skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Some would say the GC advances in the 90's were a renaissance, but I think I'd agree we are in the middle or tail end of a second one.

Many of those 90's GC algorithms complained of a lack of a cheap instruction for write barriers, and some were specifically about amortizing write barriers by using coarser grained ones. Azul's pivot to software only solutions came on the shoulders of Intel's VT instruction set, which allows, among other things, for nesting of virtual memory. The Azul JVM essentially behaves as a VM.

[ETA] and some of the other GCs now leverage the vast open space of 64 bit addressing to alias memory addresses to give references 2 or 3 flavors, and use that to coordinate parallel GC activities.
Why to Be Prolific
I was also there. I don't really know what to say other than it wasn't mostly about Monty Python and Barney.

Edit: That last "What are you talking about?" part was pretty rude. Sorry about that.
FYI a self-hosted copy of Mailtrain is a fine replacement for MailChimp.
> Making a smart light flash red every-time President Trump tweeted was just a silly goof to setup to show friends

Just to play devil's advocate, have you ever been introduced to either a job opportunity or investment opportunity via your friends, who see that you're able to build stuff? If so, you could potentially place a monetary value on the benefit you derived from doing that.
DjangoCon 2019 – Technical Debt: Why it'll ruin your software
Not much dogwhistling in "Papist", I don't think?! - I'd always interpret that as negative...
The modern internet is much more expressive for a great many more people that geocities ever was.

Geocities even constrained by the technology of the day offered far more expressiveness than Facebook’s “fill in these fields and we’ll populate a standard template” approach does.
The problem here is that processes in enterprises are never default. Depending on the company the requirement to these processes are always different.

Tools like Jira reflect these complexity on us during customization and are rated by their capability to handle them.
I think it has more to do with people believing disinformation campaigns stemming from ideologically motivated activism. Much like antivaxxers.
Parsing anything that was originally developed by humans writing it on paper (or clay tablet, or whatever) is a nightmare. Natural means chaotic.

If your CSV file contains any field entered by humans AWK isn't going to be powerful enough to parse it at scale. Someone somewhere is going to have the name 'Mbat"a, Sho,dlo' in some bizarre ass romanization (and this assume you're not accepting Unicode, which is a whole other can of worms that AWK is not prepared to deal with) that breaks your parser.
Do you have any references or papers that developed the idea of having a stack at runtime? I love reading into the fundamentals of modern computing.
It's good to see better voting systems being used. The one I'd like to see applied for something major is Majority Judgement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_judgment
Recovering Lost Roam Notes
CSV is the default interchange in many fields (e.g. a lot of machine learning or academia). You don't get to choose what formats your colleagues send to you.
There is some support for that [1]. I prefer to use native binary gRPC because:

1) REST verb/code mapping is too arbitrary for my taste, I prefer explicit verbs in RPC method names and error codes explicitly designed for RPC [2] and ones that will not be accidentally thrown by your HTTP proxy thereby confusing your client

2) REST stream multiplexing over a minimum amount of TCP connections is difficult to do, I trust the gRPC authors to have done their homework better than the average HTTP library. In addition, you can multiplex multiple gRPC bidirectional streams over a single TCP connection, which is something you can't do over plain HTTP without resorting to websockets.

[1] - https://cloud.google.com/endpoints/docs/grpc/transcoding

[2] - https://github.com/grpc/grpc/blob/master/doc/statuscodes.md
The thing is Rust isn't functional, in that the coding patterns rely a lot on mutation actually, but the compiler can assert that your mutation will be race free, and that you won't segfault and most likely won't leak memory.

So you can say it appeals to functional programmers in the sense that they tend to be wary of mutation, so does Rust in a way. Except where a functional language will turn to immutability, Rust turns to an advanced compiler and linear types to safeguard you against the dangers of mutation.

The real benefits are performance, which has always been the achilles heel of functional programmers.
Russian hacker group targeted state Democratic parties in repeat of 2016 attacks
Smart Contract Fuzzing with Echidna
Political parties are incentivised to mislead voters into marking only one candidate.
No you wouldn't be fine. Wolves are very dangerous animals. And, assuming your area has a lack of game for them to hunt and eat, they most certainly would prey on people if they were in your area.

Wolves fear humans because humans kill them. If we weren't doing so, they would lose their fear within a few decades at most and hunt humans. Coyotes have never hunted humans, they're too small.

Real nature is not happy fluffy bunnies and cuddly wolf pups. It is heartless and uncaring. And majestic, awe inspiring and wonderous.
The Massachusetts proposal is less dumb than Maine's. It's for all elections except presidential. RCV is incompatible with the NPVIC, as well as with how the electoral college works in the interim. If Maine voted for a third-party without NPVIC, it would, in effect, waste its vote.
There are properties that different voting systems have. Not all voting systems can fulfill all of these properties. In many cases, it is a trade-off of some having some properties but not others and people deciding what they care about more. For instance, RCV satisfies the majority criterion, meaning that if a candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, then they are the winner. However, it does not satisfy the Condorcet criterion, which is that if there is a person who wins in a pairwise matchup against every other candidate, then that person is the winner.

RCV is also sensitive to different tactical strategies. You can rank a weak candidate higher in the hopes that they do well in one part of the run-off and then worse later. You may also have a preference for voting a less preferred candidate first for other reasons.

I wouldn't say it's perfect. It has some nice properties. Other systems may have nice properties too. The useful question to me is if you compare the current system vs. RCV, would it elect of those who more closely match the preferences of people they represent. I would say yes to that, but I also think Condorcet methods would do an even better job.
Interesting approach! But aren't JSON arrays a pretty wasteful encoding?

Since this is an opaque serialization of an instruction set, why not try to encode more bits per number (JSON floats support lossless integers of many more bits), and moving the "symbol table" (string data) to the end?

This way you could also compress redundant symbols into single strings.
> I had the impression RPC was seen as a mistake.

Aren't REST and webhooks just RPC protocols too?
I see, cool.

So the spec already includes versioning?
If your opinion of Dijkstra is mostly negative and the result of reading others' opinions or selective readings of his EWDs (some of which are incredibly negative in tone), it would behoove you to read his EWDs. Just go through the archive and grab random ones based on title, then later do a more systematic reading of them.
The biggest benefit is when your company supports multiple programming languages. All RPC calls can still stay uniform regardless language backend.
After one watches enough of the "censorship!" crowd wring their hands, it starts to become obvious that the agitation is not for the freedom and the liberty to speak, but for the freedom and the liberty to require your attention.

I think back to this article a lot: https://www.salon.com/2012/07/01/southern_values_revived/
The main value I get from IFTTT is that they handle the integration with a wide variety pack of services that individually would be a massive pain to touch.

I don't value my time too highly, but I certainly do value it enough to not want to put in the grunt work needed to work with the APIs [0] that my smart thermostat provides. While as with IFTTT, setting the temperature given a particular trigger is a couple button clicks.

[0]: https://www.ecobee.com/home/developer/api/documentation/v1/o...
In Sasha Shulgin’s book PIKAL, he describes mixing two drugs, I think it was MMA and cannabis, and experiencing perceived time dilation. He describes it as looking at the hands of a clock and experiencing much more time between the movement of the hands than one normally would. He said it was frightening, so he called his friend to come help. He was able to speak normally and hear people speak normally. While he was on the phone, he asked for a timer to be set while he went to go retrieve something. His experience of walking down the hall and back felt to him like twenty minutes. When he returned to the phone, he was told it had only been two minutes.

The effect wore off by the next day. He was never able to recreate the effect, but he kept a battery of experiments at the ready of it ever happened again. He expressed regret at not being able to carry them out.

He once said that the experience changed his perception of death. If time were to continue dilating, asymptotically approaching a halting of time, then one might never die in their own experience.
I'll address your questions second, but I want to put forward the most lucid scenario that I feel addresses the double stop situation.

We have an intersection where one direction is controlled (There's a stop sign) and the other is not. If a bike or pedestrian is moving in the uncontrolled direction, should we allow a car in the controlled direction to be able to block uncontrolled traffic - car, bike, pedestrian without by default being liable.

My answer would be no - the car coming from the controlled direction cannot impede the uncontrolled lanes of traffic when proceeding. If something suddenly appeared, like an animal, then we should allow drivers some leeway to resolve that trolley problem. However, I would add that there should be an expectation that things are proportionate - allowing a cat to survive should not force a biker or pedestrian to hit the car.

I think we can generalize this further by introducing right-of-way and other concepts that make fully controlled intersections more difficult, but I feel the results will be roughly similar.

To your initial questions, the body of the car moved into the bike lane when I had insufficient time or space to deviate my path to avoid the car. I hit the hood of the car and flew over it.

I am in agreement that if I'm following someone through an intersection and rear-end them based on them double stopping, I think it is less so when we are dealing with orthogonal lanes of traffic.
> Shortcuts also has a much more sophisticated integration with iOS

Anecdotally, here is the first shortcut I wanted to create when Shortcuts appeared on my iPhone: switch off Slack notifications at 6pm on Fridays, switch them back on every Monday at 6am. This is still not doable as of iOS 14.

I really don't get the hype around fancy automation (stuff you can see on website like MacStories for example) if simple toggles I need to improve my life are not there yet.
People also expect drivers to kill 20k per year. I don't think Waymo is likely to sign up to that goal whole-heartedly.
There is no going back to “normal” even after a Covid-19 vaccine
can we get this for ballot measures as well?

Would be cool if one could select from multiple flavors of a measure. Sometimes the scope of a measure is large though it's in good spirit.
It also worth noting that the specification’s author also built his company on this single implementation.
And bank and payment processor.

I'm waiting for people to go after someone's electric company.
That reminds me of the anecdote where one of Google’s hiring committees realized that they wouldn’t have gotten hired had they been judged by their own standards. It makes you wonder how much talent gets filtered out when we apply very stringent metrics to grade candidates.
> Revenue is a trailing indicator. When people are just getting started with a new service they don’t just dive in with their full budget. They invest a little and revise their budget allocation incrementally. If you push too hard on revenue you can get 100% of the budget they allocated you today but you are missing the bigger opportunity to give them outsized returns which is what will cause them to allocate you more of their budget in the future.
It is more likely that those are the instances you remember because they stand out as compared to other uninteresting instances. So you get the impression that the former happens more often.
Well it's similar to a traditional runoff when there are two major candidates, but it could lead to different results when support is split more evenly among three or more candidates.
You are correct, I should have said "establishment" rather than "moderate".
First of all, the countries that use FPTP voting systems and do have more than two parties (like the UK) have the highest measured levels of misrepresentation error in the world, so I don't think it is a goal we should strive for.

Further, I disagree that politics is inherently winner takes all.

For example, ranked choice voting allows that I can be represented by a moderate candidate. If I can't get my first choice (a liberal candidate), I would prefer a moderate candidate to a right wing extremist. In this case, compromise (the opposite of winner takes all) is possible.

Another example is proportional representation, which allows for views with less than 51% of the vote to get representation. So for example, say a Green Party gets 30% of the vote, so they will get 30% of the representation. These minority parties are still often able to implement their agenda by making deals with the other parties. If Green is willing to compromise with either the Labor party or the Conservative party on their union stance in exchange for environmental votes, they can achieve their goals with less than a majority.
I've been told by researchers that unprotected lefts are one of the hardest problems for self-driving. They're so situationally dependent and can rely on social signaling.

If traffics is light, it's pretty easy of course. But get into congested areas and you pretty much have to be at least somewhat aggressive and even take things like Pittsburgh lefts. And if you're not at least somewhat aggressive, cars behind you can start honking horns and taking dangerous actions because, from their perspective, you're blocking the road. (No criticism intended; you have to do what feels comfortable for you.But it's probably one of the routine driving tasks that takes the most judgement.)
It think it's mostly because of disinformation campaigns rooted in ideologically motivated activism. Someone felt morally superior, convinced other people that they can be morally superior too and then it spread from there.
Intel Confirms Rocket Lake-S Tops Out at 8-Cores with DDR4-3200 Support
That's a different STAR vote (i know its confusing). The one you posted is about design for a voting machine. The one the comment is referring to is a vote counting method (like first past the post or rcv)
Sounds like SpaceX should get on mining this asteroid as quickly as than can.

What's better to boost the company stock then saying that have $10,000,000,000,000,000,000 dollars worth of rare metal claimed.

(I understand that it's probably a net loss right now to do a mining operation.. but that doesn't mean it will stay that way in the next decade)
What is the difference between a "private publisher" and a "common carrier?" Is Mailchimp guaranteeing the accuracy of everything they choose to send rather than block?
> No, at least outside of the US roads were there before the car even existed

I mean yes, obviously the concept of a road does literally predate cars. But no roads that modern cars drive on today were built 200 years ago for cattle and wagons to use. Modern city planners built (or re-built) these roads specifically with vehicle traffic in mind (and in some cases maybe bikes). If they didn't want them to support vehicle traffic, they would have built them using different materials and designs.

> No I don't think you should be able to unreasonably obstruct the highway. You can't do that no matter what vehicle or no vehicle you're in. But crossing is completely reasonable in my mind.

This reads like you're saying you think it's completely reasonable to cross the highway even if it obstructs traffic? I could be misinterpreting the connection between your first and last sentences here...

Either way, at the end of the day I think it comes down to the fact that we disagree on what constitutes "unreasonable obstruction". I believe a single pedestrian wanting to slow down dozens of cars so they can cross the street 30 seconds quicker is unreasonable. Even if we're talking about all pedestrians, the aggregate time saved by pedestrians crossing slightly earlier is far outweighed by the time lost by everyone in a car who's now traveling at 5mph instead of 40mph. I believe the current system we have of batching pedestrians crossing using traffic lights is far more efficient overall. The "should there be roads here in the first place" argument is a totally different one however.
I started a recent project with gRPC but wound up moving to fbthrift after having a bad time with the C++ async server story. Overall I’d like to be using gRPC because the fbthrift documentation is weak, but thread-per-request is a non-starter for some use cases. From the gRPC source it looks like they’ve got plans to do something about it but it seems a ways off.
@disown - There's so much truth in your comment. I see a lot of people calling out big tech trying to root their stance in the Constitution, when the Constitution was a chain designed specifically to restrain government -- not individuals.

As much as I hate what tech companies are doing in the free speech arena, my position is this: Legally, they can censor whomever they like; as perverse as that is, they're in their right. But to them I say, don't, and I repeat, don't, say you stand for freedom of expression when you have appointed yourself the arbiter of truth.

I am a work in progress when it comes to removing my own bias. I've had to confront and remove so much tribalistic, hypocritical bias from my own life; but today, a large segment of our society is pretending to actually have integrity in their analysis of current events.

But what do I know. I'm anti-censorship, so I guess that makes me a Nazi-sympathizing, white supremacist (#immexicanbro), right winger.

Edit: the #immexicanbro refers to the fact that I'm Mexican-American, por si no lo sabias.
As I've said elsewhere:

Personally, if [company] wants to filter or censor, go for it if and only if a) they disclose it and b) I can turn it off.
We have a model for this already, it's called "safe search"

When you filter without disclosing, you're stealing my agency and creating a situation for near-undetectable abuse.
So IFTTT now charges both users AND developers to use their platform?

I run a small service [1] and I've integrated it with Zapier but there's absolutely no way that I'm gonna pay $199/year to support IFTTT.

[1] https://pikaso.me
Linking your post you mentioned: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24944151
We can use RCV in primaries also, but not for State-level offices. There's pesky wording in the state constitution stating whoever wins a "plurality" is elected, while RCV requires a "majority". There is not this distinction for how Maine elects federal officials, hence it's use for those offices.
this is a direct consequence of switching from "most popular wins" (FPTP) to "least unpopular wins" (IRV), which is a subtle but very important distinction
The retort about "private companies" is usually a dishonest one, because whenever I drill into the views of the people making that retort I find that they are leftists (even far leftists) who only pretend to care about private companies when it's convenient to do so. The aim is clearly censorship at all levels of information distribution. We must end the trend now before it is too late.

If their views were the ones these companies were shutting down, they'd be up at arms about it. The evidence is in the response to Coinbase recently instituting a No Politics policy. Plenty on the left construed that as being censorship, ironically enough.
> Snakes

Virtually every adult killed by snakes in America was asking for it. Rattlesnakes sure as shit know they can't eat humans and would never attempt it. They are named for the mechanism they use to scare us away and bite when that fails. A huge number of rattlesnake bites are to the face or hands because it happens when some moron ignores the rattle and picks up the snake.

Wolves, unlike rattlesnakes do sometimes deliberately attack humans with 'malicious' intent. Rattlesnakes never do.
Frontend development in Docker is pain in 2020. But it gets better
There is one thing that is worse than FPTP: The Top-Two Primary. A bunch of candidates run, if no one gets 50% then the top two vote-getters face off in a second round with no other options allowed. On the surface it sounds a bit like IRV, but it causes really bizarre outcomes.

Basically, let's say party A is unpopular, and has 2 candidates. Party B is extremely popular and has 7. Party A's candidates each get 15% of the vote, Party B's candidates each get 10%. Even though most voters voted for Party B, they're now stuck in a runoff with two candidates from the opposite party.

Some people argue that this forces parties to be disciplined and force out candidates they deem "unsensible" or "extreme". But in practice this often doesn't work, and even if it did I feel like the mark of a good voting system is that voters feel safe expressing their preferences without having to be strategic.
No, gRPC/protobuf instead provides you with ways to evolve your schema easily in the IDL and the result on the wire, without breaking either side.

You can rename fields (but keep the tag number and therefore wire format compatibility), add fields (which will be ignored by the other side), remove fields (as all are explicitly optional so every consumer explicitly checks for their presence anyway), ignore unset fields (as the wire encoding is to a certain-degree self-describing), etc.
It’s no coincidence that the time of WW1 was ripe for conflict.

I’m certain that the socialist movements of the early 1900s had its roots during the wealth accumulation by industrialists and a
imperialism.

Europe’s World War 2, of course, had its roots on inequality at a national level (Germany).

Maybe it’s time for another world war? The effects would be devastating, but I feel it’s inevitable.
I personally am not in favor of decreasing the efficiency of our entire economy so that pedestrians who think they own the roads can walk wherever they want and expect everyone else to defer to their whims.

Also, you've repeatedly asked the question "why should drivers get any right of way on the roads". Well, for one, I would imagine that the average car operator pays more towards the upkeep of the roads than the average pedestrian.
A well written portrait of a truly great and original "Scientist" in the true sense of the term.

I have always wondered why his approach of constructing correctness proof along with the implementation never really caught on. I think it was what allowed him to come up with his novel algorithms. Have we lost something of the real essence of logical thinking here? Perhaps the paper mentioned in the article; Social Processes and Proofs of Theorems and Programs which he was vehemently against, will give me the other side of the argument.
Good points.

Thanks again!