, but now with git.
Yeah, you've got a good point. I've been trying to focus on stressing less recently especially over my job.

I'm just a super type-A, "wanna make an impact" kinda guy and I know this sounds dumb but I feel like I'm letting mental weakness "win" if I don't tough it out. Just writing it out, I know it sounds nonsensical.

I guess I just want to make sure things are good and thoroughly fucked before I bail, you know? ha
A few ideas to put out there:

1. Emphasize synchronization over imperative API calls. Imperative APIs encourage data silos. They are the underlying technical part of the problem that Zapier and ITTT try to solve. See [0] and [1] for some ideas.

2. Allow users to submit "agents" rather than "requests." An agent is a small program given extremely limited resources (limited process/memory/runtime budget) that you can safely run on your server. It is a possible answer to many of the standards/protocols that wouldn't exist if frontends were running on the same machines as backends. [2]

3. Emphasize composition over integration. Functions compose (nest, recurse). Event emitters don't. As long as APIs are built to be integrated rather than composed, making them work together is a full-time or full-company job (eg. Zapier).

4. Make things immutable. Immutability allows APIs to "play" with one another without fear of setting off the nukes (ie. side effects). It's possible that this approach would make it so that integrating two APIs becomes a job for ML/AI rather than humans.

[0] https://github.com/braid-work/braid-spec

[1] https://writings.quilt.org/2014/05/12/distributed-systems-an...

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23900749
I don’t think it’s fair to say what’s readable to new developers is the same as what’s readable to experienced developers nor even every developer.

For example the terse style of Sexpressions or C-style braces are off putting to some but after a short while they become second nature to visually parse (not saying all code should follow
Those idioms, just using that as an example of how readability changes with experience). On the other hand I never found it as straightforward visually parsing the “word soup” of named arguments when using languages that favoured it. While those languages were easier to learn the basics, they quickly became tiresome to write larger code bases with.

But I guess this just boils down to personal preference.
I imagine this correlates to the "blockchain" postings.
iOS App Developers make around $35B a year. I don’t directly get paid much by it anymore because I shut down my App company.

But I have made a very good contracting rate and very high salaries for iOS development directly because of that $35B. Your own app company doesn’t have to be a winner, when the winners need a massive number of developers and have such a fountain of cash to pay them with.
Doesn't the .name TLD exist for this reason?

.UK tld domains were also reserved for the existing .co.uk owners etc for a while
Totally great and precise.
To clarify, side-loaded apps are only signed with a certificate valid for 7 days if you're on a regular, non-developer Apple account. If you pay $99/yr for the developer account, that is increased to 1 year.

There are workarounds being worked on for this - one being AltStore [1] (does not allow arbitrary IPAs yet).

You can also sideload on Windows/Linux with Cydia Impactor[0] - on Mac you can use either impactor or xcode/CLI tools to sign IPAs.

0: http://www.cydiaimpactor.com/

1: https://altstore.io/
This is an excellent answer, thank you. I suppose the only remaining discomfort I anticipate is if you have an internal abstraction that might one day be exposed externally in a library. That refactoring doesn’t seem fun, but I suppose these things rarely sneak up on you.
I am not sure why UUID is really not that "secure" since the security properties are coming mostly from used PRNG. v4 is mostly just random 16 bytes that is the same as key length for AES-128.
Thanks for the feedback. Sounds like you're not alone in your thoughts on numpy. I'll brainstorm better solutions--maybe explaining each numpy function in a side note or adding a numpy overview to the appendix. It just makes things so much easier so I am hesitant to go numpy-less.

Getting started was definitely the hardest part. I put the book together with JupyterBook (https://jupyterbook.org/intro.html), which I would highly recommend! Really neat tool and a helpful community.
I think you're stuck on the politics. Level3 is their competition but initially CF was blamed. CF owes it to their customers and investors to explain to them why they had an outage and how they responded to it, and they do not need talk in detail about an unrelated past incident (just because it was related to flowspec does not mean it was a similar outage), and they certainly should not wait for Level3's investigation.

I would expect Google to have a similar explanation if a significant number of GCP customers faced an outage.

You should know, it wasn't just someone else's network that went down, that network brought down a big chunk of the internet with it. I think technical honesty comes before political appearances. The #hugops and mention of their past experience with a flowspec outage is clearly there to signal that the blogpost is not there for blaming or making L3 look bad.
I've always thought it was funny how whites moving from the city to the suburbs is bad (white flight) and whites moving from the suburbs to the city is also bad (gentrification).
Apps for a Better Newsletter Reading Experience
I can't seem to find that course on Coursera; was it removed?
>Autonomous systems are great when things are going well, but at the end of the day they fare very poorly in edge cases sometimes with catastrophic results. [...] All in all, while technologically I feel this could have been pulled off yesterday, I doubt we will see fully autonomous aircraft operating long routes in controlled airspace anytime soon.

You're correct that edge cases are tricky, but you've made the mistake of forgetting the other possible half of dealing with them that full robotics makes possible: simply sufficiently reduce the cost of edge failure. An aircraft with humans on board crashing is a tragedy, even if it's in the middle of nowhere. In general a cargo aircraft carrying mass produced goods crashing in the middle of nowhere is merely a financial statistic. By far the trickiest part of flying is takeoff/landing and navigation on the ground. But players with shipping volume at the level of FedEx, UPS, USPS or probably even Amazon/Walmart alone can flat out afford their own dedicated airports. With no existing path dependency, they can easily build them quite a ways from population.

This completely changes the calculus and possible responses. If something goes badly wrong on takeoff/landing or at the automated airport itself, it just costs money. There is financial incentive for the players to figure it out, but it doesn't involve anyone else. And once at flight given modern aircraft glide ratios, there is no place on the planet that doesn't have ocean/empty land within glide range. For human flights, ditching the plane as safely as possible, or hopefully making it all the way to an airport, are critical considerations. For a robot plane though experiencing an all-engine out just specifically ordering it to crash somewhere without anyone around is mostly okay (there will be some environmental pollution, but it'd be trivial on humanity's list of environmental damage, and the operator could be fined for cleanup). Robot aircraft could even flat out be equipped with self-destruct systems like the range safety systems rockets have.

So for the specific domain of dedicated cargo craft it seems reasonable that fully autonomous control could exist far ahead of human transport simply by virtue of being more expendable and having infrastructure purpose built exclusively for it in ways that are impractical elsewhere.
I see they're in the UK. Perfect! and thanks.
What all of these distros basically do is some non-trivial amount of integration of existing software, and configuring/patching it for PinePhone, presumably.

Not sure about manjaro specifically, but it looks like it will be another phosh based distro. Their forum will probably have more info eventually:

https://forum.manjaro.org/t/pinephone-will-ship-with-manjaro...
It' funny to me that both sides of american politics would claim they agree with this while saying it's the other side who wants to divide people and they are both right.

The left wants to include all of the traditionally divided groups on the surface but want's to divide those groups on new terms, gender, class, politics themselves(if you aren't with us you are against us)

The right wants interpersonal solidarity (we can accept people individually as long as they let me be) but still likes the nationalistic and anti immigrant rhetoric.

They both would end up back at some kind highly restrictive, facist like end point if left unchecked in my opinion.

The right causes more damage in the short term in my opinion, things like immigrant detention camps, civil liberties abuses through the police courts and prisons.

The left scares me more in the long run because unlike the right, they believe that they hold the correct pure set of ideas(many subgroups in the left think this although the left as a whole can't agree on what the pure set of ideas is) and are much more willing to claim the ends justify the means for any given topic and claim the rules don't apply to them (look at things like the CHOP as an example). Most of my slightly left of democrat friends if really pressed to define what they support end up supporting the violent seizure of assets from groups they feel like have to much (IE an armed populist revolution, the irony being it's the other side who has all the guns)

I know this isn't the place for any of this but this stuff bothers me recently and I hate how if you don't pick a side you are always the bad guy.
Where would you find parking for a hundred thousand cars? You can't really get protests like this without a dense city:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/March_fo...
If Apple wants to control its developers, it should hire them and pay them wages and benefits.

The app store is just another version of the gig economy, and Apple is stomping around it like a typical tyrannical boss.

Of course that is anti-consumer behaviour. It means Apple lacks a professional and credible relationship with its developers, and that clearly lowers the quality, the variety, and the accessibility of the apps for sale in the store.
It was more intuitive back in the day when everybody knew Perl.
I saw this study from southern California. They provide risk ratios for different factors. Seems just being male have a higher risk ratio than being overweight.

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-3742#f1-M203742
Yes they contain a number for each dimension. Not sure what you think the point of debating individual words like this? What practical problems do you think there are?
Similar thing happened to me except for Facebook instead of Twitter. Created an account, almost instantly suspended, scanned and sent in a copy of my driver's license as they requested and then after checking weeks later saw my account was permanently banned with no chance to appeal or know why.
Don't forget data cleaning. A huge issue I've seen is just getting sufficient data of a high enough quality.

Also, (for supervised classification problems) labelling is a big problem.

It is almost as if we need a "data janitor" title.
It failed because dozenal is superior.
But the US could have just bought the oil on the open markets.

In 2008, the US imported 600.000 barrels of oil per day from Irak -- that's when oil peaked at ~150 -- but if the whole year the oil stayed at 150$/barrel, and the US just stole it without paying Irak anything, that's just 32 billion USD.

It would take the US 60 years to recuperate all the money it would have spent on Irak war if it was to steal all the oil from Irak at the levels of 2008, or 380 years at todays import levels and valuations (assuming the oil was war booty -- it is not).

There is no way the war was started over oil, that would be beyond dumb.

My personal theory is it was just the industrial-military oligarchs who started the war as to forever saddle the US taxpayer.
The HP 35s Scientific Calculator is a fantastic calculator and has fractional arithmetic support. I reach for it in the shop frequently.
Some positions require on-site but we're open to remote and have quite a few remote folks already.
This particular set of examples is especially ambiguous because "splitBy" can be read two different ways: as a description of the result (noun having been split by a separator) or as an action (subject split direct object by a separator). Which one you choose will subtly affect the way you group the arguments. Conventions in functional programming tend to prefer the former, whereas imperative (including OOP) languages prefer the latter. Either way, however, the string which directly follows `splitBy` should be the separator. In the functional example:

-- Is this correct?
splitBy "," "1,2,3,4,5"

-- or this?
splitBy "1,2,3,4,5" ","

there really is no question that the first version is correct. Even oversimplifying as the article does and treating "basic English" as the only applicable domain knowledge, I'm not likely to read "split by ',' …" as an instruction to split the string "," by some other separator. To understand how the second string fits in you need more than basic English, because English doesn't have that sort of syntax. However, once you learn that it parses as `(splitBy ",") "1,2,3,4,5"` the result is pretty obvious.

In the OOP language example the second version with the string knowing how to split itself, as it were, does make more sense than the first version. The target of the method is always the subject, and the method name is usually read as a verb, with parameters as direct or indirect objects. (Read as: String "1,2,3,4,5" (S), split yourself (V) by the string "," (I.O.).) However, in functional programming the bias is exactly the opposite, because functional programming is about programming with first-class functions on data, not performing actions. You could easily arrange to write:

"1,2,3,4,5" `splitBy` ","

in Haskell using infix notation, and it even reads fairly well reinterpreted as English prose. However, defining `splitBy` this way would imply the curried prefix version:

splitBy ","

would not be a function that splits its input by ",", as one would expect, but rather one that splits "," by its input. Which just goes to show that not every function is well suited for both infix and prefix notation. Whichever version you choose needs to be used consistently. In general the convention has been to define multi-parameter functions such that they can easily be used as combinators, via currying, which seems fitting to me given the nature of functional programming. Functions which are designed to read well as infix operators usually require operator sections or `flip` to adapt them for use as combinators.

> I think, in general, requiring named arguments is a good thing.

I have no objection to optional named parameters, but making them required would necessarily eliminate currying and simple function composition, and that I have a problem with. Record parameters with named fields are generally sufficient for the situations where named parameters are useful, especially since they're ordinary data which you can manipulate at will and not some special syntax baked into the language just for function calls.
FWIW the Oil project was partly (negatively) inspired by the very helpful description of bash's architecture:

https://aosabook.org/en/bash.html

The maintainer expresses some regret about the parser architecture. I referenced this in several 2016-2017 blog posts:

OSH Parses Shell Scripts Up Front in a Single Pass. Other Shells Don't - http://www.oilshell.org/blog/2016/10/13.html

OSH Can Be Parsed With Two Tokens of Lookahead - http://www.oilshell.org/blog/2016/11/17.html

The Thinner Waist of the Interpreter - http://www.oilshell.org/blog/2017/01/26.html

Word Evaluation - http://www.oilshell.org/blog/2017/03/09.html

----

This principled architecture ended up paying off in a couple unexpected ways, which I wrote about earlier this year:

Oil Uses Its Parser For History And Completion - http://www.oilshell.org/blog/2020/01/history-and-completion....

Oil's Parser Doesn't Worry About Aliases and Prompts - http://www.oilshell.org/blog/2020/01/alias-and-prompt.html

Summary: in addition to the regrets expressed by the maintainer in the article, bash actually has multiple ad hoc, incorrect parsers for its own language! They are incorrect to the point that a separate project (bash-completion) has code to paper over the errors.

Oil uses the same parser for all use cases. Moreover, its parser isn't littered with orthogonal concerns like the interactive prompt and expanding aliases.

----

However I still need help finishing the project -- see what I've cut here: http://www.oilshell.org/blog/2020/08/risks.html

And feel free to contact me (address on home page and in profile)