skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I am from a former communist country and I have yet to see a competent government that used taxes efficiently and was not like "it's never enough".

The problem is lack of accountability, corruption, nepotism and lack of vision (shortterm thinking).

It's easier for Amazon to find a way how to construct more efficiently housing that's adequate even for lower classes.

The government just need to set a quality standard for that housing.
M1 does follow standard ARM memory ordering rules in general, TSO is only enabled for processes running under Rosetta2 emulation

It probably would be legal to enable TSO everywhere as you said, but weaker ordering lets the CPU do more aggressive optimizations
I'm not entirely clear what you mean. Are you referring to the disaster artist consultant mentioned in another comment? I don't think anything can stop someone like that from wrecking things short of not hiring them.

Or do you mean that small incremental improvements shouldn't be attempted because a proper review of whether they are worth it or not will be "wasted effort" if its decided they are not worth it?

Or something else? Not being sassy, genuinely unsure.

As for me personally, I would never hire an outside consultant to improve a codebase. The incentives are all wrong (long term maintenance to be done after they leave) and it's unlikely they'll be working on it for long enough to properly understand either the codebase or the domain.
Amiga 68000 Assembly Course #01 based on the book by Fabio Ciucci
I once imagined a similar idea for building a 3D volumetric display.

You need to create a literal shell of LEDs: a spiral of semicircles which grow larger as you move out and around the spiral. So you start with a 1 cm diameter semicircle strip, with each end of the strip mounted on the axis. Then rotate around the axis by 1°, and add a 1.1 cm diameter strip, and repeat. You end up with a surface that looks like a shell you would find on the beach.

This shell surface, when rotated on its axis, sweeps the entire volume of a sphere, with each LED strip sweeping a fixed radius from the axis. The strips are offset along the curve of rotation to ensure that the eye can see every layer as it is lit. If there are enough LED strips to create a complete 360° spiral, then a single rotation of the shell sweeps the entire sphere. Thus for a complete shell you only need to spin at 25-60 Hz for a good persistence of vision effect.

I never built it but I would like to one day, I'm sure it would be fun, if not very expensive to make.
> I experienced how many good tech people don’t understand DNS...

Totally agree there.

Root DNS servers would not answer your computer's (stub resolver's) _recursive_ query. You do need a recursive resolver to do that - whether ran by an ISP or by yourself.
Some thermoplastics have additives, not chemically part of the base material, which can leach out.
I didn't mean to imply that the particular cultures of the various social media websites are "toxic", they're just all different. Each site has their own style of talking, peculiar grammar rules, appropriate topics, and memes, and all of those things exist on HN too, at least to some extent.

HN post topics are restricted, usually to technical stories or less controversial political topics. Comments tend to be precisely worded, and are often more pedantic. Because of how linking works (or rather doesn't), citations often use a particular format. Comedy is generally discouraged, though is accepted more if (like in Traster's top-level comment in this thread) there's also "legitimate" point attached. If that comment hadn't included the second paragraph, it would probably have been downvoted. All of that is part of the culture of HN, and I wouldn't necessarily call any of it toxic. Some of it follows directly from the site rules and moderation, some follows from the technical limitations of the site, and some just emerges from the sorts of people who happen to use the site.
AWS should make this more transparent so that we make better design choices.
The title itself is very ironic. Learn how to think for yourselves from? Yourselves? No. From Paul Graham who doesn't even know your name.
> Massive setback in Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions.

You really believe that a single scientist was the main brain for the whole project?

The mail goal is perhaps to impact negotiations between Iran and Biden's administration.

Second possible goal could be a conflict between the U.S. and Iran. All it takes now is someone in the region to attack one of the U.S. bases, or just provide some fake intelligence that Iran is going to retaliate by attacking one of the U.S. interests in the region. Then it will be too late before anyone can proof it wasn't really a response from Iran.
"left alone" corresponds to how it was designed. Your task is to push the code a little closer to the design, which always has compromises in implementation.

The big fights come in (as seen in comments in this post already) when there was no original design, and it's mess vs possibly dubious attempts to clean up the mess.
> The privacy policy starts with "We take your privacy very seriously", which coming from Google, is kind of funny.

"We take your privacy, very seriously"
OK - so apply Kolmogorov complexity to election polling.

How does that work out?

I think you're confusing various possible maps with the territory in a less than useful way.

Given that frequentist interpretations are approximations - and understood as such - and Kolmogorov complexity isn't computable at all, what problem have you solved here?
How would a small business even begin to compete with amazon right now? it’s outright impossible on all fronts... service, price, etc
No. Better to let law enforcement & the family consider that then speculate on an internet forum without any substantial or additional information.
My main objection was regarding the iffy sentence that "the probability that i(D) contains m is x%", as opposed to, say, you would expect "x% of those randomly generated intervals to contain m".

But, fair enough, I appreciate your sentiment about 'terseness'. One can only be so nitpicky with words when trying to communicate, before starting to sound like a criminal defense lawyer ...
These are good hypotheses, but I personally don't think either of them explains very well why humans value hierarchies.

Ad 1, when there is no central "brain", and decisions are more distributed, a single hierarchy often hinders communication. (There are for example studies that show that the biggest communication barrier in SW teams is not a physical distance, but a managerial one.) It seems when people work in a distributed way they tend to communicate in many different ad hoc groups, as needed.

Ad 2, there is indeed some evidence that more centralized societies are less violent. But it's not clear whether this is because of the hierarchy, or because of the concentration of power. On the other hand, it seems that the societies with multiple different hierarchies like democracies are in fact often less violent than more authoritarian societies. It seems to me if this hypothesis was true, we would see much more formalized ways how the hierarchies are changed, but I think we don't, rebellions are often a very messy business. Perhaps it can be accepted as an explanation why there are trade wars instead of wars, but as the answer to the original question, it IMHO still leaves something to be desired.

In any case, I think there are many good explanations for hierarchies.

> aren't you by chance JS1 from abclinuxu

Excellent guess! ;-)
Even R>1 has a maximum in future new infections because R gradually declines over time as more people have had the disease and have some form of protection.
> The scientific method only works because the rules of the universe happen to be simple, while the set of observations it offers is vast. Kolmogorov complexity captures this defining characteristic of our reality.

I've never seen this spelled out so beautifully!
This is still a partial knowledge situation - you have the information that there are a certain proportion of colored balls in the chamber, but not the information about their order. The probability includes the information we do know and allows inferences about information we don’t know.
Sounds like he died some time after the house fire, due to the injuries incurred.

"Tony Hsieh, the former CEO of Zappos, died peacefully and surrounded by family on Friday, according to a statement emailed to CNN by Megan Fazio, a spokesperson for DTP Companies, a Las Vegas-based enterprise for which Hsieh served as the visionary.

Hsieh, 46, died from injuries sustained in a house fire that occurred in Connecticut while he was visiting family, according to Fazio."

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/28/us/tony-hsieh-zappos-dies...
> Better AWS pays for Rust development than if noone would.

That feels like a false choice, though. Rust is popular enough that surely another company (Fastly, for example?) would have good use for such a talent. But I doubt they can rival Amazon in pay. Such is the world.
Beautiful.

I think about this living on the Hudson across from NYC. Not only the Statue but other riverside details like the vent systems for the tunnels and the Hoboken train station are copper covered and thus verdigris colored. In the general mishmash of buildings and activity I unconsciously navigate to the green accents on the river.

Another green is in the serpentinite(sp?) rock which dominates the Palisades which runs on the Jersey side south of the George Washington Bridge and then eventually crosses the New York border heading north. The rude, jagged eruptions of rock provide just about the only places for wild growth of trees and other vegetation in the most densely populated corridor of the US - the soccer and baseball fields in front of my apartment have long given over to an artificial turf. But the green on the NYC waterfront is like a vein of ore in otherwise gray world.
You’re right, and it’s frustrating that this discussion is often framed as a binary choice between lockdown and back to normal.

IMO what we really need to be doing is looking at making lasting changes to society to keep things working safely. We’re seeing a little of that, but not nearly enough.
until amazon decides to undercut them by selling the same product under the basics name
Watch for that phrase, "this time is different". It commonly signals the special pleading fallacy.

Parallel:

"Spying one everyone's communication is different because it is not just someone's own freedoms, but everyone else's right to be protected from terrorists."
I'm really curious about this. I've noticed though time Amazon seem to be batching orders less often (This is in the UK, and merely anecdotal.)

I was recently looking at the courier's parcel tracking app, i was interested recently to see that my delivery was '120 stops away'. If this is typical, the marginal cost of delivering a parcel must be small in terms of miles driven and driver time. (Obviously this is highly contingent on population density).

Another good example of this is Royal Mail, where the cost of a marginal piece of post or small parcel must be tiny (since the postman is already delivering to 50%+ addresses every day).

It occurred to me that in some situations, it might actually be more efficient _not_ to batch. The complexity of attempting to batch at the warehouse must be very high, and take up quite a bit of warehouse space, and slow down dispatch significantly.

A related and relevant observations why are courier companies not a natural monopoly? If the marginal cost of delivery were high, a courier company with higher volumes would naturally make more profit, and so the market would push in the direction of fewer bigger couriers. This seems to suggest that the volume of parcels means that we're already in a situation where couriers are pretty efficient and marginal costs are low.
It'd be interesting to know empirically how this works out.
The topic is datasette and ripgrep. I would be curious why in the context of those tools ignore files are not a solution. I agree that github codesearch leaves a lot to be desired.
Whilst I'm not convinced that this incoherent rambling is directly human-generated, I am a little intrigued. What is the point that you're trying to get across? Do you think you could sum it up in a sentence?
It's chicken-or-egg. No one (re-)distributes old Mac software in 7zip format because there's no 7zip port, and there's no 7zip port because all of the software is in stuffit format.
But it's also an example of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
Sure, I just can't agree with the parent statement that probability has nothing to do with the object it describes, which is demonstrably false.
Show HN: The Black Friday Fifty – live email tactics for 50 top online retailers
That still boils down to a lack of prior information which I don't think removes the argument for "I don't have enough information."

Probably have to use actual quantum phenomena that behave probabilistically by definition if you want a currently irrefutable physical example.

I'm personally not convinced even this is fundamentally probabilistic and we currently have to rely on probability theory as a crutch for complex behaviors we just quite don't understand yet or don't have the time and resources to compute.
Elimination strategy works, and other strategies don't work. This isn't a novel insight, it's how infectious diseases programmes work regardless, Guinea worm: Elimination strategy. Rinderpest: Elimination strategy. Polio: Elimination strategy. Smallpox: Elimination strategy. It was never a question of whether it was "viable" except in the sense of whether political will existed to act. In the US and to a lesser extent Europe, that will did not exist.

The UK absolutely could have chosen to not have tens of thousands of people die for no purpose, but its political leadership were focused, as ever, on what's in it for them. How much can we exploit this to line our own pockets, how many old mates can be rewarded? Sure, people are dying, but isn't this a perfect chance to loot the corpses?
Hahaha, I love the fact that someone made a Captcha solver. Proof that if Google truly wanted to test for "humanity" they would design something different.
Handy for a one-off, but it uses regexps which are difficult to get right when you have nested strings (as can be done with template strings).
Yep. This is a massive shift. My amazon order stats are:

2020 - 235

2019 - 107

2018 - 91

2017 - 112

2016 - 34

2015 - 39

2014 - 53

Note the two step jumps. I broke my arm at the start of 2017 for ref.

Edit: also to note I've had two (yes just two) issues with Amazon in that time and they just sent new items the next day without argument. Retail has been a shit show on that front for years. I remember standing in Argos arguing with the manager because the DVD player I bought had broken with one of my DVDs inside it and he wouldn't replace it until I'd got it out and I couldn't get it out because the thing had no release hole.
This centralization is a scary thing especially when all large democracies are looking to make best use of this to monitor their citizens activities most of it to curtail free speech. It will be easy to force two or three multinational corporations to share data or create backdoors than forcing hundreds of smaller corporations which dont do explicit business in those countries.
I'm glad to see a write-up of this. I've been searching recently for a way to reasonably define probability without having to invoke either hypothetical infinitely repeated experiments or placing bets (since the latter is really just implicitly invoking the former). I'm looking forward to part 2!
It really depends on the organisation. This sounds sensible, pro-active and productive until to work on legacy systems that have been in place probably or organisations that don't value any of these activities (you typically don't want to stay there but sometimes you just gotta put up with a role until you get a chance to move on).

Generally in this scenario your job is to make a change that fulfils the requirements, verify that it works and test it manually, pass it onto QA and move on. Businesses often don't care your improvements unless it is a new feature and it will make you look bad because it will take you longer to complete a task than they deem necessary.

As for refactoring in this situation. Don't. Even making seemly simple changes can it makes it difficult for others to code review it, or could incur breakage (yes there are some systems that are this fragile).
> it’s probably that way for a reason

I find this assumption to be harmful. There’s really no probably about it; it’s just the way it is, might have been intentional, might have been completely unwitting. The solution should be to refactor if you have to but in a way that doesn’t change the underlying functionality.

If you think about it, there is an extreme case as a contractor where the code you need to change is so convoluted and impossible to understand (imagine a neural net without the training set) that you just can’t change it without refactoring. So I would argue refactoring is necessary sometimes.
Multi-AZ doesn't protect against a software/OS issue like this, Multi-AZ would be relevant if it was an infrastructure failure (e.g. underlying EC2 instances or networking).

The relevant resiliency pattern in this case would be what they refer to as cell-based architecture, where within an AZ services are broken down into smaller independent cells to minimize the blast radius.

They specifically mention in the write-up that this was a gap they plan to address, the "backend" portion of Kinesis was already cellularized but that step had not yet been completed on the "frontend".

Celluarization in combination with workload partitioning would have helped, e.g. don't run Cloudwatch, Cognito and Customer workloads on the same set of cells.

It is also important to note that celluarization only helps in this case if they limit code deployment to a limited number of cells at a time.

This YouTube video[1] of a re:invent presentation does a great job of explaining it. The cell-based stuff, starts around minute 20.

1. https://youtu.be/swQbA4zub20
This is basically the Bayesian interpretation of probability.
I don't think it's demonstrably false: If you don't know that the coin is weighted, the probability is 50%. Probabilities are predictions and estimates, not fundamentally about the thing itself, but about what we know about the thing.
I think the all or nothing view may be the problem 'maintain spaghetti code' vs 'clean/new code'. When one inherits a code base like that one should start small. Write an automated test that tests a single scenario, add a comment that explains something particularly difficult that a developer spent a lot of time on finding out. Rename one single variable somewhere. Then gradually as one gains more knowledge start doing bigger refactors and bring more of the code under tests. It sounds like what has happened here is that a big bang rewrite was undertaken. This is almost always ill-advised.
Totally free :-)
> Just write down how it behaves and specify how it is expected to behave.

I don't know how to describe it differently as GP, but I'll give it a try. Until a formalised model is built, there is no way to describe it's behaviour that wouldn't come down to writing down the implementation that's currently in the compiler (apart from specifying it by example, which would be even more expansive).

It _might_ (don't quote me on this) be possible to more easily formalize and standardize borrow checking if you leave out non-lexical lifetimes (which were added rather recently), but that's a bad idea because you would lose a lot of functionality, and an alternative compiler with an incompatible implementation of NLLs could split the ecosystem, which obviously nobody wants.
The U.S. Private Sector Job Quality Index (JQI) https://www.jobqualityindex.com/

The long term trend is down. Data suggests that mid-level jobs are disappearing. They will be replaced with small number of very well paying jobs, but mostly by lower paying jobs.
> one large sponsor

Where is this coming from? I’m also worried about AWS over-representation in the Rust community but they’re far from the only significant corporate sponsors at this point.
> To consumers, Amazon provides an excellent service.

I'd rather say, like Starbucks, Amazon provides a consistent and adequate service.

Small businesses might provide a better service or worse service, but consumers can't easily know which in advance - so large conglomerates present less risk and less cognitive load. Amazon is the obvious choice, more than it is the best choice.

Presenting a better service is not enough, for a small business to survive against a monopolist. It's one of the monopoly advantages that Amazon has.
Right? We would have never had humans in the first place without a government intervention when these replications were getting out of control!
There's 5 holes each that match right and left hands (hole sizes align with finger sizes).

I wonder if the hole sizes are related to less durable (wooden?) objects used for stretching the fingers differently.
I'm not a lawyer, so take that into account when reading my reply :)

> Thanks. I must say, I prefer weak copylefts for my projects (MPLv2 with the incompatibility clause), so my concern isn't copyleft per se, but the virility of it.

I need to read up some more on MPLv2, but from what I've read now it looks like a license that could fit k6 as well.

> - Would a non-AGPLv3 open-source or source-available project using K6 be incompatible with AGPLv3 given they might "distribute" CI/CD along with their open-source or source-available code?

No, using k6 as a tool in CI/CD would not be a violation of AGPLv3 or trigger the virality of the license in regards to the non-AGPLv3 open source or source-available code base. Any k6 test scripts you write would also not need to be licensed under AGPLv3. Gitlab built an integration with k6 which could be seen as a data point in agreement with this view: https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/merge_requests/load_...

> - If a closed-source project publishes results from K6, are they now in violation of AGPLv3?

If we're talking about publishing results from testing of the closed-source project, then no, that would not be in violation. There's however an undefined gray area around clause 13 "Remote Network Interaction" in AGPLv3 in terms of what is allowed when for example offering a SaaS product based on an AGPLv3 licensed component such as k6. Clause 13 has not been tried in court afaik. It could seem that clause 13 would provide some protection for a business like ours from other companies building commercial solutions on top of k6, but from what I've been told by lawyers we shouldn't count on that, so we're not (anymore).

We have had many internal discussions on this topic, as well as with other companies and individuals in the open source space; whether to go the route of a source-available license, effectively restricting commercialization possibilities of k6 by other companies, or going the open core route and restrict what we release as open source. Everytime we've had this discussion internally we've come back to open source being the right choice for us, given the type of product we build and where we think we can capture value.

We'll look into MPLv2.
Encrypted Git repositories for privacy made easy