skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Hi. Co-founder of Kitemaker here. Thanks for the kind words! Do let us know if you have any feedback or improvements you'd like to see.
The prefix is just a project name though? It's no different from a convention saying that IDs 1000XXX are for project A and IDs for 2000XXX are for project B, it's just easier to read and distinguish like PROJA-0001 and PROJB-0001.

Obviously, you wouldn't want to have things migrating between projects - but if that is even concievable for an issue to do, then the division in 2 projects was probably not correct and it should perhaps have been a single project. That is: the PROJA-0001 is as immutable and unchanging as 1000001 is.

A thing changing "kind" (e.g. a bug to a feature) doesn't seem far fetched, and I'd be reluctant (Meaning I think it would be a flawed design) to use that as the public identifier prefix for a feature.
Your stackexchange post corrects itself fruther down. Ye was the plural and thee the singular. You was accusative.
While I acknowledge you have a point, the parameters here are different; on Medium, everyone has their own space, and low-quality work is harmless. On MDN though (and to a degree Wikipedia, although it's a lot broader), you want authoritative, high quality documentation. Quality over quantity.

MDN won't become better if there's more contributors and activity (churn).
Quality documentation is very difficult to produce and maintain.

On top of adopting a different mindset when writing docs (you'll need to phrase concepts and provide examples to cater for users who probably don't share the same intimate knowledge you have of the codebase), there's a high cost associated with upkeep. Ensuring that your docs always align with the implementation might be straightforward for smaller applications, but as your API surface grows so will the cracks that outdated documentation will slip through.

There are a few examples of tools which are designed to lessen the burden (that I know of):

- To generate usage examples from your code, Go has the idea of testable examples (https://blog.golang.org/examples) which get rendered in the documentation but are declared as normal functions. These can be easily unit tested.

- To provide usage examples in code without resorting to unit tests, Clojure has `comment` forms (https://clojuredocs.org/clojure.core/comment) which are normal expressions but ignored by the compiler. You can define arbitrary expressions within a comment form (e.g. to execute another function), so these can be used to define usage examples and placed next to the functions they call.
that still needs to call JS though... It's not like they rewrote the renderer in Clojure

A simpler and easy to grok alternative with minimal dependencies is thing-geom

https://github.com/thi-ng/geom/blob/master/geom-viz/src/core...

You just declare what you want drawn and you get back an svg tree which you can either modify further or transform to xml to get an actual .svg format string

It's very unopinionated and can be easily inserted in both Clojure and Clojurescript applications. You can render with the browser, webview, batik, svgsalamander or I even quickly wrote a converter to Javafx bc I have the svg tree I can directly traverse
Sure. However, Apple reports revenue in terms of dollars sold, not units sold. I don't see how profit per unit is relevant when you're reading a 10Q.

You can look at HPQ's PC margin (and adjust based on how much extra % premium you think Apple charges versus HPQ) to get a rough idea of the margins for Macs.

The point is, people are looking at this revenue number as a beat, but in reality it would be a far better situation to have missed on Mac revenue and beat on iPhone revenue, due to the differences in margin.
More information here,

https://github.com/dotnet/designs/blob/main/accepted/2020/fo...
Investors had certain expectations. Even though these companies had great quarters, investors were expecting that. There were no surprises, hence flat stocks. To phrase it another way, it was already priced in.
In theory, yes; Github is working on / has deployed a web-based version of VS Code, and VS Code has a Markdown preview (and I'm sure there may be a WYSIWIG / Markdown editor as well).

It should be doable to create a WYSIWYG editor just for the MDN pages as well, or any static site generator for that matter. Question is whether they want to invest in that; will that actually improve things, given how the MDN pages are all fairly uniform in look, feel & layout.
When there's no loop bound it cannot prove termination, see halting problem. Goal is to avoid getting an infinite loop and then freezing the kernel of course.
This is a problem created by massive supply chains in food industry. This is a post farm gate solution for food wastage problem. Small farmers don’t need this.

Currently it’s only used in avocados. It’s a tad perplexing to me because avocados are harvested off trees when hard and then treated with ethylene gas. I don’t see how this is a value add tech.

But it is valued at over a billion dollars. Maybe the investors know something that I can’t see...and the secret sauce will be applied to some other produce soon.

In my opinion, the only effective way is to detect ethylene gas threshold and have an effective supply chain system. The sensor for this can be made from graphenes.

Graphene tech is rather new and likely expensive but we don’t need a whole lot of it. My instinct is to go that route for efficiency and broad adoption.

Apeel sciences cannot apply the same tech to all produce. It’s simply impossible. From an outsider POV, it’s only for produce that is picked unripe and then ripened somewhere in the supply chain. I don’t know where else they can use it. Maybe melons? That’s the next high wastage produce, but I suspect Apeel tech will not work with melons.

Perhaps someone more familiar with their tech and R&D can clarify my doubts.
The inability of congressmen to understand even the most trivial of technology considerations is irrelevant. These are business, so logically follow the money. In almost all cases the areas of concern are dictated by advertising business.

That being said if congress had any teeth at all they could instantly solve this technology problem by simply taking back the legislative protections that allow online advertising to thrive. If any of these companies had to operate without these special protections and thus compete with print media with equivalent protections they would immediately whither away.
You have been shadow-banned, though your comment history is mostly OK. You might want to contact HN so they have a look at it.

For now I've restored your comment, I can't do much more than that.
Laws applying generally differ from your licensing choices in that laws affect everyone, and your license only apply to those who explicitly want to obey them.

Therefore, laws will inevitably end up not matching somoene's ethics, while it's entirely up to you whether you allow others to do things you consider unethical with your software.

So if you do indeed not forbid others from using your software in a way you don't like, you don't have anything to complain about: it was your choice.

* * *

Separately, I'm not certain about the distinction between law and morality. Law is a set of rules of what things shall and shall not be done, being a code of moral rules in this sense. This is also what we use it for: we as societies generally use law to express our ethical stance on murder and violence, for example, but also theft, the permission to take drugs and drink alcohol, to go out at night.

In this case, it's beneficial to my conscience if the law is a codification of my own morality. But the author claims that they make a distinction: there are ethical rules that should not be codified.

Wwere does the line go? I can understand justifying that position by saying that people with different moral codes would riot, making it impractical to forbid what I see as immoral.

I ask this question because that was not explained, and is the justification for preferring to abolish copyright rather than instill the 4 rules, even though the author seems to agree with both, and both are just as impractical to implement at this time (would make people riot).
Dogma in Science, Alzheimer's Disease, Meritocracy, Time, Who vs. What
This seems like an uncharitable take: OP seems to be arguing you should focus on what you can measure (even if it’s personal experience), and seek guidance when you need help.

The concrete advice at the end seems pretty supported by science. Drinking and smoking are definitively bad for you.
In the uk you have tokamak energy that is using the same aproach than arc (and they seems to be hiring).

https://www.tokamakenergy.co.uk/
If the standard of living is bad enough people will simply fail to immigrate. You need not just young men seeking adventure, but educated and talented people willing to have a family there across long timeframes as infrastructure is slowly built up.

The US for example is below replacement rate, which is fine if you has constant immigration or it’s going to increase as the population falls. Less so if having 10% fewer people means everyone else dies.

Technology is only half the battle you also need to avoid negative feedback loops where if conditions are bad enough you don’t get doctors and surgeons immigrants. Which then makes things worse. A few year shift is fine for a token settlement, less so if you’re shipping 100,000 people there and 100,000 people back every year.
I thought it was practically impossible to have a smooth color space because the real human color space is non-euclidean ?
There are individual differences in autobiographical memory [1]. I don't have any memories like this either.

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29807853/
There is a significant impact, In Morocco, endocrinologists don’t want you to do bloodwork, after Ramadan. They ask you to wait at least 3 weeks after Ramadan to do testing.
How the coronavirus is spread through the air
>I haven't really seen Quantum Mechanics applied to climate science

Ah, you';re missing the point completely

Quantum mechanics has nothing to do with climate change, but the point is that your claim that common sense is important in science is false
> I can do as a CS engineer to help solve the big problems of our time, such as climate change

So far, technology has only created environmental problems. I don't think environmental problems created by technology can be solved with technology without creating another problems.
Like Codespaces (https://github.com/features/codespaces)?
Instagram for a Halloween with candies instead likes
I do it to when I need to wake up early so my body is not "surprised" by the low amount of sleep. Works well I think.
Do you calculate how many hours you will sleep ? Maybe the brain set some kind of a timer.
Anyone is totally free to carve/emboss/sharpie/sew those words into the pencil/shoes/car that they buy. No one is stopping you. And I think that would be more of a personal statement than having it drawn by a company's factory laser on an automated production line.

You want the company to say the words along with you and agree with your position.

But you've already lost. It's a bit like falling into the trap of brand advertising that screams, "Be yourself"... by buying one of our products.

I'll just say again, if you put your faith into a corporation reflecting your moral convictions, you will often be disappointed.
> How can intangible things be owned? Intangible things aren't scarce.

Surely you own money?

> It's not about the work required to create it or even the work required to copy it. The point is that it's not scarce.

Right, the copying part is "free". The thing that software licenses try to protect, the part which is not free, is the effort that goes into making software. The end product is not scarce, but the materials that go into it are. So the thing that these licenses are doing is slapping on a "price" at a strange step in the pipeline–but only because copyright law is strange that way, and for open source projects it is hard to add value to the creation process anyways.
> This feels wrong. How can someone be a victim of an act they voluntarily declared was okay?

Mutual vulnerability is one of the keys to healthy relationships (in marriage, teamwork etc). From this perspective, the discussed statement makes perfect sense to me.

People avoid building relationships with invulnerable, and normal people don't optimize for their own invulnerability, to not miss out on relationships.
I guess nature proved a great inspiration again
On the surface of it, yes, but at least in the Qt case, the Qt Company is exempt from obeying the GPL by requiring contributors to assign them copyright, effectively making the codebase permissive for themselves and only themselves.
The fragility of self-government in classical Europe – Bret Devereaux
Why should it be the case that non-scare resources cannot be owned? What if there were pragmatic reasons for providing property protections to certain non-scare resources?

I think your argument would be more convincing with some justification as to why scarcity ought to be necessary for property protections.

Property can be conceptualized as a social technology, an idea that is useful for solving problems and accomplishing goals. In that alternative view, we should apply property protections in cases where it's useful, regardless of scarcity.
It's quite telling already that they basically admit that mixing markup and content as tightly as that is problematic.

I mean I don't think it's actually that big of a deal as long as they stick to basic HTML markup (paragraphs, bold/italics, etc), but you're already running into problems when you add links.

Not having multi-language support as a first-class citizen is a step backwards IMO. Especially considering the world is still getting connected at an enormous rate.
Right but I guess the point I'm getting at is that termination seems neither necessary nor sufficient to me. A loop (or nested loops...) that goes up to 2^63 may as well be infinite, so on the face of it it's not obvious why boundedness gets you anywhere by itself—you'd need to prove something stronger anyway. Conversely, it's not impossible to have loops that nevertheless (provably) terminate within N instructions. But if you're already bounding the number of instructions, why do you need bounded loops to begin with? Is that a necessary lemma of some sort before the algorithm is capable of proving something stronger? At first glance I don't see why the simulation (BMC?) approach you suggested would require bounded loops, since it would seem it might be capable of proving the termination of some unbounded loops within 1M instructions too.
Fileloupe for Mac – Media Browser
Yes, have a JSON dictionary interpreted by vega-lite and be done.
> (or maybe, conversely, get everybody to buy one last Intel Mac before their model was discontinued?).

This is precisely why I'm looking at buying a new MBP.
Why are hospital systems connected to the public internet, anyway? Wouldn't it make more sense to have all of the life-or-death stuff on its own secure network?
Sonobus: Self hosted app for low latency peer-to-peer audio
Sonobus is a free, open source, multi-platform app that allows for remote, low latency, peer to peer audio streaming between participants. Works best with ethernet connection and among partipaants less than 1000 km apart.
I've put some whitespace in your comment because it was borking the page layout. Sorry - it's our bug.
I don't think the parent comment made any prescription on whether 'burntsushi's ideas can be criticized here.
Every non-recommended addon has that warning. Addons are recommened based on number of users, use case etc. They are meant for non-technical users, to not install shady apps (adblock plus, ultra pro plus adblocker ++, etc)

The addon I linked doesnt even ask access to all sites. The developer has taken great care to request only for news sites, even though they are large in number
No, that’s not the extent of the criticism of the NYT. Here’s stratechery from a week ago quoting Columbia Journalism Review (https://stratechery.com/2020/twitter-responsibility-and-acco...)

> In light of the stark policy choices facing voters in the 2016 election, it seems incredible that only five out of 150 front-page articles that The New York Times ran over the last, most critical months of the election, attempted to compare the candidate’s policies, while only 10 described the policies of either candidate in any detail.

> In this context, 10 is an interesting figure because it is also the number of front-page stories the Times ran on the Hillary Clinton email scandal in just six days, from October 29 (the day after FBI Director James Comey announced his decision to reopen his investigation of possible wrongdoing by Clinton) through November 3, just five days before the election. When compared with the Times’s overall coverage of the campaign, the intensity of focus on this one issue is extraordinary. To reiterate, in just six days, The New York Times ran as many cover stories about Hillary Clinton’s emails as they did about all policy issues combined in the 69 days leading up to the election (and that does not include the three additional articles on October 18, and November 6 and 7, or the two articles on the emails taken from John Podesta). This intense focus on the email scandal cannot be written off as inconsequential: The Comey incident and its subsequent impact on Clinton’s approval rating among undecided voters could very well have tipped the election.

——

But here’s the real kicker. It’s not that the NYT made a mistake about prioritising the wrong coverage and convincing undecided voters to break for Trump or stay home. People make mistakes and we should forgive them.

The real issue is that since then the NYT has convinced people that it was the Russians and Facebook and Cambridge Analytica that got Trump elected. Their breathless coverage of the email non issue had 0 influence, it was entirely the fault of everyone else.

And it worked! No one blames the NYT now for their mistake in 2016. Which is why Greenwald thinks it’s the right thing to do to start emails 2.0.
All: don't miss that there are multiple pages of comments in this thread. That's what the More link at the bottom points to. Or click here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24933054&p=2

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24933054&p=3

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24933054&p=4
It sounds like "intangible" is maybe not the perfect word for it. Money is a promise, so a form of a contract, and promises or contracts cannot be meaningfully duplicated, so they are scarce.

Recordings of thoughts can be duplicated at will, and so are not scarce.

Before someone points out that money is a recording of a promise, I'll mention that multiple recordings of a contract don't make multiple contracts :)

> So the thing that these licenses are doing is slapping on a "price" at a strange step in the pipeline–but only because copyright law is strange that way

If the law is strange, maybe abolishing is a reasonable reaction? We could conceivably have laws placed at a better step in the pipeline.
You can use a virtual audio cable to simply record anything that would go to your speakers, it's free.
Awesome! I'll sign up!
Menu simulation, Spidertron, Ghost building, Confirm button
They said "Our intention in sending the memo was for you to revise the story for publication. [...]
It would be unfortunate and detrimental to The Intercept for this story to be published elsewhere."

That's not forbidding him from publishing it, it's expressing regret that he appears to be unwilling to address the editor's comments on his draft.
I respect your position, and in general I agree. But your position on what political is, feels a bit unholistic. When more than one person is involved, everything is political, and very much so if you talk about contracts between people, which licenses are. A contract is a construct, it’s something that doesn’t exist, and has a lot of grey area. There is a system in place to debate whether specific actions are respecting the idea of the contract, in the case of licences, this can be a court of law.

Wanting to write better software is a good, and I would think quite common goal. But so is wanting to have a good life. It’s on the road to that goal, with a lot of other people wanting the same goal but having just a slightly different idea of how to get there, that it gets political.
Very expensive to put and maintain separate cables, kinda separate internet.
I read the book and can recommend it. Very interesting!
What do you mean by double and quad precision?
Show HN: NeuXP: The Next Norm of Digital Banking
Experience the Next Norm of Digital Banking with NeuXP. NeuXP transforms the digital banking experience for non-residents in Europe, USA & Asia via an integrated banking platform. Empower your digital finance journey with NeuXP
True, but if you're comfortable saying "I can't help you with that" or "I'm not really interested in doing that right now", doesn't seem like it would be much of a problem. At least not if you give something away for free; if the ones asking for help are "customers", I can see the dealing with distractions feeling more obligatory, but even that seems solvable if you just sell it with the caveat that only minimal support will be provided, or something, and let potential customers take it or leave it.
yeah, this is weird for me. lately I started recognizing that people are leaning towards extreme options or treat decision as "either this or that" while not looking at something in the middle or combining couple of tools to single use.
They're certainly missing out on the joy of self satisfaction.
They don't need to understand the tech to recognize that there's an issue, but they do need to understand the the tech if they want to have any hope of regulating social media and fixing the issue that they have identified.

They mostly seem to give the impression that Dorsey/Zuckerberg, etc, could just tell their companies to do a thing and then it magically happens.

They at least need to understand the tech well enough to recognize that fair, effective content moderation for billions of people is a more difficult and more complicated problem than any of them have attempted to solve.

I think social media companies could do a better job of being transparent and working to reduce political bias, but I do appreciate the challenge that they are facing.
here's to the crazy ones