skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Fortunately, the science here me to indicate the opposite: the less code you have, the fewer defects per LoC you'll have

I judged things conditional on the fact that a bug exists. If you apply the technique of counting bugs/loc blindly you may end up favouring longer, more tangled code. Think about it this way: if your goal is low bugs/loc then when a bug shows up you will be incentivized to fix it in a way that increases loc, instead maybe of simplifying thing. This will lead to fewer bugs and lower bug density.
Would be interesting to see this dip relative to other tech subfields like javascript/react or even data science and other such keywords. Does anyone know of a public LinkedIn dataset?

The author disables tweet replies so I'm not sure where they get their numbers from.
And you cannot deploy it easily...
Should Google’s Ad Market Be Regulated Like the Stock Market?
My probably-flawed remembrance of the situation, as a Debian (2001+)/Gentoo(2004-8) user:

Canonical showed up to the party with a substantial concerted and sustained effort of funding/developers to take the existing Debian framework and make it more user-friendly.

In particular, Ubuntu was willing to package substantially non-free software into the experience. Things like Flash just worked most of the time. There was a substantial emphasis on usability, so that Linux-on-the-desktop could reach people with less background knowledge (everyone was doing this, of course, but Ubuntu seemed to put less emphasis on other things).

When Ubuntu emerged, Debian users were concerned that Ubuntu would take over the DFSG-software world and make it, in the long run, less free. What turned out to happen, in this case, was that the approachability of Ubuntu, built atop the Debian foundation, drew many more users away from RedHat/Fedora and ultimately strengthened the Debian/Ubuntu userbase and ecosystem. The usability really mattered -- I've repaired the occasional Debian system with Ubuntu boot-disks simply because the drivers, at the time, worked better.

Thanks to the intrinsic properties of open-source development, many of the good things about Ubuntu have found their way into Debian (and GNU/Linux at large). The Debian of today is a much more-readily usable experience than the Debian of 2004 thanks to the work of a great many people.
I can confirm that Mobian is pretty good. And I'd love a community edition of it.
Atheists Are More Likely to Sleep Better
OTOH the same logic would be to blame google when sites are using blackhat SEO. AFAIK pinterest does do greyhat (at best seo): they scrape images, feed them to google image search to get the best tags, and add then to the post.
Is that what he is celebrated as these days? Which country takes pride in this composer these days?
Ah I somehow assumed the author may have posted this because of the blogspot link.
Do you test new grads for their political skills? I don't.
Fortran, COBOL, BASIC, Algol, and Lisp peaked well before C was popular (in some cases peaked before C existed), and Algol (obviously), Pascal, Python, and Ruby, are all languages in the Algol-derived syntax family, like C.

Visual Basic is probably the biggest success of a non-Algol-derived general purpose language after the dominance of C as anything other than mostly-legacy.

There are some others (Erlang, some Lisp-family languages [recently Clojure], some ML family languages) but languages with Algol-derived syntax are still far and away dominant.

There's also lots of not-general-purpose languages without Algol syntax (SQL, for instance.)
That’s where the term legal tender comes from. Society is legally mandated to accept whatever is determined by the government as legal tender for the settlement of debts. However, this does not include everyday transactions, only the settlement of debt. A trader can accept or deny any currency or form of barter as long as it is not for the settlement of debt.

This is why the Scots are wrong to get in a fuss about shops not accepting Scottish bank notes, as shops are not legally obligated to accept them as legal tender does not apply in this case. Also, Scottish bank notes are not actually legal tender anyway.
You don't need a phone number. But it is not obvious how you can get an account without one.
Learning Kubernetes: The Need for a Realistic Playground
FYI: 12 Monkeys was not a documentary.
There's a fairly simple explanation, when you think about it.

They arranged to have the simulation in our universe turned off, but not to have all simulations turned off -- there's no way they could do the latter. So they ended up in a simulation run by someone who'd started off by simulating Earth, and who -- more likely than not -- were especially interested in embedded simulations.

Embedded simulations like theirs, but also like the Autoverse, and whoever it is was interested enough that they'd violate the simulated physics of Earth to keep simulating the cellular automaton despite the physics of Earth saying it should be shut off.

Viewed from that perspective, the ending is... not predictable, exactly, but at least plausible.
Correction: Most company workflows did not use branching and mandatory code review because they started 10+ years ago and that was not widespread practice at the time... for a variety of reasons.

Usability has always been a problem as well as tooling support (merging algorithms really used to suck and generate conflicts all over the place, not specific to SVN or to git). Git made some things easier and some things harder. I'd personally rather have a sane command line interface (that I use every day) than the ability to track a rename twice a year.
Mistake #0: Not using the W3C Validator: https://validator.w3.org/
Mentioning context does not mean the OP assumes equivalence.

It is context.
Latency and I also think it's just harder to read body language and back off of talking over. I was on an online panel a few months ago with people who I've appeared with before. We definitely did more talking over each other and not doing smooth handoffs than would have been the case in person.

I definitely have zero interest in wearing a headset for calls etc. unless the results are really amazing. Assuming the network is behaving (and people have a decent setup), video calls are fine.
You can tell google maps when you're going to be making the journey. Maybe you couldn't back when you tried. Related to worse search results, I don't know. But the fact that you're finding it less relevant doesn't mean it doesn't serve the needs of any user, but that it doesn't server your needs. And that's the point. Microsoft pushes people pretty hard towards bing, yet Google keeps coming on top, I assume people know about bing but are preferring google. They only need to be better than the competition they have.
> What I think is happening is that someone didn't like the process you had and tried to solve/replace that with a more modern way, e.g. having feature branch, release branches, master, etc... and that it easier to technically achieve with git than with svn.

Either that, or someone read up on what are often considered best practices with git, and then pushed that as the new process in order to be diligent when git was adopted.

There's not enough context to tell whether the process change is a solution to an actual problem or doing it because others are doing it, too.

Most of the stuff (feature branches, review of major merges) are good ideas to do, though, and something you begin to appreciate once you've got used to them. Honestly, I want a feature branch at approximately the point where I realize the feature change is going to take more than two commits or is nontrivial in almost any way. I'm not sure about requiring a review/approval for every little change if it's earlier in development, and I can understand frustration with that, but that's not really a tool-mandated process, as you say.
That is not what is guaranteed (nor at Hinkley Point C (HPC)), what is guaranteed that in the period a Mw produced for the grid is paid at least the strike price (but maybe more). Hinkley Point C will have have downtime for refuelling and other reasons. So needs to be paired with another power plant.

The CFD for hinkley point is available and is a few hundred pages.

Part of reason for the strike price with HPC is that they expected offshore to cost 85 GBP in 2025, while it costs 50 GBP in 2020.
So heavilly regulates you can hand out mortgages to people who can't afferd them, then turn around and package those loans intonCDOs, and mislead investors as to their liquidity. Then suffer no consequences when global economy crashes.
I'd rather run out of fuel and drift to a stop, instead of having a blowout and crash while driving at top speed. I'm not sure where the problem lies.
Unfortunately, nobody using a screen reader uses tabulation to navigate a page because it is slow and painful process. So, you might hide the element from the tabbing sequence, but it will show in browsing mode. Just tried it in MDN.
> Just because the current theories of GR and QM aren't easily extended to all regimes doesn't meant that there is some sort of hard boundary where the rules change. Our theories of the world don't affect how it works. The boundaries of our theories are not boundaries of the world.

Yes, absolutely agreed. My point was simply that we don't know how QM extends to macroscopic objects, not that there must be some hard boundary (though we can't exclude the possibility that there exists some hard boundary at some level of energy, just as we know that the Standard Model doesn't describe matter at certain high energies).

Until we have some unification of GR and QM, we can't say for sure that QM describes the macroscopic world, just as we can't say that GR describes the behaviors of particles. Most likely we will at some point find such a model, and find out exactly how QM applies to large systems - perhaps with some limits to uncertainty, similarly to how c acts as a limit to speeds.
> You can also write 333⅓m, no-one prevents you from using fractions with the metric system.

...except that nobody does. And that would pretty much void the entire point of the metric system, which is to "make the math easier" by making everything a power of 10.

> A division to 333.3+333.3+333.4 works to the satisfaction of all parties involved.

Sure, you can, but it's less satisfying.

Remember how we got here in the discussion:

A: "Miles are easier because you can divide by 3 evenly."

B: "How is the math easier? <Does math converting km to cm, miles to inches>"

Me: "How often do you convert miles to inches or km to cm, compared to how often do people have to divide distances by 3?"

I'm not saying that I think we should all stick with / switch back to using furlongs. On the whole I think having a simple universal system like the metric system is better. But there is a trade-off involved.
Some students are smarter than others – and that’s okay
I do think that that's a problem with esperanto, but large-scale things like that are only part of the problem. You could also, just as reasonably, frame it as a sort of, "Why don't more people learn esperanto?"

To that question, I found this YouTube polyglot explaining why he doesn't think esperanto is a language to learn raises some very good points: (https://youtu.be/n4AklOtfhMo - in french) The one I found compelling is that, in the absence of an economic motivator, you really need to fall in love with a language to remain motivated to learn it well. Where esperanto doesn't really have much of a cultural history or literary tradition, it just doesn't offer most people a lot to love.
That's because the four velocity is not really a velocity. The path of a particle through spacetime can be described by a function p(r) = (x(r),y(r),z(r),t(r)) that gives the position (x,y,z,t) as a function of a parameter r. This way the point p(r) traces out some path in spacetime.

Now, the same path is described by many different parameterizations. For example, if we pick q(r) = p(2r) that's the same path. The point varies twice as fast with r, but that has no physical meaning. The total path that is traced out in spacetime is still the same path. That is, the set {p(r) | r in [-∞,∞]} is the same as the set {q(r) | r in [-∞,∞]}, and it is only this set that has physical meaning.

In fact, we can also pick q(r) = p(r^3 + r) or some other parameter transformation.

We might look at the vector p'(r) tangent to the path. The length of this vector depends on the parameterization, but its direction doesn't. So p'(r)/|p'(r)| is a true physical property of the path, but the length |p'(r)| is just an artefact of the parameterization that we chose to describe the path.

In order to make the parameterization somewhat more canonical, we usually pick a parameterization where |p'(r)| = c. As it happens, the four velocity is defined to be p'(r) given this choice of parameterization.

So the length of the four velocity is c simply by definition. This statement has no physical meaning. The statement "we travel through time with the speed of light" is uninteresting. It tells you nothing about physics. It only tells you something about the conventions we use when we describe paths through spacetime. We could very well have picked the convention |p'(r)| = c/2, and then we'd have the statement "we travel through time with half the speed of light", or even |p'(r)| = 2c, and then we'd "travel through time with double the speed of light".

Given any path through spacetime whatsoever, we can pick a parameterization such that it travels through spacetime at the speed of light. So the condition that something travels through spacetime with the speed of light places no constraints on the path that it takes. The statement "we travel through spacetime with the speed of light" makes it sound like there are paths that do travel through spacetime with the speed of light, and there are paths that do not travel through spacetime with the speed of light, and physical particles go along paths of the first kind. This is wrong. There are no paths that do not travel through spacetime at the speed of light, because whether or not it does is a property of the parameterization that we choose to describe the path, not a property of the path itself.
I'd like to suggest a title change to somehow illuminate the fact that scientists are the ones doing it themselves, not the general public.
>That's what corporate bonds are. In the extreme, every as-yet-unpaid invoice on 30 or 90 terms creates a debt and "creates money".

No, there's a big difference, in that you don't have the right to redeem ("put") the corporate bond any time at face value.[1] You do have that right for the IOU that is your bank account. This allows two people to carry on as if they both are full owners of the dollar in the bank account (both the depositor and the business it was lent to), and that mechanism is what allows the money supply to increase.

When you don't have that right, you, as the corporate bond holder, know that you can only get the money out early by selling the bond at its current market rate, whatever that is, which may force you to take a discount. This expectation -- and the necessity to redeem it for someone else's dollars on the market -- prevents it from being money creation.

[1] There are "puttable bonds" where you can do something like this, but it's over specific intervals and times, not immediate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puttable_bond
that would probably also decrease source code form size significantly!

I feel like, out of all the challenges facing software development today, "source code size" is probably not in the top 10,000 =)
A very long time ago, I worked technical support for Bellsouth Internet, and occasionally we would get people from the bayou in Louisiana calling in, and the language difference was striking.

There was one memorable time when this happened, and as I was walking the user through their Dial-Up Network Settings configuration, I asked him to right-click on his dial up connection icon, and he had trouble understanding me. I said something to the effect of, "does your mouse have two buttons?", and he replied, "yes, and I'm mashing this critter right here".

So the parallels of the peripheral and the rodent are not lost on everyone.
I would not use that: a common programming idiom is that of "returning an error code", and "ritornare un errore" may be confused with this. As in "return error;" where "error" is some error code, against "throw error;" where "error" is whatever exception class.
I like the squeezed sponge visual.
The bureaucracy is so complicated that the scientists have to test their vaccines on themselves to get a quick result.
I don't think that's ethical, and I don't think that's good for science either. I don't think we want those things to happen.
Hard disagree on the first point.

Anchors are perfectly fine for jumping to a specific point on a page. Nearly all documentation websites do it, wikipedia does it, etc...

It's literally in the texts from back in 1995: https://www.w3.org/MarkUp/1995-archive/Elements/A.html

"This allows for the form HREF="#identifier" to refer to another anchor in the same document."

As Linus Torvalds says with Linux: don't break userspace. If userspace has made something work, don't break that.
I am not a networking or security expert, but this seems like an unusual and interesting tool that I hope is of interest and/or use to someone.

Its homepage (main link) is a bit opaque. But in the documentation page (https://docs.zeek.org/en/master/intro/index.html), it describes itself as:

a passive, open-source network traffic analyzer. It is primarily a security monitor that inspects all traffic on a link in depth for signs of suspicious activity. More generally, however, Zeek supports a wide range of traffic analysis tasks even outside of the security domain, including performance measurements and helping with trouble-shooting.

It also apparently was called "Bro" before changing its name to "Zeek".

I found this tool in the process of researching public suffixes. It is used to implement a program that checks whether a DNS query should be trusted or not, on the basis of whether it's a "trusted subdomain".

The Zeek implementation itself is here, which is mostly just straightforward regex manipulations and if/else checks: https://github.com/corelight/icannTLD/blob/master/scripts/ma....
Mdn was also much better than w3schools 10 years ago (when that site was much better at seo)
Sure they do make sense in context.
> The partitions that you imagine as dividing people aren't actually backed by any particular observable or experiment. Meanwhile, cultural markers do exist: We can measure what people wear, speak, trade, value, etc.

I'm having genuine difficulty wrapping my mind around this argument.

I don't mean to inflame tempers or anything here, but would we agree that any operational definition of "race" probably needs to include some mix of both cultural and phenotypic attributes (including but certainly not limited to skin color)? If so, then:

- aren't the cultural aspects of race just as measurable as you just pointed out -- what people wear, speak, trade, value, etc.?

- aren't variations in human bodies (differences in phenotype) arguably even more measurable than that? It's easy for me to determine from a low-res photo that someone is of East Asian descent. It's nigh impossible for me to tell whether they're culturally Chinese, rural Texan, Jamaican, etc.

To claim that race "literally" doesn't exist while in the next sentence pointing out that cultural markers exist just seems really dissonant to me, and I'm honestly not sure what part of my model of the world needs changing to become compatible with these two claims.

Are you saying that you could chat up a person, maybe interview them, and conclude that they're probably indigenous to Tibet, but phenotypic markers (or whatever your definition of "racial," or even genetic? [1]) are guaranteed to be uninformative toward this conclusion?

[1] https://www.pnas.org/content/114/16/4189
Untold Truths of Being a Machine Learning Engineer
Pretty much. It doesn't have to be much more than having access to the contents of a decently large hospital, IIRC.
2001 A space Odyssey, Tools, and well-being
China again boosts R&D spending by more than 10%
I actually found the UI to be quite good on Ubuntu Touch. However I swapped it for mobian due to its locked down nature same as you did.
Heh, sure. But Borg was not part of the stated question, just of the expected answer. It wasn't even close to being needed to meet the stated parameters (IIRC the whole data set would fit into a single SSD card, so one could even have room for growth without scaling out).
"return" in this context is "restituire", so "restituire (return) un errore" .
Well, c is the conversion factor between our length and time measurement. For me, I am ok not to measure time in meter, so c can stay.
@AlgorithmicTime you've been shadow banned it seems but you did raise a point that is worth expanding on:

> Oracle owns ZFS. Or, rather, it bought Sun, which was the company which originally wrote ZFS. So, it doesn't really need to worry about the licensing issues.

Oracle owning ZFS doesn't magically absolve them of risk however it does reduce the risk. But with ZFS being open source, another contributor might have a claim if Oracle were to breach the CDDL license with code written by said contributor (similar to the SCO vs UNIX lawsuits of yesteryear).

To get around this Oracle would need to contact all 3rd party contributors and get the to agree to a license change. This would, in all practicality, then be reflected in a new release (like the GP suggested).

However it is now even more complicated than that because OpenZFS (which is what Linux runs) has diverged from ZFS (which Oracle maintain). So while Oracle would need to agree to any changes in the licensing of OpenZFS (as there's still Oracle code present in OpenZFS), Oracle are not the ones maintaining it and nor could they ship their own version of ZFS as Linux kernel modules to answer any concerns with either OpenZFS licensing nor compatibility with other Linuxes running OpenZFS.
If it weren't urgent (i.e., lost a job) I'd be a little reluctant to join a company/team that I'd never met in person.

I can imagine that others would be equally reluctant to hire someone they've only seen through Zoom.
Not a big deal if you have a live USB/disk laying around.
Not sure, there are some tools to help, but I'm not front end dev and haven't used them. However, you can install a screen reader and try the browsing shortcuts on your website.

Voice over is installed by default on Macs, NVDA is free and open source for Windows, and Orca is on Linux.
Find out how to create a social media campaign using only product photos
I don't understand what's you problem with "lanciare". In C++ you have the couple "throw" and "catch", like "you throw the ball and I catch it". In Italian that is perfectly translated with "tu lanci la palla e io la prendo". What's the problem with that?
This reminds me of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnqAXuLZlaE
Salzburg is now part of Austria, so..
their implementation is such that it is more to train AI, the reason I think this way is that you can predict how much of a Captcha that you can get wrong, because you know which parts it doesn't know the answer to.

It is presented as "select the right answers, we know the right answers just like your teacher did in school, if you don't select the right answers you are a robot"

but in reality is is "select the right answers, so that we learn the right answers, the right answers are an average of what other people selected as well as completely new information that we aren't sure about"