skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> In Rust, all types (including resources) are movable.

Presumably not when pointers are pointing at them or their members.

In Rust, that is enforced by the compiler, but in C++ it is not. The rule that resource types are not movable is intended to provide some sanity here: this means a resource type can hand out pointers to itself or its members without worrying that it'll be moved at some point, invalidating those pointers.

> What's an explicit destructor? Rust's File type closes upon destruction, and one criticism of the design is that it ignores all errors. The only way to know what errors occurred is to call sync_all() beforehand.

I believe destructors should be allowed to throw, which solves that problem.

Obviously, this opinion is rather controversial. AFAICT, though, the main reason that people argue against throwing destructors is because throw-during-unwind leads to program termination. That, though, was an arbitrary decision that, in my opinion, the C++ committee got disastrously wrong. An exception thrown during the unwind of another exception is usually a side-effect of the first exception and could safely be thrown away, or perhaps merged into the main exception somehow. Terminating is the worst possible answer and I would argue is the single biggest design mistake in the whole language (which, with C++, is a high bar).

In KJ we let destructors throw, while making a best effort attempt to avoid throwing during unwind.

> When you include such a class in a larger structure, it breaks the ability for the outer class to derive a copy constructor automatically (even an explicit one, or a private one used by a clone() method). What's the best way to approach this?

In practice I find that this almost never comes up. Complex data structures rarely need to be copied/cloned. I have written very few clone() methods in practice.
Looks good. We use CoCalc for similar collaboration benefits. There is a self-hosted option which was important to us. CoCalc has been a game changer as we've all moved remote. Once Deepnote adds the self-hosted / cloud option (I see it coming soon) we'll check it out.
Root’s IPO Is a Windfall for Drive Capital, Ribbit, Other VCs
I'm probably going to get massively down voted for this, but here it goes.

I became a citizen of the US in 2011, but I still don't understand why Americans think they can only have a viable 3rd party with ranked choice voting. The response I hear all the time is "We live in a winner take all system." Yeah, so does everyone else. All politics is zero-sum, including in every other country. Actually, parliamentary democracies are even more winner take all than in the US, because they (typically) replace much more of their bureaucracy than Americans do after their elections.

Other countries have viable 3rd parties and when no one has a majority you build a coalition. I really fail to see why Americans insist they can't have a viable 3rd party other than sheer historical prejudice, ignorance, and inertia. Perhaps the one difference is that 3rd parties would be spoilers in a Presidential race, but splitting your ticket is easy enough (and if it's not then this country is irretrievably ignorant).

My suspicion is that ranked choice voting isn't going to fix anything in the US, and all the CGP Grey fans will have to go back to the policy drawing board. I'll be the first one to be pleased if I'm wrong, but I doubt I will be.

The US's problems are 90% cultural and institutional.

Edit:

I want to be clear that I'm not against RCV, I just don't think its going to do anything.
>Would there be any demand for an open-source, more code-oriented version of IFTTT for the devs around here?

Probably but there's so many IFTTT alternatives around (including the referenced node-red). If you're more tech savvy, you can either stand something up yourself, or you can use something like glitch (https://glitch.com/) to create some quick webhook adapters.
You’re asking for something that isn’t possible. The climate is an extremely complex system and we don’t have perfect and complete information of all of our current variables, let alone future variables. I don’t understand why you would equate people who work extremely hard to create models and try to understand our complex world to astrologers who make shit up.

What a horrible perspective.
By those numbers I should have died ten times already.
Session types may be up there? Or maybe progress on homomorphic encryption. Also, progress in quantum computing.
Denying someone a cake based on their unchangeable sexuality is not the same as denying someone a place to email unproven allegations about the son of a politician with an eye to unduly influence an election.

You can choose whether to be a QAnon'er. You can't choose to be straight.
It will still start scrolling though. I'm happy with just the favicons, the one extra letter or two don't help really. Never had problem with 100+ tabs when I was using Opera. With firefox it was always a fight to set it up.
I hope they don’t end up killing gmail one day.
I was really surprised when they killed there inbox app and it was killed after few years. I was basically using it as a primary email app for the phone
So for a cup of coffee (or 2 cups) a month you can no longer afford a service you find really useful and that you've been using forever for free?
The car is also assuming how the pedestrian will walk, I'm pretty sure we're just describing an adversarial game here. If the pedestrian guesses wrong they might be hit by the car, if the car guesses wrong the pedestrian might be hit. This means you can have easy rules that look clear cut, but in practice the risk for both parties makes me a pretty defensive pedestrian and driver.
If you dig in and watch the vehicles, it's clear that the next barrier is communication with other road users pedestrians, cyclists, drivers (and passengers).

Pedestrians don't know where the car is trying to go or when it will start or stop. Drivers get annoyed and brake check the vehicles. Drivers don't understand what the car is about to do next and drive erratically to get around it.
The FSD license goes with the car and increases its resale value.
Ask HN: Alternatives to NewPipe
After a recommendation by users here on NewPipe, I decided to shift my YouTube viewing experience to the app, and so far I've loved it. But of late, the app has been crashing for every link I try to use. Any alternatives abound?
I think the reason the example with the photo is useful is because it shows how the colourmap creates features where none exist in the data (due to the nonlinear gradient). When looking at the photo with Jet I can see discrete areas of flat colour, like the Obama 'Hope' poster, but really these boundaries are just artifacts of the colourmap.

I think the same thing happens in the arteries example in that SciPy talk. Sure it could be useful in some scenarios to highlight specific parts of the spectrum (like you mentioned with small deviations from the zero point) but at the end of the day the colourmap doesn't know anything about the data and shouldn't make any assumptions. Highlighting certain small intervals in the data could be better achieved with preprocessing, i.e. some polynomial scaling function.
Senator asks Google CEO about employment status of employee who criticized her
Why is google famous for killing their services is it because they run out of funding to fund those services
The 12ax7 and ecc83 / el84s are still commonly used in guitar amps. It’s fascinating how different manufacturers versions of the 12ax7 affects tone and transients.
I'm curious what you mean by "expressive".

The modern internet is a far more consumer oriented experience than it was in the "old days", so I'm not quite sure what you mean.
I haven't gone through this article, but I've read several incident reports from testing in Mountain View and seen several test vehicles driving around in that area.

Waymo cars are often unnaturally cautious, which is usually a factor when they get rear-ended. Ex: vehicle behind expected waymo car to turn left when there was an opening large enough for it, but it didn't.

These are probably worse because there's a safety driver who is probably actively engaged. If you can see the (apparent) driver looks actively engaged, you'll expect them to see the gap, and go for it. If the car had no one in the driver seat (or they were looking at screens/passengers), you might be more cautious.

Added: of course, that doesn't mean it's waymo's responsibility; this type of collision occurs with human drivers too, and it's the driver to the rear's fault, but either driver could have avoided the error: the front driver by going when it was safe to do so, as expected; and the rear driver by waiting to confirm the front driver actually went. Sometimes it's tricky because the front driver releases the brakes and then reapplies them; the rear driver saw the brake lights turn off and moves forward while watching oncoming traffic, but doesn't see the brakes were reapplied.

Added later: I read the verge article. It sounds like Waymo is working on not getting rear-ended, so they acknowledge there are things they can do (and that, in many cases, the safety driver was able to do).
E&Y strike again! Any record that includes both CUC and WeWork betrays a deep rot. The Big 5 became the Big 4, not too long after the events of TFA. Why shouldn't E&Y be killed by the courts?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24802741
Smarking (YC W15) Is Hiring an Implementation and Tech Partnership Manager
And not to be forgotten- https://gifcities.org/
There should be a lucas 'digitally enhanced' version, with hi res svg overlays floating around.
> "While technically true... I don't see how it contributes anything useful to the conversation, so I downvoted it."

If you don't see how it contributes to the conversation - why not just ignore it then? Just because you think this doesn't contribute to the conversation, doesn't make it true.

> "If you don't agree, that's fine..."

Clearly it's not "fine", otherwise you wouldn't try to silence comments you disagree with by down-voting them.

This is my last comment on HN.
That's pretty interesting. Thanks for sharing.

IMO I'd probably settle for anything beyond FPTP but it's good to know that there's research behind the options.
I omitted the simulations in the Waymo count. Good idea to add them in?
The advantage that RCV -- at least exhaustive RCV -- has over other systems is that by forcing a ranking, you prevent a collapse back to FPTP.

In approval voting, score voting, range voting etc, parties can and will push their voters to effectively "just vote 1".

This isn't a hypothetical -- it happened in Queensland, Australia when they switched from exhaustive preferential to optional preferential voting (you could rank any number of candidates, rather than having to rank all candidates). The Labor party campaigned on "Just Vote 1" and destroyed the Liberal-National Coalition at that election. Those parties in Queensland then had to merge to offset the effect on their primary votes. In turn that caused the separate Liberal and National party caucuses in the Federal parliament to merge into a single caucus (otherwise there'd be three party rooms). That in turn greatly strengthened the power of hard-right Liberals in the selection of Prime Minister. It's been fairly fucked ever since.

There are better voting systems on paper, but typically those theories don't account for political parties actively misleading voters about how the voting system works.
There's more to treatment than just medication. A good therapist specializing in ADHD will help you figure out how to build habits and processes to cope.
At first I did too, but then I thought about peoples handwriting and how it might be very hard to read the numbers. Then imagine a political fight over how many 1s are actually 7s?
Event Sourcing on Azure – part 3: command validation
But you do have CPL -- that does not help? Anyway, without subtraction, you could do the very same with one additional add:

int16_t celsius2fahrenheit(int16_t c)
{
int16_t f = 0;
f += c << 1;
f += c << 2;
f += c << 3;
f += c >> 2;
f += c >> 3;
f += c >> 5;
f += 320 * 8;
f >>= 3;
return f;
}
> Yeah, so does everyone else.

But they don’t. For example, Norway, New Zealand, Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands, none of which use the first past the post voting system (winner takes all) that most of the US does. As a result, those countries all have a healthy number of parties for voters to choose from.
Cars already do have to wait a little longer for pedestrians to cross - at traffic lights, stop signs, intersections and crosswalks.

Roads are literally built for cars to drive on. Having people on them makes driving far more dangerous, as well as meaning it takes longer to get places, not to mention taking a hit on fuel efficiency.

Should I be able to walk in front of a bus load of people and delay their commute? If we're allowing pedestrians unlimited full access to roads with full right of way all the time, then roads basically become sidewalks which cars are also allowed to inch along at walking speed. So what happens to busses now? Are we ok saying busloads of people now have to move at 3mph across a few miles? Again, I am for converting some downtown roads into pedestrian-only areas, but until we do that, we should treat these roads as roads.

If pedestrians should have right of way everywhere all the time, should a pedestrian be able to walk across a railroad crossing while the barriers are down and a train is approaching? Is the train expected to stop? Of course not, that would be ridiculous, but it's the same argument.
The older I get the harder it is to time-slot things, but I can think of a few things where much of the interesting work happened in the last ten years (similar to how a lot of pivotal work on GC algorithms happened in the late 90's).

Most of the good work on escape analysis started around ~2010

Rust got us rolling on borrow semantics (I have a feeling the '20s will be remembered as the the golden age)

I'm sure there's a thing or two in or around LLVM that would rank, but I'm not paying close enough attention.

From a 'renaissance' standpoint:

- LZ-family compression algorithms

- Multi-tenant process isolation (containers)

- transport protocols

- Consensus algorithms
Yes, you are right. I should have written more carefully. I am a huge fan of approval voting. Anyone reading this -- you should look more closely at approval voting, which surpasses ranked choice voting in many ways.

https://electionscience.org/library/approval-voting-versus-i...
> So in fact, ranked choice voting helps the candidate that is in the political center!

I think you might be right, but the single case you cited doesn't make it so.
Not OP but feel the same way as OP. Some of it was just fun stuff to setup, and do originally. And since it was unlimited, I did a lot of things that were just fun to do for the heck of it. Once paying actually comes into play, over 90% of the actions I have setup are NOT worth paying for because I hardly ever actually use them in real life. They were just simply fun passive things to set up to show friends/family for fun mainly.

Example: Making a smart light flash red every-time President Trump tweeted was just a silly goof to setup to show friends. Not something I'm actually going to pay for. haha
That's a much more vague situation. Did they actually hit you? Did they cut you off and force you to hit them? Those are much different situations than them having plenty of time to make a turn and having to stop for whatever reason, and you assumed that they wouldn't stop so you didn't slow down. And to be clear, I don't care what the law says in this conversation; I care about what I think is the correct outcome.

A double stop at a stop sign is a very simple situation.
The problem here is that both Greenwald and Taibbi are most notable --- by their fans! --- for those respective beats.
Hey guys!

Wanted to share with you what I've just launched, after 4 years on it, and a little background story:

I love Dropbox, but the fact that my data is on somebody else’s server bothered me a lot. I tried to find the same app that allowed me to choose where to put my data.

I tried the likes of Synology, MyCloud WD, ownCloud, Syncthing, Resilio, Duplicty, rsync,...

The software that gives you an easy experience isn’t private, and the software that gives you privacy is a pain in the ass to use. The rest is just extremely expensive (e.g. Synology).

So I decided to build the tool I was looking for for myself. Then as I realised a lot of people around me wanted it as well, I decided to turn it into a full-time project to make a living out of it.

Technically speaking, I built a Dropbox style app plugged to a Git (kind of) repository. You just tell the app where the repository is, and you're connected to the cloud. Anything that can store files can be converted into a private cloud.

I also built an automatic configuration module to configure automatically the standard file sharing capabilities of the internet router to work with the app.

In a nutshell, it allows non-technical people to create a private cloud in their home using a USB stick / hard drive plugged into their internet connection, in 3 clicks.

Here's the website if you want to check it out: https://www.duple.io/

You can also download it and try it out, feedback would be much appreciated!

PS: I open sourced everything (servers, interface, etc...) except the core library containing the algorithms, reason being that the core library is our only competitive advantage.

Ask me anything, I'll be around :-)

A little about me: I'm Greg, I'm an ex-professional hacker (More info about me here: https://www.alvarez.io)
Very cool concept, would not mind this becoming a real thing in the future!

Off topic, but does anyone know what vscode theme this story user has? https://imgur.com/xZC2beh
Surely in your example STAR Voting would have had the same result?

Hilary (and all other lesser candidates of which there are none) get eliminated leaving Bernie and Trump. Then preferences of Hilary voters for those two are calculated (Preference for a runoff between Bernie and Trump are already determined) so you end up with the exact same result.
fyi: XSLT was designed by James Clark, based on concepts and experience of XSLT's Scheme-based predecessor DSSSL. So there's your alternate syntax :) In a way, DSSSL has yielded to a XML-ish surface syntax much like JavaScript, also conceived as a LISPy language, yielded to a Java-ish (awk-ish, actually) syntax.
Google Support confirms movies bought from Google can be removed without refund
Screenshot: https://imgur.com/pzhr7kV
Insert self-plug for my site, which many say has a 1990s look
Parliamentary democracies are more winner take all when you only vote for one chamber (as in Canada), because that one chamber has more power than any one chamber in the US.

However, in parliamentary democracies, especially if they use proportionate representation of some form, coalitions are typical, which produces much better governance than perpetual two-party rule, where the two parties agree on ~70% of issues, and one of the two is absolutely insane on the other ~30%.

Hell, Canada uses FPTP, which results in some very weird election results, but even so, it has multiple parties - because coalitions are possible, and a minority party actually has some political power.

There's criticism that proportional representation results in fringe, whacky parties getting into parliament, but I am no longer swayed by that argument - because over the past ~twelve years, one of the two parties in the US has become a fringe, whacky party, and it routinely wins elections.
RISC-V is trying to launch an open-hardware revolution
RCV is simple and you should support it or something like it if you are a proponent of Democracy:

Did a candidate get a majority (>50%)?

Yes: They win, the election is over.

No: The candidate who got the least 1st round votes has their supporters 2nd choice votes added on to their supporter's second choice candidate.

Does a candidate have a majority now?

Yes: They win, the election is over.

No: Repeat with those who had the least votes in subsequent 'rounds' until there is someone who has a majority.
Because then most people would recognize the current anti-social system of enslavement (Statism) for what it is. Governments don't want their slaves thinking too much.
Reminds me of this:

> https://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickhess/2020/09/21/prince...

Another example of woke-ness going terribly wrong.
As others are saying, there are certainly drawbacks to IRV. I think there are theoretical results showing that all of the mainstream proposals for voting systems are susceptible to strategic voting aka “gaming” your vote, among other issues.

What they aren’t acknowledging is that the situation is even worse with our current system.

My personal preference is approval voting, but I’m down with all sorts of systems that are better than the status quo. I expect that anything that lets you express more of your preferences will increase buy in and participation. Increased participation with preferences closer to people’s true preferences goes hand in hand with increased legitimacy.

We shouldn’t let perfect be the enemy of better.
Fair point. Ive never hunted wolves, nor do I plan on it. I subscribe to the eat what you kill mentality. However, I will not judge someone for the 'trophy kill' if the environment allows for it. If there is a tag for it, I trust the people in charge of regulation to make the correct decisions on issuing tags. I will also not judge a rancher protecting their livestock which is their food/source of income
But haven’t publishers always done that? Why is that now a bad idea?
I see many comments here asserting that RCV is "fundamentally sound" and that there is proof that it satisfies at least strategyproofness (in the sense of Cooperative Game Theory and Social Choice Theory, s.t. revealing/voting for true preferences is at least weakly dominant).

But can anyone provide backup for these claims?

I'm far from an expert, but I'm curious to reconcile these claims vs Arrow's Theorem and Gibbard's Theorem. My (potentially flawed) understanding as well is that RCV leads to a greater propensity for "extreme" (in the strict sense of being the top choice of a small minority of voters) candidates to win.
Building a job board using Django 3 – 8 part video series (more are coming)
This feels like a problem that can be solved by being taught about it though, and that's exactly what Maine has been doing!

For many years now a volunteer organization has been going to high schools and hosting classroom sized workshops to educate the students on ranked choice voting. When the news brings it up and their parents eventually comment on it, the students are there to clarify any confusing that their parents may have.

Ranked choice voting is also great for write-in candidates. You get the fun of voting for your dog without the guilt of throwing away a vote. Although I'm not sure if write-in votes require additional processing compared to people who just vote by filling in the bubbles.
I could never get IFTTT to work for me because I needed multiple IF's and they only supported one. For example, I recently tried...

If Time is 5:00p
If TempOutside < 70 and
Send Alert to "Open Windows"

It sounds like they now support multiple IF's but I can't use that feature in my three free, so I will never know if it would have worked for me. Getting a notice to open my windows when it's 70 outside isn't worth the price of admission but I suspect I could get hooked and find other things that were more useful. Just never happened for me.
CGP Grey has excellent videos on this. Here's one that discusses the problems with the system the US uses now (in most states): https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo
It's fascinating to me that a company that became such a huge impact in the computer gaming industry started in, and kept a dev office in Oakhurst.
Interesting comparison, I pay a lot less than you for coffee/tea.

I did sign up for the $1.99/month plan though.