skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
OffsetArrays.jl is your friend.

I'm working on a project where indexing naturally runs from -n to n. I kludged the usual index hackery and was so plagued with off-by-one errors that I gave up on it. Then I remembered Tim Holy had a blog post about OffsetArrays.jl and started using that.

Problem solved.

Seriously, the most annoying thing I find about Julia is that the various packages fairly often have "creative" names, that make it difficult discover that they might actually be useful.

YMMV.
Holy heck that's an insane amount of Vit D. That's 130 typical tablets a day, or over 40 per meal.
Computers Aboard Airliners Vulnerable to Hacking, Watchdog Says
Ternary Tau System Numerical System
Umm faux news and MSNBC are already wildly successful, Facebook just helps
> Permanent breasts would make cross-nursing more feasible in the event that a mother died or couldn't produce enough during scarcity.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Most mammals do fine with nipples and no breasts, whether they're nursing or not. And women lactate after giving birth; they can't do it on command.
It looks it intends not to touch broad phase things.
We’ve got the opposite problem in St. Louis. It’s a seller’s market. I suppose the people fleeing San Francisco are driving up demand.
Trump Says He Beat Biden in Second Debate, an Event That Has yet to Happen
Strenuous workouts don't cause chronic deficiency and don't eliminate chronic overdosing.
Agree with everything you've said here except for:

> I personally don't see how allowing users to manually disable automatic updates makes a product any more secure

There's tangible security benefits allowing users to update at will, not everyone lives in the same world or faces the same threats, a gay peace activist in Azerbaijan doesn't live the same life as a software developer in Atherton, CA.

A simple notification of security updates is sufficient for the most part to ride ahead of the never-ending wave of vulnerabilities.

Having the simple choice to do so is quite desirable for many people.
What if? While I’d love to really know how computers work at this level of depth, I can’t help but feel like it’s a colossal waste of time these days if you already have other sharply tuned high level programming skills.

The ROI isn’t great, the time you spend learning this is time you could have spent going deeper into your chosen craft and becoming even more masterful.

By the time you do learn a dangerous level of assembly and reverse engineering knowledge, you’ll still have to fight for entry level gigs to get in the industry unless you’re really good at finding niche and high paying work... meanwhile people still want to pay you six figures+ for your decade or more of experience writing everyday software at scale.

Alas, where as it once seemed like anything was possible, as I get older I come to realize the best use of my time is to further perfect the things I already know how to do well, so that one day I can truly become a sagacious master, or at the very least not fall behind my peers and become “outdated”.

Learning opportunities like this are inspiring, but ultimately just a passing curiosity. I hope someone young finds it well.
There’s no reason a minimum wage should track mean productivity, unless you want to price significant portions of workers out of jobs.
This looks pretty interesting. I didn't look into the course materials, but I wonder if someone learning "how computers work" would benefit from a casual introduction to a simple microprocessor hardware architecture.

For me, it was the Z80, because there happened to be a book at Radio Shack, published by Howard Sams, that was extremely well written. But since this is about x86 assembly, the old 8086 isn't all that bad in terms of grasping how the different kinds of instructions actually play out in the registers, memory and i/o busses, and so forth. And it's not so bad to learn about the features of modern processors in light of how they compare to early chips. For instance in the 8086, a pointer is not an abstract concept, but a real physical thing!

Despite modern microcontrollers being much more sophisticated than the Z80, that foundation has helped me learn and understand things like how to read the documentation for special function registers and advanced peripheral chips.
Can you be more concrete? This all sounds good on an abstract level, but that's where it stops.

1) What approach did you take to "truly understand" your target segment (there are 100s of them)

2) How were you able to reach them to "very little cost" due to "really understanding them"?

I really like the abstract idea of "understanding your target segment so well that you're able to detect where they are", but seen no one so far provide concrete examples on how they did it.
I can buy tobacco and alcohol at the corner store, but I shouldn't be allowed to buy cocaine?
Why Gravity is NOT a force (Veritasium)
It's called prettify-symbols-mode: http://www.modernemacs.com/post/prettify-mode/
I like to think I'm a decent programmer and I'm also a down right terrible hobbyist illustrator/cartoonist.

Over the years I've filled notebook after notebook with a mix of hand written notes and bad illustrations to help solidify the ideas in my own mind. Occasionally I will page back through looking for something I remember I wrote down, but most of it is just to help myself in the moment.

As an extension of this, when someone comes and asks me a question I start with a verbal explanation. If it isn't clicking for the person I quickly reach for a pen or a whiteboard marker and start drawing diagrams while I talk. This usually leads to a quicker "aha" moment for the person; a picture is worth a thousand words.

For a long time it was not something I considered much; it's just been an extension of how I think for as long as I can remember.

Sometime back I ran into an ex-colleague; we hadn't worked together in about a decade. After the usual chit chat of catching up she said to me, "Do you still doodle when you work? I will always remember how you constantly drew pictures of everything and how it made things so much easier to understand. I hope you still do that.". I laughed and told her how surprised I was that someone would even remember that after so many years, but that yes I continued to draw pictures of my thoughts like I always had.
As an Australian looking in, much that manifests in the USA is simply inexplicable.

It feels like the sensation is shared in most other western democracies.

(Actually, it's probably even worse for people in Europe, as in Australia we seem to have a stronger pull recently towards 'the American way of doing things', though perhaps I'm just more sensitive to it the last several years.)

I suspect the problem with explaining the lack of social justice is in part because, if you're living within that system, and have had no experience living outside it, then alternatives just sound infeasible and fanciful. It's a challenge to just find a bit of ground to start any such conversation.

An excellent article by David Bentley Hart published earlier this year included this quote, which did the social media rounds at the time, and conveys the exasperation any informed onlooker experiences.

"Americans are, of course, the most thoroughly and passively indoctrinated people on earth. They know next to nothing as a rule about their own history, or the histories of other nations, or the histories of the various social movements that have risen and fallen in the past, and they certainly know little or nothing of the complexities and contradictions comprised within words like “socialism” and “capitalism.” Chiefly, what they have been trained not to know or even suspect is that, in many ways, they enjoy far fewer freedoms, and suffer under a more intrusive centralized state, than do the citizens of countries with more vigorous social-democratic institutions. This is at once the most comic and most tragic aspect of the excitable alarm that talk of social democracy or democratic socialism can elicit on these shores. An enormous number of Americans have been persuaded to believe that they are freer in the abstract than, say, Germans or Danes precisely because they possess far fewer freedoms in the concrete. They are far more vulnerable to medical and financial crisis, far more likely to receive inadequate health coverage, far more prone to irreparable insolvency, far more unprotected against predatory creditors, far more subject to income inequality, and so forth, while effectively paying more in tax (when one figures in federal, state, local, and sales taxes, and then compounds those by all the expenditures that in this country, as almost nowhere else, their taxes do not cover). One might think that a people who once rebelled against the mightiest empire on earth on the principle of no taxation without representation would not meekly accept taxation without adequate government services. "

From: https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/three-cheers-socialism
I got the feeling while I worked there that their overreaching non-competes and IP clauses were a big reason they couldn't attract good creative talent.

You had to agree to give them everything that you worked on outside of work, even if it was unrelated to your job. And even if you worked in a different part of the company, you weren't allowed to contribute to or participate in other peoples' game-related projects unless everyone involved worked for Amazon, and if you did work on a game side project (which Amazon would own,) it had to use AWS for its online features.

That's not how you hire creative talent. It felt insulting, and I think their pearl-clutching put off the sort of people who might have been able to make them some real hits. Their failure to break into the industry does not surprise me; it always had a painfully stodgy "hello, fellow kids" kind of feel.
One of my favorite College courses was my digital logic class, where we went from logic gates to building a 4-bit microprocessor. It really gave me a deeper understanding of what computers are and how everything ultimately works together.

I took this class when I was already A dozen years into my software development career. It’s certainly not necessary to write software, but I’m really glad I know the underpinnings of computing.
I think it's like Gerrymandering - yea we can all tell when it's gotten to stupid levels but the supreme court wasn't wrong to want a definition of where the line between "okay" and "bonkers" is. I personally think the decision could've been a bit more aggressive against gerrymandering but we do need some clear line to say "If you're beyond this you're doing an illegal thing" - and while we could close in on that line over time with a slow accumulation of precedent it'd be a lot cleaner to have a decent measure.
Perhaps a better question is, what are compiler authors optimizing for? A compiler that runs in 3 seconds that produces code that's half the speed as a compiler that runs in 3 minutes is a worse option than the latter in plenty of use cases. And if we really care about minimizing compile times (and if we're being a little pedantic) we can just use an interpreted language and achieve zero compile times, by virtue of not doing any compiling at all.

Rust and Pascal have different use cases in mind. I think a better question would be what are the different design philosophies between the two languages, and how this impacts compiler implementations.
Numeral System Automata
Rust core leadership treats most technical problems as marketing problems.
Agree. Yes, it’s extremely interesting. I look back fondly on my youthful hours/days/weeks spent tinkering with assembly.

And yet. To a junior dev who asked me for advice on this stuff today, I’d just say read Code: The Hidden Language of Computer Hardware and Software, and if you like that then work through Nand to Tetris, and then go back to whatever you need for you day job.
>They don't want to be able to do the same work - they want to do the same work the exact same way using the exact same software.

They don't merely want to the same work. They also want the best of class software. GIMP is not Photoshop by a large margin, for example. Ardur is too little to be compared to Logic or Cubase or ProTools (even without the issue of plugins). And so on...

>Same goes for video editing as well - there's kdenlive, OpenShot, DaVinci Resolve, Lightworks, and yes, even Blender can do it. But, nope. People want Premiere, Sony Vegas, and Final Cut - the rest doesn't even cross their mind.

No, many would be happy with DaVinci Resolve. But then they'd need many other parts of a video/post production workflow still not available on Linux in good form or any form.

It's not just "you're a videographer, you use Premiere on Windows, just switch to Davinci on Linux". Because I also e.g. might use AfterEffects, tons of video plugins not available on Linux, Photoshop and Audition for post-production work, several post production utilities, drivers for different peripherals I use for video, and so on. Oh, and plus all the saved presets and automations and such they've made for those.

DaVinci on Linux is great, but only solves a small (albeit core) part of the workflow.

Also, it's very understandable that professionals have invested in learning programs and constellations of programs.

Would a heavy Emacs user move to another platform that doesn't have Emacs - but offers e.g. Jove?

So it's not about unwillingness to move from Photoshop to say Gimp and Krita because they're "different". It's that Gimp and Krita are quite behind in several aspects, and that their presence only solves a small part of a professional (or hobbyist for that matter) workflow.
The title "Signal Desktop grants RCE to Signal developers" is clickbait. A less hyperbolic title would be "Signal Desktop offers no option to disable automatic updates"
If you knew how computers worked....

Websites wouldn’t be 4MB on the front page...

Some of you would be ashamed of the choices you make in typed languages...

Others would be horrified to find out what happens in the back end of not typed languages...

You would constantly find it amazing that single CPU core systems aren’t ever actually doing more than one thing at a time and the concurrency of moving the mouse on the screen and ANYTHING else the system is doing is just an illusion...

You wouldn’t shit on C language... at least less.

... IDK, I’m sure there are a ton more I’m not thinking about. I’ll leave it up to someone else to articulate better... something something FaceTime is usually a massive waste of technology.

These are bad musings from an embedded programmer who is dealing with a 2020 released chip and it’s 4KB of ram.
FWIW the author did previously take donations.
Realistically, people who won't spend money to upgrade their phones aren't going to spend money on a subscription either. A different equitable solution is to make the app free but only support recent OSes; people running older OSes can use old APKs.
And, you know, the pressures of social interaction.
The YC business model (because it's a business, not a charity) is upselling their abilities to investors, and the financial institutions backing those, such that they continue to put up tens of millions in series A, B, etc. rounds for companies that would otherwise struggle to raise money because their business models, tech stacks, and product market fit are questionable at best.

Part of that business model is that in case a company doesn't work out (i.e. almost always), these losses are absorbed such that the investor can spin the investment as a success to their clients (e.g. pension funds). YC is good at this to the extent that even these failures are quite lucrative for everyone involved. The message with this article is that complete failure and loss of investment is quite rare for them but of course it happens. It's basically a "don't worry, we know what we are doing" kind of message.

Any time you hear the words acquihire, what happens is a controlled shut down of a failed business. Mostly these are actually complete failures in terms of the buying company spending money on a company that then gets unceremoniously killed or absorbed into the main company at a loss and is never heard from again. Quite often this is the whole point: kill the company as cheaply as possible with as little loss of face for founders and investors as possible. Mostly, services are shut down or mismanaged, people start leaving almost right away, and most of the "money" is actually just investors swapping one set of shares for another and high-fiving each other. Somebody just lost but it's not them.

Why would companies volunteer to do that? Well for that, you just have to follow the money and basically you'll find that these companies are typically backed by the same groups of investors and financial institutions. It's a form of creative bookkeeping and investors consolidating their assets and risk such that they can continue to up-sell their abilities to manage other people's money (because it is rarely their own cash).

Startup funding is mostly a pyramid scheme with smart investors at the top basically making money from increasingly more gullible investors the further down that pyramid you go. Sometimes it accidentally produces a profitable company that actually makes it to an IPO worth many billions. These unicorns then promptly start acquiring their less lucky siblings so that those too can be spun as a great success. But even some of those unicorns are questionable. E.g. Uber is a great success. So is Wework. But are they profitable and will they ever be and does that even matter? YC is successful in the sense that their network of investors has access to a great number of such unicorns. This means most of the companies they investment in are relatively safe investments no matter how silly the company is.
My prat comment about C++ is the compiler writers are stuck in a trap. Because compiling C++ is slow they add optimizations to the compiler (also written in C++) to make the code faster. But that makes the compiler even slower. So they add even more optimizations to the compiler to make it run faster...
a bit more detail on the discovery from a few months ago by Thommaso Dorigo: https://www.science20.com/tommaso_dorigo/higgs_decay_to_muon...
If you know anything about onions, you know Walla Walla Sweets are the sexiest. Wait until they hear about the Hermiston melons!
>If you have never met a representative sample of half the country it seems reasonable to assume anything you don't like is done by someone evil outside it.

That's part of the problem. You are assuming that everyone who doesn't live in a small town or rural area believes that those who do are bad, evil or wrong.

Well I'm here to tell you that you're mistaken. The vast majority of my fellow Americans (regardless of where they live) are decent people who just want to have a country that respects the rule of law, provides equality under those laws and gives everyone a fair shake to succeed.

There is a very small group that doesn't want that. And they seem to have successfully pitted us against each other, rural vs. urban, white vs. black, young vs. old, etc., etc., etc.

But those are false divisions. Sure, we disagree about a bunch of things. But the vast majority of us agree about much more than we disagree.

So please, don't just paint everyone that's different (in this case, the population density of their residence) with such a broad brush.

I was born and live in the largest city in the US. I've also traveled all over this country, and lived in cities, suburbs and small towns. What I've seen in my more than half-century of living, is that we mostly want the same things.

The problem is that we're not getting them! But it's not the city dweller or the rural resident that's keeping us from doing so.

We could make this country a good place for just about all of us if we stop hurling insults at one another and work together to make our government work for us.

Because, in the end, the government is us. That we allow ourselves to be divided, keeps us from working together to create the change we all want.

If we do that, and build bridges of communication to do so, we're in a much better position to communicate and compromise about the stuff we disagree upon.

I don't care where you live or what you look like. Americans are my brothers and sisters, and I want you to have the life you want to live. And I want to have the life I want to live.

Let's not let those who don't want that keep us from getting it.
“There is such a thing as an ‘epidemiologist’,” is not a true statement at all. It’s a strange assertion, given that I just proved otherwise.

Epidemiology is not one thing, it’s a bunch of practitioners of different disciplines who broadly work in the area of human disease. Dismissing an expert because they are not “an epidemiologist” is like dismissing a physicist‘s opinion on math, because they are “not a mathematician”. It’s a lowbrow dismissal.
San Jose spent $17M to build 50 tiny single bed sheds (avg $340k per shed). If they’d put that money in some financial investment returning 10%, they could’ve just given 50 people 35k per year until they got back to normal.

Politicians (in this case Sam Liccardo) will do anything for 15 minutes of fame.
[quote]areas of the brain correlated with working memory and encoding new information were more active during handwriting.[/quote]
I could have told you that. Writing it down helps me remember it.
Needs (2007) in the title.

TL;DR: Archimedes discovered many of the principles used in calculus today.
> The minimum amount of money you have to pay for someone to show up for any job rises (and falls) alongside demand for labor in the broader economy.

Oh, what that it were so simple. There are far more factors governing "market wages", which you are describing, including labor supply at a given skill level, automation, political representation of laborers vs employers, and how that representation manifests as power in the local and global economic contexts.

The "minimum wage" specifically is a policy designed to put a floor under the standard of living of people whose market wages in the economy would provide a standard of living below what the society considers humane. Some societies have no such humanity based floor.
There is no data anywhere showing that 2000IU causes toxicity or harm in anyone.

Could it have been anything else?
I kinda agree with GP: when someone isn't specific about where they're from, then nobody can really respond to them. It's like when people say they're from Europe or how great things are from them there. Even if you wanted to look up how your argument applies to their country or how their country addresses your point, you cannot.
Facebook Messenger for Desktop