skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Throwing around accusations of “xenophobia” is an attempt to shut down legitimate debate. I’m an immigrant from Bangladesh and a naturalized U.S. citizen. You can take my comments in that context.

The H-1 and H-1B system was the result of a political compromise. Americans didn’t want to create a new flow of skilled immigrants. So what Congress created in 1952 was a program for skilled nonimmigrant temporary workers. It came to be used, by executive fiat, as a permanent immigration system. And in 1990, Congress papered over it a bit. But if you read the 1990 statute, it still says it’s for “nonimmigrant” “temporary” workers.

The H-1B was never intended to give workers the “option” of either staying permanently or going back home. You seem to be confused about what “dual intent” means. It’s not an option (disjunctive). It doesn’t mean you can choose to be a temporary nonimmigrant worker, or an immigrant who intends to seek permanent residency. It’s a conjunctive. It means that an immigrant has both the intention to not immigrate permanently, and the intention to immigrate permanently, at the same time. Why do you need both? Why does the “dual intent” provision of the law say that filing a permanent residency petition shall not create a presumption that the person intends to immigrate? Isn’t that a ridiculous thing to say? Obviously someone who files a residency petition intends to immigrate! The reason you need all of that logical contortion and hoop jumping is because the H-1B is still intended for nonimmigrant temporary workers.

It’s very simple. Why does the law require Facebook to advertise a job to US workers when it files a PERM certification? There is already an H-1B worker holding that job! If the H-1B visa is intended to give that person the “option” of permanent residency, why does Facebook have to try and find someone else for the job? And if Facebook actually advertised for the job properly and found an American worker, the H-1B worker would then not get permanent residency and have to go home. If the system intends to give the H-1B worker the “option” to be an immigrant, why would it be designed that way?

What the DOJ is doing is enforcing the original design of the immigration law. Part of that compromise was that temporary H-1B workers would only be allowed to get permanent residency if the employer can certify that it has looked and can’t find an American to do the job instead. The process isn’t supposed to be a formality where Facebook ensures that the H-1B worker gets to keep the job so he or she can get permanent residency.
This is almost hilarious. Half of everything on Twitter is disputed now, hadn't you heard?
I first heard about her by coming across her Twitter thread out of the blow, the night before this firing was posted here. Seeing her going nuclear on Twitter immediately after this went down just seems by default to be behavior which is Not Great.
Win laptops, smartwatches, and more in the 2020 Ars Technica Charity Drive
> The only “best practice” you should be using all the time is “Use Your Brain”.

> It’s OK to write garbage code once in a while.

I feel like these two go together. I think something which is often forgotten in programming discourse is that the single most important thing which code can do is create real-world value. A lot of times we get caught up in coding the "right way" because we as programmers look at code all day, but the truth is nobody else is going to see the code once it's shipped, and it doesn't matter one bit to the user if it's beautifully designed code or a mountain of kludges as long as it performs the same.

Sure good coding practices are important, but I actually think that an expedient solution now is often better than a perfect solution a week from now, and how well-factored particular piece of code is should be a function of how many times it should be touched rather than an absolute standard.
https://gdpr.eu/cookies/

Strictly necessary cookies — These cookies are essential for you to browse the website and use its features, such as accessing secure areas of the site. Cookies that allow web shops to hold your items in your cart while you are shopping online are an example of strictly necessary cookies. These cookies will generally be first-party session cookies. While it is not required to obtain consent for these cookies, what they do and why they are necessary should be explained to the user.

...

To comply with the regulations governing cookies under the GDPR and the ePrivacy Directive you must:

- Receive users’ consent before you use any cookies except strictly necessary cookies.
Huh, in that case I have the converse question -- when specifying dependencies for X, can you not say A 1.x but not 2.x, because 2.x has or is expected to have backwards breaking changes? Otherwise, when A releases 2.0 with some backwards incompatibilities, and all packages that use A as a dependency are rebuilt, don't they break?

These issues (allow updates within limits) are what I understand as the point of dependency resolution, I'm trying to understand how you do without it.
>I can't wait until I have enough money to be financially independent and never have to do this nonsense again.

There are a lot of people operating on that plan. Mostly it doesn't work out for them.

Play this forward ten years with a family to support and a mortgage which committed you to personal inflation and a track record of ...? You can absolutely fool people for a week or a year, but a decade of non-experience will stick out like a sore thumb. Experience compounds, and the one you describe is compounding down. Do this for ten years and you will be much less accomplished than you could be.
I've been a very happy user of Actual for almost two years now; kudos to jlongster for the fantastic product and wonderful support!
I agree historical context on rhetoric can be absolutely eye opening, but your example was not a 1:1 comparison (neither the victims or actions being of equal consequence). It also reminds me of Goodwin's Law [1] where disagreements on the internet so often devolve into calling someone a Nazi (to me a '60s segregationist apologist is one or two steps removed from a Nazi).

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Reading down the names, it is indeed the usual woke people who are chronically enraged on corp. G+ and mailing lists and whatever. There's also the person who kept harassing me on corp chat about whether I had a non-binary gender identity. I am so completely done with woke bullshit in the workplace.
I think part of this is the FAANG companies have so much money they can afford to hire these huge quantities of folks to fight the company while getting paid by the company. No one else could afford to do this because it just wouldn't work business / productivity wise. The only other example is perhaps the govt which generally does fund people who then sue the govt around policies the govt adopts.
I'll give this crack. I believe the current state of knowledge is that it likely works like this:

Mask on virus spreader: Mask will capture a very large amount of the viral load being shed.

Mask on non-spreader: Will filter some amount of the air you're breathing in and lower your initial viral load. Giving you either

A) a low enough dose your immune system kills it off or

B) a low enough dose your immune system has more time to mount a defense before the viral load in your body rises high, potentially leading to a more mild infection.

That's why we ALL need to wear a mask and stay 6ft/2 meters apart.

BTW, further is better 6ft is not a magic bubble.

Also there is aerosol transmission(floating covid in the air). Ventilation is CRITICAL for this to be stopped. Germany is spearheading ventilation as a way to stop the spread as far as I know.

They are making rules about intervals windows need to be opened etc.

Heres a BBC article covering Germany on this: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54599593

Here's a random blog that gets into it: https://dirkpaessler.blog/2020/08/13/corona-wie-co2-messgera...
Reddit likely has a much higher fraction of throwaway or secondary accounts. RES has an account switcher for a reason
Wasn't interested in the billionaire part (not because I disagree but because I don't care either way on it). But the other bits are good.

If the other comments put you off, read it anyway and skip the billionaire bits.
Googles system of removing the last part of the IP address exists specifically so you can be compliant. If you use tricks to store the data anyway, obviously you’re non compliant once more.
> It’s a 20 year period for a reason - it’s how long it would have taken you to recover from 1929 if you bought at the peak just before the crash.

You've cherry-picked an arbitrary window based on historical returns, but there is no reason that this will hold in the future. You can come up with lots of strategies with arbitrary conditions that would have given you great returns throughout the past century, but completely fail after you implement them. I don't see why dollar cost averaging is any different.

> it’s statistics

Exactly. And nothing in statistics is guaranteed. The fact that it's worked well 100% of the time in the past does not imply that it will work 100% of the time in the future. Does it seem highly unlikely that DCA will stop being an effective investment strategy in the foreseeable future? Yes. But I take issue with the "100% guaranteed" claim, and everyone should realize that no investment strategy is completely risk-free.
I’m reminded of Ben Eater’s tutorials on YouTube. Even though he knows what he’s writing won’t work, he writes the naive form and acts confused when it doesn’t work. Then he explains why it didn’t work. Compare that to basically every tutorial that just says “do this” without explaining why.
Programming challenge in golang: Create a persistent tcp client that can connect to a server, read responses… and be disconnected via context.WithCancel().
M1 competes with Qualcomm's 8cx / SQ2. It's certainly reasonable to show the comparison between M1 and 888 but the products that M1 show up in (Macbooks) don't generally go head-to-head with the products 888 shows up in.
I don't know who's downvoting you, but this is also why I support UBI.

One of my biggest fears is that by the time I can stop working, I won't have any will left to pursue passionate endeavors that would benefit society.

Even if I just didn't need to worry about health insurance cost, that would be enough to shorten my financial independence timeline by years.

If I had sufficient UBI to cover basic expenses for the year, I would quit right now.
Please keep nationalistic flamewar off this site. It's not what HN is for, and destroys what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit: it looks like you've been using this account primarily for political battle. That's one of the criteria we use for banning accounts, as I've explained here: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme.... If you'd please review the site guidelines and stick to them from now on, we'd appreciate it.
Isn't a quantum computer digital? ("Quantum" and "continuously changeable" sound opposite to each other.)
Since the FCC's amateur license database is open to the public, anyone can get my e-mail address, street address, and call sign.

If I ever get an e-mail stating it's from the FCC, I'm not opening it. E-mail is not an acceptable form of communication which require any form of authentication or trust.
I would recommend a computed index (given that scheme, if you liked it; I don't, but it doesn't matter).
No, GDPR explicitly carve out exception if for reasonable purposes. DDOS and abuse protection would fall under that. Marketing however won't.
Of course it's not possible. And that's why the sane requirement for comments is to use them where something might not be obvious.
This looks very cool.

I’m curious though, given “The second one was implemented in C/C++ and OpenGL,” I wonder if wasm and webgl were tried as a port of that code?
I think I'm being pretty explicit that I'm not calling them a segregationist, but I think their rhetoric is illuminating. Not really sure how I can be more explicit on this point.

You are the one bringing up comparisons to Nazis, so it appears that you have now fallen prey to Godwin's law.
> Every hiring manager knows that the most productive engineering teams are made up of 100% Asian cis-male Libertarians.

What the hell. How can you say that with a straight face?

Of the two best engineers I know, one is is black and the other is trans. They're both 10x engineers.
Well, Spring's r2dbc (reactive db abstraction) works great with co-routines on top of Spring's reactor framework. The integration for that is well supported by Spring. Drivers that support asynchronous IO, at this point include most obvious mainstream databases. I'd expect that stuff will work with Loom as well. Though we may have to wait a while for Spring to release support for that.

Oracle has not gotten around to supporting Oracle DB with r2dbc just yet apparently: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/58813658/r2dbc-oracle-da... but it appears to be in the works. Given that they are developing Loom, they probably aim to have that stuff working together perfectly with their own DB. If/when it does, it will work with kotlin co-routines as well. Basically, if it runs with Java, you can use it from Kotlin and trivially wrap it with a co-routine. I've done this recently for several other database that support async IO with some callback mechanism.

That old Java driver will also work fine with Kotlin & co-routines as well However, you probably want to be using the IO Dispatcher to ensure you have enough threads to deal with it blocking your process thread. So your server doesn't hang. That kind of is what structured concurrency is about. Of course, most blocking IO database drivers would typically use some connection pool backed by a (real) thread pool. Not sure how Loom 'magically' deals with interrupting IO blocked virtual threads but I have hunch that just means everything on the underlying OS thread ends up being blocked. Using virtual threads in a connection pool is probably going to end in tears. I'm not aware of any magic that Loom provides that addresses that other than just allowing you to use either OS threads (real?) or virtual threads (aka. fibers, co-routines, green threads, light weight threads, etc.).
You know your stuff about Deep Work. I'm working on a site that helps people track it.

Would you be open to giving feedback as an experienced deep worker?

My goal is convert people like you as opposed to people that have never even heard the term (at the beginning).

trywinston.com (you'll get a bounceback w/ my email for feedback if you sign up)

No worries if not!
> Good for fuzzing, bad for determining whether the output is what you expected it to be, because finding out what the output should be is .. the reason you wrote the software.

The solution for this is property based tests. Outputs almost never have maximum entropy. They have invariants, and they're related to the inputs in various ways.

Trivial example: authenticated encryption. The input is some random text, some random key, and some random nonce. The result is a message. One property to check is the fact that the message can successfully be decrypted with the same key, and the resulting plaintext will be the same as the random text from the beginning. Another property is that any message that is not the message you computed will fail to decrypt (assuming you pretend not to know the key when as you corrupt the message). Testing (crudely) that you can detect forgeries (or at least accidental corruptions).
Breaking Down DoorDash's IPO
I don't think that words become permanently unusable if they have been deployed once by a historical losing side... If that could happen, then pretty much every rhetorical technique would already have been burnt to the ground and salted forever by now.
I'm not intimately familiar with "fuzzing" techniques, and by "randomized inputs", I am indeed referring to tests that could be flaky in the presence of bugs. Organizational discipline is indeed needed here, in order to not ignore the occasional flaky failure, and to investigate the cause of the flaky error. I believe the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

Here's a link that talks about the above in more detail - https://software.rajivprab.com/2019/04/28/rethinking-softwar...
I created a self-hosted app to keep track of my thoughts and tasks during the day: https://github.com/m0ngr31/DailyNotes

It helps me to break things out based on date or by topic, which this supports.
In fact, stored procedures (in relational DBs at least) are statically typed, so they will error if you change the type of a referenced column to something that no longer makes sense. This gives you more safety than a dynamically typed application language can, at least out of the box.
Your assumption seems to be that the side that spends more money wins - the prop 16 vote, with the YES side spending 20 million and the NO side spending just 1.5 million would seem to refute that idea.

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Pr...

Is it possible that maybe the voters actually have their own opinions regarding these ballot propositions? So maybe Californian voters think that drivers should have the right to decide for themselves whether to work with Uber or not?
> depending on abstract interfaces rather than concrete implementations

That's definitely a problem... in Java. I've had to deal with it before (in Java), and I think part of the problem is that people start using that abstraction pattern before there's actually multiple potential concrete implementations. In Ruby, I've applied something like this pattern, except all I'm doing is wrapping the service library to make my own DSL, and it's working tremendously well and allowing for excellent testing.

And yes. Anything can be overapplied / mis-applied, and sure, unit testing might be more susceptible / abused in these ways.

Essentially, I unit-test my functional code (libraries, etc) and I integration test my OO code (actual features, as the whole feature). It's not only a really easy way to test each kind of thing, but enforcing the functional library / OO features has led to (IMO) practically perfect code :D
Sun had an unhealthy Microsoft obsession. When I was a senior in college, Microsoft came to campus and gave a two hour presentation on why we should work at Microsoft. About a month later Sun came to campus and gave a two hour presentation on why we should not work at Microsoft. Sun workstations were very common in our engineering program so we were ripe for the picking but Sun never explained to us what was so great about working for them. Well, except for one absolutely ridiculous video clip of Scott McNealy standing on the roof of Sun HQ, playing the electric guitar. Eyes were rolling out of everyone's heads upon seeing that.

Looking back at interviews and industry articles from that era, there is a common theme of Sun hating Microsoft. Lots of companies and people hated Microsoft but Sun seemed to make it their central ideology. As a result, they took their eye off of making great technology that customers could use to solve their problems. It's a pity because they were so far ahead of the game at that point that they could have developed into something wonderful instead of being absorbed by Oracle, with little trace left besides Java sleepwalking through the modern era.
That's a management issue of having no redundancy for someone performing something so crucial. If you're that crucial to operations, then you should be paid extremely lavishly, or be the owner, otherwise you're getting the short end of the stick.
I haven’t owned one but wouldn’t the Dell XPS series fit your description?
> he has called out Apple's corporate malfeasance and pointed out technical shortcomings in the past.

He does this all the time. In his last podcast or two he has complained about Apples’s keyboards, hot laptops, short charger cords, Siri and the Touch Bar. I’m sure there are others but I haven’t gone back.
I work at a company and we do consulting for enterprise. We make machine learning products. I need to learn whatever needs to be learned to deliver value to customers (domain + making product).

We also build https://iko.ai, a machine learning platform to simplify our work. I need to learn whatever needs to be learned to make that product.
I believe this design enables end-to-end encryption.

https://actualbudget.com/docs/overview/syncing-across-device...
By the judgement of her colleagues inside google this was not a normal internal review process, and according to her own writing, she tried to engage with the review process but was blocked.

Also, to quote LeCunn:
“I’d like to ask everyone to please stop attacking each other via Twitter or other means. In particular, I’d like everyone to please stop attacking @timnitGebru and everyone who has been critical of my posts… Farewell everyone.”
That basically happened:

> The Clean Air Act 1956 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom enacted principally in response to London's Great Smog of 1952

> When the "Great Smog" fell over the city in December 1952 the effects were unprecedented: More than 4,000 people are thought to have died in the immediate aftermath,[4] raising public concern, with fog so thick it stopped trains, cars, and public events.[5] A further 8,000 died in following weeks and months.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_1956
This lack of restriction does lead to the professor using a book they wrote themselves. So to take their class, you need to buy their book as well. I understand why they do that, but it just feels wrong. Obviously there’s some textbooks written by teachers that are quite amazing (The Art of Electronics for example), but not all are like that.
"contradicts the central thesis of the article"

No, actually extending the quote makes Martin's position worse. Instead of just generally "steppe peoples" he is making a more specific claim that the Dothraki resemble Mongols, Huns and Amerindians but not peoples like the Turks who were (and are e.g. Turkmenistan) also steppe peoples. By extending the quote you establish only that Martin believes the Dothraki are drawn from a few specific Earth cultures

The motte and bailey distinction is a fun way to characterise an argument (even if you did get them mixed up initially :p) but I don't think you can be as sure as you are in it. I'll limit this discussion to the article so I'll just discuss clothing. So, your question becomes; has the essay failed to establish a link between this inaccuracy and it being harmful to how people perceive the cultures martin claims to be relying on?

I think that it has. In the discussion of buckskins and linens the articles author is establishing that these groups tried to wear clothes which were comfortable, practical and beautiful. In a word, they were human. The Dothraki by contrast are dressed like an'80s fantasy novel cover. Their clothes (in book and tv) are the clothes of inhuman people. They do not express human priorities. By depicting the Dothraki in this way, while making the claim that they are based off of real world cultures, Martin is essentially dehumanizing these specific peoples by implicitly arguing that their style of dress is less human.

I'm really unsure how you can accept that the representation is historically inaccurate and encourages people to have an inaccurate view of history but then try and deny that a poor understanding of history is a problem.
Deep-learning robot Shimon writes and rhymes in real time
> gold has intrinsic value

"Intrinsic value" isn't a rational concept and doesn't exist inside any successful economic formalizations.

Gold has value because it has useful properties, just like Bitcoin.

Gold: Shiny, sort of limited supply, difficult to store and transport

Bitcoin: Not shiny, hard-limited supply, easy to store and transport