skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
CRUD.

There. I said it. It basically just comes down to this one simple thing.

Create. Read. Update. Delete.

That is what I do for money. Some people have less money than they need. Some people have more. Some people need more and will pay some to have more. Some people have more and will pay more to have some.

Those people should contact me.

And then there are the people who need more and won’t pay some to have more, and the people who have more and won’t pay more to have some. That isn’t you, but if it is you, you know who you are. Come back when you need more and will pay some or have more and will pay more.

Because this message is for those people.

My ideal client is someone who likes money and dislikes work, but likes money more than he dislikes work. I, like my ideal client, like money and dislike work, but like money more than I dislike work.

My ideal client is someone who thinks about writing checks to people like he thinks about writing checks to purchase dividend-paying equities or revenue-generating landholdings. I, like my ideal client, enjoy the utility of checks of this variety and look forward to writing many of my own.

Arbitrarily large checks.

Everyone wants to know about experience. I have many years of experience. Almost everyone wants to know about competence. I am one of the most competent. But those are not the questions. The questions are these: will I be near to the profit center? will I be free of onerous hiring machinery? will I stand apart from the managerial system?

Only you can answer these questions — but I am rooting for you.

urglurglurgl@cock.li
I get the argument here but. If we look at stock price as a proxy for forward and future expectations relative to its monetary impact to society. Then I’d say it’s way too soon to be talking about Enron and Facebook in the same sentence.

User growth continues to be strong. Ad business is unchanged even with the boycott. Investor and institutional dollars still flowing in (you can’t just blame Robinhood investors here)

Where is this acting like Enron materially?
> I wonder sometimes, who came up with these names.

That's literally what this entire article is about.

From the article:

> "After all, these dumb names must have come from somewhere, right? They did—the Middle Ages. The earliest known collection of terms of venery (an archaic term for 'hunting') is in the Book of Saint Albans, a kind of handbook on manliness first published in 1486."
It can go both ways. Some people watch their memories and realize they’re not the hero of the story, not even the villain, but just a jerk. And some people come back even more full of themselves. They’re so proud of this amazing thing they did and how amazing it makes them.
Wow, rayiner - you're almost at 100,000! Well, that's interesting how decentralized Germany is. I'm not an expert, but I live in the 4th largest city in the country and am aware of a lot of problems. Texas is not one of the ones mentioned in your link - no danger of the poorest getting the most here!

https://www.texastribune.org/2019/02/15/texas-school-funding...

This article mentions multiple times how some funding calculations have not been adjusted in decades and ends with, "Most agree that the patchwork set of calculations for how to distribute money to Texas’ schools is ready for a major facelift." Convoluted formulas are piled on top of one another without achieving the goal of well-funded school systems, so I'd be all for throwing those out and going with something straightforward.
that "venery" is an outdated word that ~nobody uses in the hunting sense anymore does not mean that the term "terms of venery", which specifically refers to the pattern of words developed during the time the word was used in that context, isn't relevant anymore.
Don't know about employee passwords, but for Wells Fargo the online login passwords are case insensitive. I assume this is due to some legacy system somewhere, but for their system password = PASSWORD = PaSsWoRd. One of the many reasons I no longer bank with them.
Neither do I but, there are 2.7 Billion monthly active users who trust them enough to use the service.

Do you think some of them would end up using the store?
My full time job is still traditional, but I’ve been wondering if my could turn my side project[0] making high end wordclocks into a full time gig. If I did that, I’d probably diversify my products to other tech-meets-art designs.

[0] www.fineworclocks.com
Symbolic reduction is undecidable.
It's very straightforward: you buy the land, you get the mineral rights.

So cost of acquisition is: how much land, the working condition of the well equipment, and nearby production as a proxy for reserve capacities (or, in lieu of that, a finger in the wind.)

One popular site for selling/re-selling both unleased and leased acreage is https://themineralmarket.com/
> Mario Kart style boosts

Yeah I'd much rather watch some sort of AI or RC game with random challenges like oil spills and bombs. Driving is boring.
React’s big selling point is state management, but managing state is ridiculously trivial.

Articles like these strike me as an expert beginner problem. It requires experience and expertise to evaluate the proper need and business requirements for dependent libraries like Redux. All the while the developer is busy better answering more refined solutions to common problems without critically examining the problem in the first place. In other words the problem the developer is solving is how to do Redux better so that they can do React better which is extremely artificial considering the actual problem is just state management. Considering the time investment involved it seems more of a resume padding game than a real world technology solution.
Counterexample: GP comment, unless scubbo is not a person.
From what I see, budget caps and limits on testing reach the opposite of levelling the field: they make it harder for slower teams to catch up. So these days whoever makes the best car after big regulations change wins with little challenge until next change of regulations. First RB, now Mercs.
> a footgun and inspiration to write spaghetti. While it may have good intentions, it doesn't matter if it lets less experienced developers do absurd things that I now have to refactor

isn't it everything? My exp in redux is the same. Mobx however doesn't pretend to be for smart people and doesn't encourage them to invent a bunch of weird conventions like redux. I've never had any problem with state management, react solved it for me already. What I need a library for is a clear pattern for where to put domain code (again is it reducer or saga/thunk?) and never think about the library again.
Exactly. We can try brute force counting all the permutations of 1000 bits, which will exhaust the lifespan and size of the universe. Or we can use exponentiation and solve by hand in a second.
and “no-code” will be used to hype bullshit research and scam products
Segmented Addressing Solves the Virtual Cache Synonym Problem (1997) [pdf]
> But why does it need to be GPL?

> Why not dual license MIT/BSD plus a commercial version with more features?

So, what you are advocating here is combining a permissive license (eg. MIT/BSD/Apache 2/etc.) with an Open Core approach.

This can work, but it is difficult. The decisions around which features go into the core, and which are in the commercial version become higher risk. Keep too much proprietary, and the odds of someone in your community duplicating the proprietary features goes up (as it normally would for GPL+commercial), chewing up your commercial moat. But keep too little proprietary and the odds of a commercial competitor duplicating those remaining features and competing with you on price goes up instead. Even the case where they develop a different set of commercial enhancements to target another market (or another pricing model) will probably mess up your commercialization roadmap.

And I'm not sure there is ever a "just right" point between too much and too little, the middle ground will probably have you contending with some of both types of competitive pressure, and may not actually be less overall.

At which point you have to fall back to trademarks and brand recognition, as well as maintaining an edge of expertise by employing the main contributors and/or subject matter/domain experts.

This is a very customer-focused model with practically no lock-in, and can work, but leveling the playing field in that way will make attracting investment harder. Investors want to know what your unfair advantage is, and your licensing choice effectively lowers the barrier to entry instead of raising it.
> Imagine if you were evaluated by the merits of your mind, of you, not the 'flawed' representation of you (your face) given to you by your DNA?

Do you believe that accidents of genes (and actions taken by the mother at times) affect brain development? If so, aren't we just moving the problem to a different body part ?

(keeping the devil's advocate train going )
When you can't compete on salary, you can compete on other axes. Not just financially (equity/etc), but also:

- flexible schedules

- autonomy + impact

- interesting work

- culture (respect, appreciation... etc)

It's not hard for me to imagine an environment where I'd love to work despite giving up a lot of salary. Hell, I'm not unique—just look at how many incredibly skilled people choose research careers over far more lucrative industry jobs.

And yet, I don't see many startups that seem serious about this. If you want to compete for great engineers, choose some of the things I outlined, actually commit to maintaining them and figure out how to demonstrate this (show, not just tell).
The Apple et all antipoaching agreement was illegal the whole time and they knew it.

It wasn't that the courts found it happens to be illegal. What Apple under Jobs' watch did was illegal at a critical time for the industry.
I saw similar things when I last looked into the Australian angel/VC startup funding works. This was 10 years ago however so things may have improved since then. But at the time it was most definitely due to a risk averse stance by investors.
> When a Sheriff calls a group of people together, its a posse. But when a group of Representatives come together, its a congress. When people are advising the President, its a cabinet.

Posses, congresses, and cabinets (in the US) are all legal distinctions. A group of people doesn't suddenly become a posse because a sheriff assembled them or a cabinet because a president took their advice.

That's also true for the military groups. They are defined not just by size, but by composition (which varies by country and force). If you have 30,000 troops sitting in a crowd at a USO show, they don't suddenly become a corps.
If a landlord who lives as you say puts their entire 'salary' into Tesla stock, rather than using it to pay down the equity on the property, we would say that it's fair that they would lose their investment if their Tesla bet doesn't pan out.

But if they put it into their home equity instead, any loss is unacceptable to us.

Why?
I don't think he avoided any consequences, he escalated the consequences to the maximum degree he could. No, I'm not advocating suicide. If anyone out there thinks that suicide is a solution, it isn't. But, morally speaking, is there a huge difference between being imprisoned in a tiny concrete room for 20 years (esp. during the prime of your life) and being dead? No, probably not.

I'm not saying his decision to take his own life was right, only that I can empathize with the position he was in and how it would seem hopeless given his personality and the inherent lack of fairness in prosecutorial discretion and mandatory minimum sentences.

Aaron was a big-minded softie, who cared deeply about humanity, and was courageous enough to escalate beyond slacktivism to real action.

He underestimated how entrenched his opponents were and that they would bring the full force and intimidation of the state down on his head.

He knew what he was doing was right, but he didn't know what he was really up against. Like a lot of smart people, he wrongly assumed that other people were like him. He probably thought that they would see the reason of his position, and sense that he was really a good person, and treat him with fairness (like he would do) and not as an evil terrorist.

It still hurts me to think about Aaron, what Aaron represented, and what our system does to people like that.
Definitely. But I don’t see the point of paying someone $200k to write a simple web app, even if it’s using react and kubernetes. VC has killed innovation and instead created a cyclical bullshit engine.
But as the article says, people don't actually use these terms outside of bar trivia. People who actually want to communicate something in relation to a herd of zebra call them a herd.
That's because of the emphasis on reliability, made worse by limits on components and a scoring system that makes it much harder to catch up after DNF. In the past a quick but unreliable car could get to some high place thanks to luck.
> Hooked would “sell” three engineers to Apple (including a longtime employee who served as Chief Technical Officer) and continue operating the less technical aspect of its business, relating to advertising. At the end, Apple hired them directly.

The employees were literally put up to sale. Apple didn’t just wake up one morning and hire the hottest new techies, they were up for grabs, and this was clearly an at-will agreement. If the employees were working directly on stuff that competed with Hook, the noncompete seems to make sense. However, that’s a case against the employees, and not necessarily Apple. Not sure if this is really poaching.
The problem is that at the top of the leaderboard there's rarely any passing in modern F1 that's based on skill.

What I mean is, passing usually requires some sort of screwup or random external force (race start mosh pit, engine failure, flat tires, etc.) and rarely does it happen because one driver out maneuvered another.

Races can be exciting, but if the end of the race has basically the same order as the qualifying time trials, then it really doesn't matter. Might as well say the qualifiers is the race.
I think need has less to do with it than you suggest. We don’t ‘need’ most industry jobs any more than academic jobs. It’s just industry is better at generating wealth than academia, and so it has more money to pay employees.
But the problem is that system is not meritocratic. Otherwise there would be no need for “publish or perish”. PhD is no longer a credible signal, that’s the problem.
no, do you have source for that? Mobx is built on the concept of atom which you can put anywhere in your app, be it a module, a context or a component.
meanwhile people in industry who might want to read your paper have to pay outrageous prices, even if they are IEEE members (you need to be society members and conference attendees to download the papers)
I propose that we also enshrine the reverse -- a squid of squads.
the only thing propping the system up is unaccountable $billions in gov spending
I like making things but I don’t like the diy aesthetic. So I make more refined “products”. One that I’ve turned into a side business is making highly crafted wordclocks[0]. I’ve only sold a few, but enough to cover the cost of a cnc and other tools for my tinkering. Check my profile for link to my show HN from a while ago.

It’s since expanded to Etsy as well where I sell products based on gifts I’ve designed with my kids for their friends birthday parties[1]. These other items on Etsy started as a way to drive traffic to my clocks. But they turned out to be fun.

[0] www.finewordclocks.com

[1] finewordclocks.etsy.com
Owls do flock[1].

I can't find anything defining "flock" as having more than a certain number of animals in it, so I would assume 2 owls would be a pair and 3+ owls would be a flock.

1. https://www.owlpages.com/owls/articles.php?a=2
Well... I think long rambling rants from people who have a diagnosed mental health condition are about as interesting as long, rambling rants from people who do not have a diagnosed mental health condition.

Well, most of the time.
The solution is to stop gas flaring -- that carbon is still getting emitted into the atmosphere, that solves nothing. If it gets turned into power it could be used for something productive, at least.

> The energy use doesn’t scale linearly to transaction activity and is not a prerequisite to the function of a proof of work network

That's just a nice way of saying the bitcoin network cannot scale, intentionally so. Scaling is antithetical to proof-of-waste. At some point you run out of resources to waste.
From next year, windtunnel & CFD limits are inversely proportional to championship position in the previous year.
No spec writer is omniscient.

I think the best way to deal with this is explicit forking / special-purpose subspec. Where again, in that spec, things are different / extended, but still mandatory. And if consumers fall into that usecase, they can explicitly advertise / consume that version.
why can’t you gpg-sign a text file and then get a bitcoin timestamp receipt? There is no need for bureaucracy.
I would bet that most companies vastly overestimate their initial engineering requirements and thus their talent requirements. A past job had a strong interest in scalability when the software serviced maybe a 20-30 (admittedly high value) people an hour. Even their loftiest ambitions maybe put use into the hundreds or low 1000 an hour.

Yet most engineers were hired with the goal of making it "scalable" when most of the work was frontend anyway.
I'm enthusiastic about this idea, with the caveat that I worry filtering for passion will be much harder (given that we must assume candidates will actively seek to hack the filtering process) than filtering for ability.
There are so many laws because what started out as rule usually gets expanded out into detailed regulations that cover vastly more than just illegal behavior. Perfectly legal things that fulfill the spirit and letter of the law are nonetheless outlawed to achieve the goal of the law. A law that employees must pay withholding taxes on their pay, gets extended into a regulation that contracting is banned because in some cases this might hide sources of income and be used to dodge the law. Enough layers of this going on and no one except major corporations with teams of lawyers can keep up with the "right way" to operate. Despite everyone having good intentions.
The issue is going to be that racing is where vehicle manufacturers go to push the limits of their cutting edge technology. Which they don't fundamentally create for racing but for the versions of it that trickle into production vehicles. If everyone starts expecting the decline of ICE vehicles in the market, who is going to be putting a lot of resources into continuing to improve them?
It's not a global industry, its a 7 tps data store. You can replace it all with a single DynamoDB table.
Maybe it's because Silicon Valley occurred first, and then oppressed most of Europe's "native" companies?

It seems that there are some massive sources of wealth for tech companies, such as search, social networks, and e-commerce companies. In Europe, these have all been supplanted by Google, Facebook, and Amazon respectively.

In China, on the other hand, these companies were free to grow and establish their own nexuses of tech talent. As a result, China is the closest to having the Silicon Valley of <x>.

Perhaps Europe should take a page from China's (and the US now, I suppose) playbook?
If we’re following it word by word, “people” doesn’t come up in the first amendment until petition and assembly.
I'm not American so I wasn't aware of the legal battle, or the precise law, but I agree with this statement from the article

""By ignoring the critical distinction between the president’s (sometimes) official statements on Twitter and his always personal decision to block respondents from his own account, the opinion blurs the line between state action and private conduct," Wall said in asking the Supreme Court to hear the case."

The role of the presidential office and the private citizen Trump should not be treated as synonymous. Of course Trump is probably the worst particular case here because he blurs the line intentionally. For the reason outlined in the argument Trump ought to communicate through official channels and users on twitter should all be subject to the same rules. Or alternatively we acknowledge that Twitter is now the public square which means nobody gets to ban anyone else.
I think there's a typo in your URL, friend
I think that because psychedelics are illegal part of why people do them is to satisfy their need for danger. This is the person who thinks “why the hell not!” when taking acid for the first time from a stranger at a party. They’re in this rule breaking mindset already, so stuff like “set and setting” is just one more rule to break.

It’s like if scuba diving was illegal. I’m doubtful that people would do it as carefully.

The advice you got from that stranger seems like a good antidote to that mindset. “It’ll always be there.” That sentence alone seems to take the edge off. You don’t have to take it just because you were offered. It’ll come by again.
Ask HN: Did the White house edit Trump coughing out of this video?
This is technical rather than political question:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1312525833505058816 is the video - the question is after 1:01 when he says "the therapeutics, which I'm taking right now [facial movement, cough?]?

I thought no, but if you watch the US flag on the left the pattern suddenly jumps from frame to frame (ignoring the motion of his face, which is unnatural, but he is ill)

Compression artefact or what? I'm not knowledgeable in neither video editing nor compression algorithms.
> In good times, the defense for landlords raising rents is "they're taking a financial risk by renting out their property others" -- if that's the case, then why is it the government's priority to protect them more than the tenants these landlords are evicting?

It's one thing if the risk is tenants don't pay, and the landlord won't get the rent, plus they'll have to pay legal fees and what not to evict, plus they may need to fix damages that they will be unlikely to recoup from the departing tenant and then have the uncertainty of finding a new tenant. That's the risk they signed up for in becoming a landlord.

It's another thing if the government says hey, we know people can't/aren't paying rent, but you can't evict them cause it's a bad situation for everyone. If the landlords then have trouble paying the mortgage and employees/contractors and what not, if there's no consessions that's going to be a problem.

Maybe you tell the banks not to forclose and the banks have to eat it, because they're banks and universally reviled. It seems easier to drop helicopter money and keep most bills paid, and maybe just slow down the courts rather than prohibit evictions and foreclosure. But helicopter money has to be federal, and states can block evictions and foreclosures, so that's what we get without agreement at the federal level.
Darling: macOS Translation Layer for Linux
Thanks for explaining!

I will check out Phaser.
This is a great game. My only wish is for the dev to add something to keep players continue playing. After a few hours of playing, I unlocked all levels and then I don't see a point to continue to play anymore.

I'll play it again once the wire update come out though.
They don't seem to spread joy; I've only ever known them to be used in a kind of smug one-upsmanship. Sharing knowledge is a joy, but actual knowledge is empirically meaningful; words should be tools that help communication, not arbitrarily hinder it.