skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I had a job like that for a long time (I was a manager). Since I didn't have a "shower clause" in my employment contract, I was free to do a lot of open-source work.

It came out nicely. The work I did has become a worldwide standard.

Now that I'm out of that position, I have returned to doing what I want to do. There has been some "snacking," except it's really healthy snacks, because every project I do -even the experimental ones- is done in "ship mode."
That is about changing an agreement. The bank can fire you as a customer, pursuant to the existing agreement, usually without specifying a reason. This has happened in the past.
Blue-green deployment for a small webapp
I support opening up Apple's ecosystem, but I don't support Epic. They say they want to give user's the freedom to choose, yet they took a video game I purchased away from my chosen storefront (rocket league being taken off of steam)

Where's my user choice Epic?
> Almost no stores will be able to compete with Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc, who already have giant reach and network effects,

First of all, that is not true at all.

And second, even if it were true, it'd be a far better situation for developers than the current status quo.
This makes no sense.

If you are a new app developer and there was just one additional store, which had just 15% of user attention, you’d have to support it or lose 15% of potential revenue.

This is more than likely as Facebook would almost certainly start selling apps directly through the feed.
If you don't have it already his book "Growing Gourmet and Medicinal Mushrooms" is an indispensable guide for growing many species of mushrooms, including morels, at any scale. Coincidentally, it contains his observation of bees sucking on King Stropharia mycelium before the insight they might be doing it to self medicate.
This is the way I see it. Ever since Facebook started "optimizing" the timeline order they have been showing you a distorted picture of the world. Honestly it would probably be enough to default everyone back to a world where nobody gets preferential treatment on your feed and everything is chronological.
>For example, misinformation that might persuade voters into voting based on a false premise undermines a democratic system.

So, what's different now vs when there was paid political campaigns and advertising on TV, radio, magazines etc.?

Partisan political ads have never been a source of reliable information as long as i've been alive.

I'm curious as to what elections you've participated in within your lifetime that wasn't full of campaigns full of misinformation or hell even an election where the candidate that won kept their word on everything they said.

My problem with this all is it feels just engineered and over reactionary.

Misinformation has existed as long as i've been alive in pretty easily accessible forms. There's always been tabloids next to checkout stands, there's always been bullshit news, ads pretending to be factual and mountains of garbage info heaped onto people and the same people that believed it then believe it now.

None of this is new and the only thing the internet changed about it all is now we can hear about whatever nonsense Joe Blow believes in.

I have a problem with it all because what people call 'misinformation' isn't always such, it's 'disagreeable information'.

Many of the things i've seen labelled as information.over the years, not your examples in particular, but in general, aren't even things with an objective correctness to them.

The whole second viewpoint relies on the idea that there is a morally superior group of people out there who know the correct ideas and everyone would just be better off if we just listen to them as any other ideas are just misinformation against the 'correct ideas'.

Again, this reminds me very much of the way things were when the church ran things. Just replace God and his commandments with the correct world view and beliefs.

This is very much the idea behind wrongthink and thoughtcrimes in 1984. That holding a non conforming belief makes one guilty and requires them to be punished by those that believe 'the correct thing'.

In the end, it all comes down to the idea that one group of people has the moral authority to decide what's right for everyone and should be allowed to crush any dissenting opinion.

And this, yes, I have a huge problem with. It's no different than what any other oppressive dictators have done to crush dissent.
I don't think reasonable people are asserting that Trump is a sleeper agent.

What reasonable people are saying is that Trump is an authoritarian, a person who admires other strongmen, a person who has had business relationships with Russia and has no problems with vehement conflicts of interests, and that there have been substantial reports of Russians creating political connections with people in the Republican party and various think tanks.

That's not necessarily a conspiracy, nor is it an idea of a "grand plan" to steal elections. Connections for the sake of influence and personal relationships have played part in politics since forever, and does not require conspiracist thinking to assert than and to assert certain factual evidence that suggests people are putting personal and party interests over that of national security.
Aren't most (including bitcoin) cryptocurrencies ledger confirmed by the continued confirmation of current hashing powers?

That's at least what I understood the 51% attack to be.

Basically have >50% quorum and you can just add any transaction to the shared ledger

If this is actually done, the currency's with would be basically done for, so unlikely that anyone would do that
Automatic fuel calculations for vessel route deviations
I think it’s probably important to define what “addictive” means with respect to social media. If it’s literally addictive in the same way opiates are (obviously to a lesser extent), e.g. the user cannot feasibly control the urge to continue consuming, then I think it’s very easy to agree it’s Bad and Wrong for the business owners to invest in making their product more addictive.

To your example if McDonalds added cocaine to their fries, we would likely agree that that’s wrong and we should stop that behavior, right?

If it’s more along the lines of addiction like “people love fast food” but aren’t actually physically addicted to it, then I think it’s fine that the business owners make it more delicious or “more addictive”. In that case I’d agree it’s likely on the consumer to make the call. (I’m going to gloss over the realities of the fast food industry preying on lower economic communities and pretend we’re operating in a vacuum where someone has equal agency/ability to go eat McD’s or eat a healthier alternative.)
¿Steve Ciarcia? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Ciarcia
> I'm curious to see if some vocal people here will still not be satisfied with anything short of a OSI-approved FOSS license.

I don't have a problem with the terms of their license. Use whatever license you want — just don't call it "open source"!

From the blog post... This is problematic:

> open-source in spirit

It ain't. It is firmly in the spirit of "source available" licenses, which have a decades-long history and almost all of which do the same thing this license does: impose a field-of-use restriction to limit commercial competition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software

By corrupting the term "open source", they are leeching off of the goodwill created by the Open Source movement, and they shouldn't expect people to stop complaining about it until they stop.
> Allowing third party app stores doesn't change the API or permissions system already baked into the OS.

It does precisely that. Apple invests huge amounts of money into people and infrastructure to ensure that exploit code (that can subvert platform security) never makes it into the store or gets signed by Apple. If it does, they can immediately revoke it.

Third parties providing app downloads would not invest the anywhere near same level of care, for the most part. Platform security can only do so much if you can run any code you want to try to attack it.
From what I've seen, the majority of Android malware either comes from Google's Play Store, or gets included on the phones by certain OEMs. F-droid in particular, due to its open source requirement, hasn't ended up hosting any malware so far.
Dunno but we could make a simple website that collects all the data reported about a startup and displays it as a json object or even csv. And for those too lazy or scared to host the service, it could be distributed as a mirrored zip file.

The only bottleneck of course is collecting and updating the large amount of data from many many different sources
>Of course I'd be a lot more comfortable if the video (and mapping) didn't go through these two companies

The obvious concern is the video itself, but there are many data streams adjacent to the core product, like behavioral data.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/01/ring-doorbell-app-pack...
It's a widely understood example that is perfectly fine to use, since the underlying concept is immediately understandable:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...

If you're feeling pedantic, perhaps you can replace the phrase with "yelling things to incite an imminent lawless action" (to crib from Wikipedia's summarization of Brandenburg) any time anyone ever says it. Does that work for you? Because the underlying point remains: that there are limits to free speech.
Well if you play borderlands 3 or another AAA title inside stadia and purchase you are already paying for game + gaming service + DLC...
You are missing the point entirely, the state or the market are fine, each approach has it's strengths.

Deals like this one are unacceptable because they are a Frankenstein monster - state guarantees profit, so the state bears all the risk. The normal market mechanisms don't work, inefficiencies and wastefulness is not punished, but profits are still private. It encourages the worst possible behaviour.
> if your program is too slow, you can just $X

Also, some of those $X are mutually exclusive.

If you write a lot of the performance-sensitive code in C; you're going to have complex C data structures.
Now if you want parallelism, well too bad: you can't use multiprocessing, because you can't easily share your C data structure across multiple processes.

To actually use multiple cores without getting killed by the GIL, you end up having to replace a lot of Python code with C -- not just the most performance critical portion.

Copying a multi-GB data structure for each CPU core would take way too much memory, so we tried doing stuff with shared memory, but it's complicated. We spent months of developer time on this and still can't really scale beyond two cores, for something that would be embarrassingly parallel in any other programming language :(

The "mixing C and Python" solution is a trap. If performance might be important at any point in the future and you use Python; better plan for a complete rewrite in a different language.
All of the ‘fake news’ discussion seems to be missing the forest for the trees. It also seems to be woefully unfamiliar with post-modern philosophy, e.g. Baudrillard.

The reality is we probably aren’t going back to a world with a predominate narrative. Contrary to the mainstream story, conspiracies aren’t just something stupid people latch on to. They often hide metaphorical truths, even if the actual details are exaggerated or false. This should be obvious to anyone paying attention to events in the past decade, e.g. Epstein. Combined with information overload, technological advancements like A.I. commenting and deepfakes, and political-financial incentives to frame events in biased ways, I expect the situation to only fracture more.

The only semi-solution, in my mind, would be a radically transparent nonprofit that is held to rigorous standards and isn’t dependent on advertising for income. It’s beyond me why the billionaire class hasn’t chipped in a few bucks to save the journalistic concept of truth - unless of course, they have no reason to.
interesting read - seems like the solution to the dark forest is equivalent to a dark pool in traditional finance?

the logical conclusion is that within a few months we'll have dark pools run by miners who will process your transactions without broadcasting to mempool, in exchange for an increased gas fee. and, within a year, we'll find out that some dark pools sold order flow to those HFT's anyways, a la UBS https://sites.law.berkeley.edu/thenetwork/2015/01/29/ubs-dar...
Did the 1918–19 Influenza Pandemic Kill the US Life Insurance Industry?
My own perspective is that companies should probably stop saying that "if only Amazon would contribute back the occasional patch, everything would be fine."

If much of the future is cloud, then getting the hyper-scalars to contribute occasional patches doesn't solve the problem of competition.

That's reflected in our post:

Some may ask, “Why create a new license - why not just compete
with public clouds by just providing the best product experience
on a level playing field?”

The problem is that the playing field is far from level.
Today, the public cloud vendors (Amazon, Microsoft, Google)
are trillion dollar corporations – the largest companies in
the world – and have a myriad of advantages that arise from
that size, including market position, pricing power, deep
balance sheets, and (what many have even called) unfair
business practices. They lock large customers into prepaid,
discounted, multi-year enterprise-wide agreements, and give
startups $100,000s of free credits.

Now, non-profits like the Linux Foundation are not trying to solve for this same problem.

But I think that the tech and innovation ecosystem would be much for the worst if everybody else is hamstrung when competing in the cloud, or else just have to go fully closed source and proprietary.
>Goalposts will shift. We will, hmm, go from suspending accounts which promote the theory that COVID-19 is caused by 5G towers, to suspending the account of a virologist who issued a preprint suggesting that gain-of-function mutations in SARS2 point to a laboratory origin.

Why do you believe that only the the second viewpoint will suffer from this slippery slope? We also seen similar examples in the first worldview. A conversation can quickly go from being against illegal immigrants, to being against all immigrants, to being against a specific race of immigrants, to genocide of that race. We have already seen this laissez-faire approach from Facebook help contribute to genocide in Myanmar.
Delphi was my favorite IDE in the early 2000's. I wanted to give it a whirl with its community edition to compile my old personal projects. I received a call days after from Embarcadero asking probing questions about what I'm using it for. It was extremely uncomfortable. I uninstalled Delphi and don't want to do anything with it again. It's just sad.

There is an open source Delphi alternative called Lazarus, by the way: https://www.lazarus-ide.org/
Maybe dividends?
No, the rules say organizing a price fixing ring is illegal. The result of which was literally to simultaneously raise prices for consumers across all platforms.

It's particularly ironic in this case because the whole point of the exercise for Apple was to increase prices so they could still charge their extortionate 30%. Amazon wasn't remotely that greedy.
Would you please stop posting ideological flamewar comments to HN? You're breaking multiple site guidelines here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Developers won’t have more choices. They’ll be forced to support all the stores that have a significant set of customers.
https://www.allsideprojects.com

https://www.saashub.com

https://wip.chat/products
Feels like someone has been reading the water knife
Yes, it's about when freedom of speech trumps freedom of association.

If the freedom of association is inviolable, why can't I put up a sign outside my store saying "NO BLACKS"?

If it's about someone making statements at work, would you accept if a business owner said that they'll fire you if you're Jewish, but let you work there as long as they don't know about it?
A Fistful of States: More State Machine Patterns in Rust
Just because something is private does not mean it cannot be owned, in whole or in part.
I've seen this too and it's really worrying. I don't understand what can be done about that. A legal solution seems difficult and will probably have some negative side effects. I think people just need to slowly learn how dangerous it is to fall into these traps.
Wait, why would you close something in order to avoid backlash about opening it?
How to think better: the complete guide – Ness Labs
I'm afraid that the dispersal of responsibility among many different parties who benefit under archaic "riparian rights" laws that are totally outdated and unable to be changed because no one cares enough to build the political momentum means that this issue will fester like climate change. And even more than climate, the emotions driving the issue (such as in California) are tangible and exploitable to favor incumbent users.

In the meantime as long as it continues, the situation be taken advantage of by those who know how to find holes in the system for concentrated private gain.
Suspicious barrage of new accounts on this post. Hmm, especially top level comments.
The Sunlight Foundation is shutting down
No, both define it by default on every platform, with no flags needed. Flags allow you to force behavior one way or another.

Here [1], for example, is the output from godbolt demonstrating exactly this. Note there are no flags specified, it produces valid platform specific code, and it does so for every platform listed. You can then set flags if you desire, but there is a default, as I stated.

https://godbolt.org/z/jbY6PM
Lack of empathy toward user/client made him replace us. Real story.

Lack of empathy toward programmers led to imppssible schedule. Real story.

Lack of empathy between team members who were supposed to lead cause spectacular dysfunction of team I am in right now.
in a vacuum, there's really nothing wrong with apple's choices regarding iOS. as far as I can tell, most iOS users really do appreciate how the whole system is locked down, or at least don't understand why they should care.

what sucks is that in the big picture, there's really no viable option for someone who cares about security/privacy and is willing to pay for a premium device, but wants full access to their phone occasionally. the security update situation on android is still a mess except for the pixel line (which usually has subpar hardware) and a handful of other flagship devices. even if you're willing to pony up, you're still buying into an ecosystem that's designed to exfiltrate data from your device. it's frustrating because the iphone is so close to having everything I want from a device. if I could just have the ability to temporarily elevate privileges, even from some obnoxiously buried menu deep in the settings (or bootloader), I would buy one in a heartbeat.
About Tracking Cookies on Status.healthchecks.io
I wouldn’t mind if subscription was something like 10 cents per hour played, not 30 bucks a month plus one off $50 fee.
My understanding of the front-running issue in these two cases is that a human being found vulnerabilities in particular smart contracts, which would allow anyone to claim the value protected by a particular contract. The human beings wanted to use these vulnerabilities to transfer the value somewhere, such as to an escrow account or to the original owners of that value. However, since the vulnerabilities allow anyone to do this, the front-runners could take this value for themselves by noticing the humans' attempt to execute the transactions, and then more quickly executing the exact same transaction with a different destination.

You can't take advantage of a "normal" cryptocurrency transaction this way because the "normal" transaction is like a super-minimal smart contract that's designed to pay only one hard-coded recipient. Therefore, that transaction either happens or doesn't happen, but its recipient can't be altered. Nor can you take advantage of a non-vulnerable smart contract this way, because the non-vulnerable smart contract can't be triggered to perform an action that its creators would consider inappropriate. But for a vulnerable smart contract, there's a series of events that would cause it to send value to an arbitrary address (and not in exchange for some other adequate compensatory value). It's this case where the front-runners want to find a way to swap in their own addresses for these transactions, and that's also why obfuscation could deter that -- making it hard for the front-runners to notice that that was possible.
This is great; no more need for pgextwlist then? Would have saved me a day or two quite recently...
Well, those UX considerations in my post are also business considerations.

Just look at all the games people never even get to entertain the idea of playing because they only own a tablet, macbook, underpowered computer, wrong/no console, etc. Getting your game into their hands through a service like this surely impacts your business.
You presented a dichotomy:

>"I would say anything designed to succeed by hijacking human brain chemistry instead of providing superior or novel quality is probably worth regulating at some level."

My point is that there is no real dichotomy, 'Breaking Bad' and menthol cigarettes are not so different; they each possess both qualities.
Probably because they rightfully feel that they shouldn’t have to resort to that and they would rather just fight Apple.

As a consumer, I hope they win. It’s my pocket computer, I paid for it and I own it, so I should be able to do whatever the fuck I want with it.
> partially behind a paywall.

if you search for the title from the desktop version of Google it's possible to read the cached version
I think this is where the disconnect lies for me.

I don't buy much, but when I do, I purchase things and use them often. I don't rent much at all. Moviegoing and attending concerts are my biggest "rental" purchases.
To keep the continuity of discussion, I assume that this comment was posted here because my top level comment was in part a reply to your (temp667's) comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579860

I appreciate the attempt to connect this to the anti-trust suit, but I don't see this as a good justification for why your original critique is relevant for a few reasons:

- Many of the practices in your original critique are allowed on (or not prevented by) Apple's app store. The argument you are making here only makes sense as pertaining to anti-trust to the extent that you are critiquing practices that Apple is preventing.

- It doesn't particularly matter whether the people trying to overturn Apple's practice are the bad actors, or third parties are, since the lawsuit affects all parties (third party or not) equally. So while you could make a consumer benefit argument based on bad actors (indeed, Apple has tried to in the lawsuit), it makes little to no sense to focus on the parties suing (and simultaneously falls into the trap of just arguing that people you don't like don't deserve justice).

On a separate note - I also find the argument for Apple's bundling of services here unconvincing. I have seen no argument for why Apple's curation service needs to be bundled with the phone - which is the prerequisite of the anti trust suit. Consider that apple could perfectly well sell the hardware and OS, and separately sell (or even offer for free) a software package that locks out third party app stores and third party payment providers. Doing so would practically destroy any argument that they are using their monopoly on IPhone hardware and IOs to acquire a monopoly on app distribution and payment services. To the extent that people find the lock in useful, I expect they would install that software package.