skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm quite sceptical that "a queryable ontology. With a rich and expressive grammar" would be so obviously easy to use and great that it threatened Google, rather than Google being a frontend for said ontology (that you still need to crawl first to use!). And indeed, what remains of semantic-web like data is massively pushed by Google today, because it makes it a easier for them to provide results based on that - and if you want to convince someone to add it to a website in a commercial setting, "it helps Google understand our site" is the primary argument that sticks (even though it also helps others parse sites).

Which IMHO points to the main problem: Publishing semantic data is work, and had no clear value proposition you could sell businesses on, and it ran out of steam before someone made a convincing one. Niches that see the need for such data publishing still are willing to use this stuff or alternatives, but for the general majority of publishers it isn't there, or actively seen as a negative.

It also didn't help that IMHO the focus was to much on what was theoretically possible, but not on making it actually easy to use, which made even more devs ignore it or build alternatives because the entry hurdle is steep. Plenty APIs could build on semantic web tech, but they don't because a custom REST API is typically just easier to do and thus more familiar. (Despite semantic tech having the groundworks for lots of what's seen as new-ish trends like API generators/machine readable API docs/...)
From the lab to production: session-based recommendations [pdf]
It is a fair reading. You are advocating the control of speech and online freedom of others based on your own personal beliefs. Any way you cut it, you can not advocate such things without believing your views on the world are superior enough to justify those illiberal desires.

I just stated the facts. There are riots and violence in the streets of America right now. I'm not saying it's rampant, but it DOES exist. You can't point to the same to justify your fears about qanon and their incoherent ramblings.

As for the chip on my shoulder, i've tried to keep this civil even though I do strongly disagree with your desire to suppress the speech of your political foes.
Pooler-proxies exist because some applications do not or cannot pool connections. Sometimes these are applications we just don't have the code to.
One of the challenges for RSS is that even a lot of hobbyist blogs that aren’t big "corporate social media" depend on ad income. The blog owner might keep an RSS feel going either out of ignorance (because his Wordpress setup automatically generates it, but he doesn't think about it) or because he thinks it important for SEO, but he really doesn't want people using it. He needs people to visit his site whenever they want to see the latest posts, so that then they can be exposed to ads. I have seen blogs where even mentioning in the comments section that you subscribe to the site’s RSS feed, is an automatic ban.

So if we want feeds to become popular again, we need to encourage support models for indie content that don’t depend on ads. So far, blog owners are seeing a dearth of donations and sponsorships to keep them motivated, so of course signing up for an ad network is the only choice they think they have.
The whole article hinges on this "we need to protect our children!" argument, but I'm baffled that anyone would think it's a good idea to give your one-year old an iPad.

Technology is a tool. It is dangerous precisely because it is powerful. Don't give technology to people who are not responsible enough to understand this, instead of trying to restrict its power for those people who can actually deal with it. I hate how the big tech companies continue to infantilise their users.

Incidentally, is it just me, or does it seem that Americans are obsessed with trying to protect their children from all possible harm?
I think the argument goes both ways. Chimpanzees are (roughly) as intelligent as our toddlers, but we haven't necessarily been treating them as such. That said, if we never mentally developed past being toddlers we might not even have invented speech, let alone civilization. Animals possess intelligence well above what people used to give them credit for, whoever they are still far and away from where people are.
Apple Arcade should have a good range of games for your kids. No IAPs, no up-selling. It's worth the money for my family.
There are several ways to approach the curation/kid-friendly problem. You can have simple curation apps (which are banned in the current appstore AFAIK) that are not full stores but simply point to an app store (apple or non-apple). You can have websites that link to apps that have been vetted. On the iOS side, there could be a specific kid-mode that prevents certain APIs to be used. I'm thinking no video, audio, location/tracking services, no ads (unless the ad-network takes responsibility), etc.

Apple won't brand any particular app-store as kid-friendly, or otherwise endorse them.
Alternately, if you're a woman with hypertension, ask your doctor to prescribe you some spironolactone to take along with your licorice.

It's a potassium-sparing diuretic that was originally developed as a blood pressure drug. Since hyperkalemia is a potential side effect of spiro, licorice consumption can mitigate that. And as for why you should only take it if you're a woman... well, I guess men can take it, but they wouldn't like the fact that it suppresses your testosterone into the ground.
Sometimes I dream of getting rid of all stuff and quit my boring IT job and become a goat herder somewhere. But I have no idea how to herd goats or where to do it and I'm afraid i'll change my mind and miss my comfy enterprise bullshit job where I get paid a shit ton for doing almost nothing.
I'm gonna respond to this comment, but this is also to bleach drinking commenter and Nazi commenter. What all of you describe are actions. Each of these arguments are the same argument, someone did something bad because ideas, therefore the ideas that led to those actions are dangerous.

Each of these arguments presumes that if somehow, you'd managed to control the ideas of these people, then just maybe those terrible things wouldn't have happened.

The kinds of people that let ideas sway them into terrible actions aren't going to suddenly not find an excuse to do terrible things, they'll just look for another idea that justifies it.

You can't police ideas based on the worries of bad things happening because ideas exist.

People do shitty things and justify it with whatever excuses they want, trying to remove an idea is a pointless gesture and in the end impedes on the freedom of all because, something bad might happen if the wrong person hears the wrong idea.

And again comes down to:

'There's a moral authority that knows best and the rest of humanity is too irrational to be left to their own devices, therefore the moral authority must control the beliefs and ideas of the rest'
It looks like it really is Zoom in the screenshots (but yes if it wasn't Zoom and someone called it Zoom, I think that would be terrible).
> Obviously the conversation is being conducted with the understanding that the US left/right/center are the reference points.

Right. And by US reference points, /r/politics stories news sources are generally centrist or right-leaning. The comments and commenters may not be, but the stories and sources definitely are.

Even by US standards, MSNBC, USA Today, Politico, Washington Post, Newsweek, NY Times are all centrist or right-leaning news sources. And all of those have stories on the front page of /r/politics right now.
That makes sense, ty
>The whole copyright strike system is in addition to the DMCA, and is part of what was negotiated with the labels (in addition to ContentID).

That's completely false, and all you need do is click the links I provided to see that it is. Copyright strikes are only issued in conjunction with DMCA takedown requests, Content ID does not and cannot cause you to receive strikes, and does not and cannot shut your channel down.

>Also, what are you quoting "with no recourse" from?

From a parent comment at the start of this thread, which I've only now realised wasn't made by you, so please ignore the phrase "as you suggest" and focus on the substantive portions of my comment that address the inaccuracies in your claim.
You deal with this by not giving your one-year old an iPad.
No. The attack is real. The risk is just not there. Most systems have valuable data on the current OS rather than a future one.
Just like kids in cages, only under Trump would the US government have worked with a white supremacist like this.
Why crows haven't invented stretchers to carry fellow crows to safety? Making a stretcher doesn't look more complicated than building a nest.
What about Apple Arcade? It's not free, but Apple guarantees that none of the games in it have ads and a single subscription can be shared through Family Sharing.
Who said they were doing it to be petty? They are doing it because we have a hostile relationship, not because they want to eventually be allies.

There is a fundamental difference between let's interfere with this country to install a friendly government and let's interfere with this country so it rips itself apart.
I don't understand why this post is greyed out.

It's factual, informative, (apparently) cites the relevant treaty, and it is not flame-bait. The requirement that the extradition not be politically motivated is an important one that was omitted from the above list.

One could argue that the conclusion that the material the judge considered 'irrelevant' is material relevant to the above is a subjective opinion. Fortunately,
DiogenesKynikos linked the treaty so we can evaluate this for ourselves.
This is what the guy is complaining about: Facebook and Twitter are still hosting his posts and tweets, but that some of his followers claim not to be getting notifications about every single one of those posts/tweets.

Facebook has auto-throttle: if you post too many times within a span, it stops sending notifications about every post to your followers unless they interact with one or more of your posts during that span. This is desired behavior, by 99% of people, because we don't want our newsfeed flooded by that one annoying friend with no life, unless we choose to follow up.

So no, the EFF and ACLU can't team up on this because there's no active censorship, or even passive censorship.
The biggest point for me from the article isn’t the stand ups.

It’s that their fun projects are, mostly, improving their quality of life while working. Improving deployments, faster compilation, analytics... those aren’t fun because pure fun, those are just necessities that should have been tackled earlier.

Improving that kind of stuff always makes development less frustrating, narrowing the time between something is coded and something is running in production.
Simple Instagram Bot- Selenium/Scrapy with Python
One of my contacts is migrating databases between clouds, with MySQL being the most common, followed by sql server, then PostgreSQL.
Apple Arcade is exactly what you want[0]. No in-app purchases, Apple picks the games and gives them exclusivity so there's always good quality ones. It's a good deal if you like playing games on the iPad.

0: https://www.apple.com/apple-arcade/
> "But we run the tests on every commit! If they fail it must be the latest change."

I really want to share a great failure here I've seen:

This was in a django web app, nearly a decade ago. First team I was on professionally, and took around a week to figure out (no one else cared because it was so rare, so I was the one looking for it): memcached would occasionally return corrupted data, that python couldn't un-pickle into an object, because the class attributes didn't match.

Turned out to be because of how our django settings were organized, a large collection of shared settings that no one ever looked in because they were set up once and then ignored, a set of overrides for live, a set for beta, and each dev got their own. The trick was that, to make it easy to set up, the memcached host/port were in the shared, live, and beta files - but not overridden in dev, so all the devs and the CI suite shared the same cache.

This meant that when one dev was changing the structure of one of these cached objects, before committing it all tests relating to it could fail for all devs and in CI.
I can understand the technical argument against the stateless containerized model. It's not neat. But what is the business argument? That's where this perspective falls down for me. If you're building a database that manages a disk directly, I can see the argument for graceful shutdown and handover. In that case you really need the program to be colocated with the data and if you're down then the data is unavailable.

I've built that once and it was hell to get right. But probably 90+% of programs I've ever worked on do not achieve any business advantage from graceful restarts (as opposed to drain and restart i.e. the stateless model).
The goal of the sprint is -planning-. It has no effect on the devs doing work.

If we estimate what can get done for a given time period, we can evaluate whether we're correct. Do it a few times, we get really good in estimating. We can try and estimate the future. As soon as new things come in that we didn't plan for, we know immediately that we're going to slip, and may even be able to figure out by how much, or what we have to drop to still hit the date (or if we need to evaluate if more people would be helpful; PM triangle here). Likewise if we learn our estimates are wrong, we can start predicting we're going to miss the mark, literally as early as humanly possible.

Doing it this way is in response to longer term milestones; if you only estimate/evaluate once before delivery (if even that; oftentimes milestones are just "on time" or "behind", there isn't any acceptance that a date and set of features won't be hit, and it turns into a death march), you only get one chance to evaluate and respond. Likewise with two, three, etc milestones. Sprints just try to break the work up to do it more often, to try and recognize you're behind, sooner, and so can respond. They don't have to be two weeks; it's a tradeoff, the more measurements the faster you'll recognize you're off, but the more work it is just to measure.

If you don't have deadlines that the rest of the org has to organize around, or to communicate to a customer, just a very clear set of priorities, and you just pull from the top from, you don't benefit from Scrum. Which is perfectly okay. Just, oftentimes businesses -do- need things by a given date, or need to respond in some way. Sprints just help give you evaluations to determine that you're on track. Or not.
I guess you'd have to ask Microsoft’s chief legal officer Brad Smith.

Also, game consoles aren't nearly as ubiquitous or important to society as smart phones. I'm all for treating them very differently!

We certainly don't treat matchbooks the same as we treat flamethrowers.
> Google actually knee-capped the web with the WHATWG's focus on less semantic documents.

There's one teensy problem with your thesis: Google came late to the WHATWG.

The WHATWG started initially as a joint Mozilla-Opera project [1] to basically standardize what you had to do to parse the crap that passes for webpages (including de-facto standard behavior for DOM at the time). At the same time, it also included a variety of speculative features to push the capabilities of the web forward: <canvas>, <audio>, <video>, not to mention Web Forms (eventually morphed into all the nice, new <input> types). It even had semantic elements: <section>/<header>/<footer> originate from WHATWG, after all. Not to mention microdata, too.

Google Chrome doesn't come out until 2008. XHTML 2.0 is put out of its misery in 2009, but that the WHATWG was now the driving force in HTML innovation was clear by 2006 or 2007, by virtue of all browser vendors focusing on WHATWG HTML support and not W3C XHTML 2.0. The W3C tries to regain relevance by staring from WHATWG HTML instead of XHTML for HTML 5 in 2007.

[1] Apple was also involved very near the beginning, but I don't know to what degree it was involved.
We have Apple Arcade for our family as well, but I do wish they had more games for younger children. My little ones (4 & 6) enjoy Crossy Castle, but that is really the only age appropriate game for them.
H sapiens Y chromosome replaced original Neanderthal 370k to 100k years ago
I'm a parent -- it's never been easier to control what your children are doing on devices. My son isn't an admin on his laptop. I don't let him download arbitrary apps and he doesn't even own his own i-device yet. He's only slightly older than Miguel's kids, and he has a Switch (with parental controls on), but I don't see any need to give him his own iPad.

When he wasn't old enough to learn about dark patterns, we didn't expose him to any! Now that he's older, dark patterns are something we talked to him about and he understands. No matter how restrictive you make an app store, you're never going to eliminate sources of manipulation. Each failure, including one of his accounts getting "hacked", is an opportunity for learning.

What's not an opportunity is locking down the entire world so children can't screw up.
You need help from an optometrist then. There are two clear downward trends, one starting in late April, and one starting in late July.
> if you look at Android or OSX you don't see 51% of users having malware on their machine

Have you actually looked up the statistics? According to Kaspersky (https://securelist.com/mobile-malware-evolution-2019/96280/) mobile malware attacks in 2019 affected: 60.64% of users in Iran, 44.43% in Pakistan, 43.17% in Bangladesh, 40.20% in Algeria, 37.98% in India, 35.12% in Indonesia, etc. These are not small numbers.

> - with the amount of money Apple has they could afford to improve the security by adding more sand boxing and making unlocking of the phone by "tricked incompetent users almost impossible"

Sandboxing can protect against system vulnerabilities but does not help protect privacy in the same way App Store review guidelines do. (For example, by disallowing user tracking in games designed for children.)

> - I assume apps and websites can use your microphone and camera on your phone, it is under soem popup/permission prompt, why do you trust the "inexperienced users" with the camera permissions some bad person could trick them.

Temporary access to a microphone or camera is nowhere the same level of security risk as allowing third-party applications to install other applications on your phone.

> - "protecting" an unknown small number of users by limiting the rest makes no sense

Again, these are not small numbers of users, nor are they unknown. Android malware routinely infects millions of devices:

https://www.zdnet.com/article/this-android-malware-has-infec...

https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/10/20688885/agent-smith-andr...
The guidance staffeng.com provides is very useful, but is there something similar for one level below? I am nearly a senior engineer by title at my company (one level below it) - where can I look for guidance on getting to senior?
Gastropod recently covered this, I think. I recommend giving it a listen, if you're curious about the, well, science & history behind it.
Crows, being social animals, have a concept of friend already.

They also have a concept of foe. Crows are well-documented to wage war against red hawks (buzzards across the pond), and this goes further than just bickering over a tasty bit of carrion: they will actively gang up on red hawks whenever they see them. Which is risky business, red hawks being larger, with sharper beaks and talons.

It's pretty neat that they can extend those concepts to distinct humans!
I freely concede that I'm doing a poor job of defending it, because it isn't my view to defend. The part of it that I don't understand is limited to how it is self-consistent, which is not something I see addressed in your reply, although I could be mistaken.

But I think we are still saying talking points instead of getting to the core. I understand and I share the concern about an important voice being silenced. But I think the mechanism of that silence in the current environment is probably related to loudness of noise rather than quietness of signal. Obviously, it may be different at different situations and times in history. But I think if our goal is to hear quiet voices we ought to consider both sources of the issue pretty seriously. A philosophy that only considers the problem of transmitting and ignores the problem of receiving through a noisefloor seems an incomplete troubleshooting procedure to me.

Whereas you perceive a threat about the slide into censorship, I perceive a threat about the slide into unrest and violence. In reality, it seems likely we will get both: one of them first and the other following as a reaction. So I think our interests would really be best served by hammering out a workable compromise so as to hang together rather than separately.

I agree that we ought to return to the "liberal discourse", but we may perceive its makeup differently. Limitations on discourse have always been part and parcel of the institution. Some limitations have been very harmful. Others, like 'you can't threaten not to leave when you lose an election', have been very helpful. Liberal discourse is presently threatened because we have abandoned that sort of polite limitation, and it is by reintroducing it that we can recover the institution.

> If we had an oracle of truth, then censorship of falsehood would be easy and practical. We also wouldn't need democracy at all, we could just ask the oracle of truth what to do, and do it. But we don't have any such creature.

This is a bit of a strawman. I do empathize with the skepticism of authority in our present climate. However, you rely on some method to determine whether a person is doing censorship in the same way I rely on a method to determine if a person is doing misinformation. I expect it is a similar method, which is to say, imperfectly, based on values present in our historical age, individual biases, and so on. Which is the "same sort of stuff" that democracy otherwise uses to make any of its decisions.

I expect this dispute arises because, in your worldview, limiting the discourse is very exceptional, and doing it properly should require an exceptional method. Whereas from my perspective, laws, elections, jail, and wars are very serious, and we have processes to decide those.
It's pretty hilarious to me that not having standups is even in the same sentence as "going too far".

I don't mean to pick on you with this comment - you are accurately describing the state of the industry.
What worked for me: a military deployment.

My recommendation is to consider an adventure as a change of pace. Take a job in a foreign country where you actively contribute your leadership and technology experience. Please note that you will be trading compensation and quality of living for something that matters, like Doctors Without Borders.
Reykjavik's Sheet-Metal, Pre-Fab Homes Beat the Icelandic Winter
all you have to do is watch a nature documentary to see many different animal species reason, work together and have emotional reactions which shows that they have a sense of self and thus a consciousness
Boats go where your food is. Avoid boats and you'll have to avoid the most plentiful food sources. Either starve or run the risk that you might stumble upon a boat and someone from your group might get tangled.
>But 30, 20, even 10 years ago (first iPad was released 10 years ago!) you couldn’t accidentally buy digital rubbish.

That's not true - I clearly remember those TV telenovelas arround here having a paid line where you could get a summary of next episode and the number advertised during the show. The only people I ever heard about calling the service was kids racking up parents phone bills.