skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I have no OS dev experience, but I like the idea of many smaller specialized programs that are able to communicate with each other. Another problem with large and slow moving code bases is that things around changes, like hardware getting better/faster so software architecture that made sense 30 years ago might not be the best solution today.
An OS should probably not be developed by a single team or company, there should be an open core/kernel, then companies could instead compete and specialize in different combinations and support of systems, apps and services developed independently, where each part could be replaced.
Domestic violence and DR attorney here, formerly DV prosecutor. Depending on the laws on the state, she needs to find a way to authenticate her worries about his cyber-stalking. If she has enough to validate the concern (not just speculation; won’t need much), she should seek a civil protection order precluding him from use of all electronics. The judge probably won’t do that for a number of reasons, but considering the DV cycle and pattern here, there will be a secondary civil protection order issued which will specifically consider the danger imposed by the cyber stalking. At that point if there’s even a whiff of improper use, he’s going back to jail.

Of course this will depend on the state. I can’t give general advice in the US.
Billing is traditionally not built into critical paths, but on async or even batch processing of logs from those systems. I doubt any system at Amazon really knows what you’ve spent until after the fact.
But the song you’re playing is owned by someone else. I can understand the case for carving out an exception for this use but it doesn’t change the fact that your derived work now has two copyright holders: the original artist and you.
Author here I actually think spreadsheets are great because they are so accessible. What isn’t great though is when there is a business processs that is a spreadsheet and knowledge that exists in one persons head.
i don’t think it’s the spreadsheet itself. it’s about the process and people who defend the process no matter what
I can't speak for Sweden or Denmark but here in Norway great store is set on straightforwardness, plain speaking, and trust. Generally you are assumed to be telling the truth and if you say that you will do something then people will assume that you mean it and possess the necessary skill. This sort of atmosphere means that there is less bureaucracy involved in getting things done, paperwork is on the whole simpler than elsewhere. Doing your duty and pulling together are important features of life in Norway.

Whether any of this is really the cause of there being more startups in Scandinavia than elsewhere is something I'm not able to answer, but the earnestness is certainly present.

The downside is that Norwegians (or at least Norwegian institutions) can be distrustful of foreign academic qualifications; even those from a highly respected institution that is older than Norway, unless they have personal knowledge of it.

My personal experience is that life is simpler here than in my country of origin (UK); mostly things 'Just Work (tm)' and that might be why startups are more common.
I'm sure it does but in the UK, there is no Citizens United, where the Supreme Corporate Court of America (LLC) decided $$$ = speech, more $$$ = more speech, thus infinite $$$ to political campaigns = ALL GOOD HOMIES (This isn't even satire, this is actually their logic here).

Let's get real, it isn't the fact that corps lobby goverments that is the problem, there problem is when they can give unlimited cash bribes, like that can in the US. But they can not in the UK.

When you really start examining it, the US democrazy(sic) doesn't seem all that exceptional.
Future sadly needs more morality and honesty, the concept of monetary hyper-success created by SV has ruined the idea of balance between passionate craftsmanship and modest business enterprise. Today everyone wants to be big and powerful and we feel the impact of business size as users everyday. Success in life cannot be limited to "be a billionaire" just because. At this point in time I consider this trend as a dark religion and an evil cult.
The problem with "any" is its usually wrong. Here's an "old" paper from July:

Toyoshima, Y., Nemoto, K., Matsumoto, S. et al. SARS-CoV-2 genomic variations associated with mortality rate of COVID-19. J Hum Genet 65, 1075–1082 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s10038-020-0808-9

The measured variation between the now extinct L strain and the new current G strain is the G strain was about 2% higher correlation between strain and fatality rate. The actual fatality rate was not 2% higher which would be huge, but the % of L in a population vs population fatality rate correlated 2% higher based on euro country data in the spring.

Certainly there's only two real impacts on fatality rate right now, both incredibly politically incorrect to discuss, there's an enormous staggering stunning huge disparity in fatality rate by age, and a merely giant disparity in fatality rate by comorbidity rate. The medical science seems clear, but the political impact makes it impossible to discuss quarantine policies that would minimize total death rates. Hundreds of thousands of lives could be saved by locking up everyone over 60 and everyone over 300 pounds and a couple other pre-existing conditions, but AARP is one of the strongest PACs out there and even if it saves her life, grandma will vote out anyone who "locks her up for a year for her own good".

Personally I'm old enough that I'm working very hard to max out my cardio health for when I inevitably get it.
I own a Screenshot API service (shameless plug: https://getscreenshot.rasterwise.com/) and this exactly the argument that I make for small utilitarian services like mine. You shouldn't build them because buying them is several orders of magnitude cheaper.

I have a small paragraph from a blog post where I explain this with some math that is probably crappy but captures the idea:

"When you spend time in areas that are not the core of your product, you're actually being financially inefficient. Taking screenshots is likely not a core task of your business so it doesn't makes much sense to waste development resources in this area.

Here is a brief example of how inefficient it gets:

A mid-level developer in a small market earns $90K USD per year, working 40 hours per week. His/her effective hourly rate is $47 USD per hour.

Writing a basic implementation of a screenshot utility will take at least 5 hours. But this is just a simple prototype. Many use cases will need to be addressed, and there's likely going to be a large amount of time spent in optimizing, securing, provisioning, testing, etc.

A realistic utility that can be used for a development workflow is going to take at the very least 30 hours of development time, but likely more.

Other un-accounted areas of development time are: documentation, training and maintenance.

Given this scenario is very likely that writing a semi-good solution will take more than a week and maintaining it, will take at least an hour every month.

This means that writing this solution will cost almost $2000 USD of development time plus another $500 USD or so, just to support it every year. And of course, this doesn't include the cost of the infrastructure you're paying to run it."

My argument is that the more utilitarian the service, the more cost-effective that is to buy it instead of writing it. Writing it could be simple but there's a drain in engineering resources when you try to maintain it in the long run.
How to Fix 'Unlock Mac with Apple Watch' Big Sur Issue
Personally, I would give my credit card to DO than needing to use PayPal. I avoid them. Always sad when stores only accept PayPal that's an instant missed sale.
Never, because it's impossible to have a platform if keeping something content up gets them fined AND taking content down gets them fined.

They don't have perfect knowledge of how a court would rule in each case, so they err on the side of caution. Remove the side of caution and you can't have a platform.
Don't be mad at twitch or youtube. They are following the law as written.
Here's a summary that is more stats friendly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MYw9LcLCb4
I just saw this today, but thanks for the comment. It's very interesting and enlightening.
"Children have increased concentration of ACE2 receptors in lung pneumocytes that may have a protective effect on severe clinical manifestations due to SARS-CoV-2 infection."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7113798/
The presence of a GC is an enabler for bad coding. If the code wasn’t running in a VM then you couldn’t play a mod with a memory leak that bad. It would just crash, as it should.
> so much energy installing Prometheus + Grafana stack instead of just using DataDog.

Because it could be done in few commands the second time. And learning is only possible when wasting time on this kind of things, rather than trying hard to custom fit your usecase using some buyable tool.

That being said, I kind of partially agree with you and the author though. Don't maintain service just to feel that you are in control, but with the exception that if you are doing it for the learning purpose.
> More than a third of polled Americans see the election as illegitimate, and that includes Democrats and non-affiliated voters.

Did you read the poll? Literally, in the first three paragraphs:

- 98% of Dems think election victory is legitimate

- 97% think there was no widespread voter fraud

Please stop trolling HN. Take it to Parler.
I presume some of these things are due to accessibility, but Amazon's site is near impossible to navigate even with 20/20 vision and all my faculties.

I'm not advocating for familiarity, but for predictability. It's not that interfaces shouldn't change, but that they should be predictable. If you're changing expected behavior (new tabs, tab, etc) you need the interface to reflect that. If there is something 99% of your users are doing in your page, there's a good chance that it's what should pull focus on page load.

Nothing works for all cases, but I think those are good guidelines.

You're right about memory management - sadly it's also the SPAs that I see download their entire dependency tree onto my system just to show me a few lines of text.
> In my opinion if one needs the full capabilities of a modern IDE right in their editor one should go with a modern IDE.

> Trying to turn vim into a modern IDE with a zillion of plugins and glue scripts is a leisure activity and a time sink.

Haha. That's true :) It's possible there's this conscious/unconscious bias against IDEs and "all the cool kids use vim/emacs". So people use those editors, but consciously/unconsciously crave the quality-of-life improvements that many IDEs (or just many other editors) provide. Even the simplest ones like file lists. Or symbol look ups. And then, yeah, it's down the rabbit hole of chasing the plugins, and configurations, and scripts.

I experienced all this myself with emacs (I never grokked vim beyond some basic commands).
Goodheart's law at work. This is why you have to change metrics every six months. Just when I figured out "engagement," now "earnestness." Now a potential issue that you're probably already aware of is that many of these traits can serve as culture / age filters.
Your reply shows some pretty busted mental models, revealing bias or poor reasoning. Let me break it down for you. The reasonable people in this debate can speak clearly about this in a way you don't seem able to.

> Actually, no. If there was no election fraud (as it seems to have been proven)

Your claim here seems to be that there was no election fraud, and it seems proven. Two problems with this statement:

- You cannot prove there was no election fraud, it is unfalsifiable.

- Beyond that, the idea that there was no election fraud is absurd on its face. We should expect there to have been some election fraud, with some liklihood of finding evidence of it, since in an election as large as this one there is always election fraud to some degree.

What I think you're trying to say, is there is insufficient evidence to prove there was sufficient election fraud to have an impact on the result. If that's the case, I agree with you. But commentators who say things like "there is no evidence of fraud" or "there is no evidence of widespread fraud" are wrong in the former case and creating a strawman in the latter. And of course, the effect of saying fallacious things like this is it just serves as confirmation for the other side that you are acting in bad faith. The specific claim made is that there was targeted fraud in specific districts in swing states to tip the result. I don't think there is sufficient evidence to show this.

> then they all have the same wrong belief, regardless of degree

My point is the degree matters if we care about avoiding a conflict.

> The goal isn't to convince all of them...

I don't know what you are saying here. My point is that if you are trying to persuade people of their errors in reasoning, you shouldn't expect to convince all of them, just a sufficient amount to reduce their confidence in their wrong beliefs to change the dynamics of the situation enough to avoid the worst possibilities.

> Both of those have happened. So why do you, a reasonable(?) person on HN trying to convince us that it hasn't?

This is objectively false. A full forensic audit of all the states has not occurred (some local forensic audits of sampled ballots in specific counties in some states has) and SCOTUS has not heard any cases (yet) about this issue. I don't know why you state obvious untruths, beyond just being ignorant of the facts or something.
I don’t have Chrome, could you elaborate? Where is the highlighter and what does it do?
“[Edward Robert] Harrison argues that the first to set out a satisfactory resolution of the paradox was Lord Kelvin, in a little known 1901 paper, and that Edgar Allan Poe's essay Eureka (1848) curiously anticipated some qualitative aspects of Kelvin's argument:

Were the succession of stars endless, then the background of the sky would present us a uniform luminosity, like that displayed by the Galaxy – since there could be absolutely no point, in all that background, at which would not exist a star. The only mode, therefore, in which, under such a state of affairs, we could comprehend the voids which our telescopes find in innumerable directions, would be by supposing the distance of the invisible background so immense that no ray from it has yet been able to reach us at all.”
Proof of Rubys Superiority over Python
This article was written for fun. I like Python
These standards aren’t just “plug C is 0.25 inches wide.” They are intimately tied to the compression technology itself. Developing new standards involves developing new compression technology, building and testing reference implementations, iterating, etc. All that costs money to develop. That will get paid for one way or the other. What way that happens affects the public interest analysis.

Look what happened with web standards. Developing and testing new web standards requires building reference implementations in browsers. Browsers are expensive to develop, so the standards are controlled by a handful of companies like Google and Apple. But the standards are free to implement. Is that better for the public? Maybe, but the public interest analysis is more complex than “free to implement.”

There is no such thing as “free.” R&D will be monetized somehow—the question is how. Different monetization approaches have different and non-obvious impacts on the public interest. Consider for example the shift away from paying for software to giving it away “free.” You used to pay Symbian $5-10 bucks per phone for an OS. Android you can get for free. But Symbian didn’t build an advertising platform into the core of each phone. Monetization matters.
We need better laws to punish false DMCA takedowns. We can’t put this on the platforms because the cost of this ignoring a true DMCA request is so high. We need to fix it so that when the engineers go to talk to the legal team, the legal team can give advice that points in a different direction, which means new laws.
If twitter and facebook disappeared tomorrow, along with parler, gab, mastodon and all other similar social feeds; would your life be better, or worse?
That's remarkable! I don't think I've seen anyone else even try to run X itself in docker. Thanks for sharing:)
A DBA walk-ins into a bar and joins two tables together
While I don't entirely disagree with what you're saying, I think you have to be pretty cautious about looking at social media. You could (and many people I'm familiar with did!) scan Twitter around the time of the Seattle autonomous zone and see lots of people calling for the rule of law to end.
Part of what I once said about why Def Leppard songs were meaningful to me:

A group of young men singing about love who also stood by their talented but now severely handicapped band member after he lost an arm is something that spoke to my soul. To me, these people had to know something more than pretty words. There had to be something deeper in their songs than just "sex, drugs and rock and roll."

https://genevievefiles.blogspot.com/2020/04/anger-management...

Words never stand completely on their own. What they mean to people is shaped by context, history and reputation.

Hacker News wasn't always a space with 5 million unique visitors per month who mostly barely know each other. When I originally joined in 2009, it had a sense of community.

I never got to be one of the "insiders" in that community. I was a visitor looking in from the outside.

But it did exist and many of those people still come here, though their presence isn't obvious. I don't think you can tell who pg's friends are by who says what on Hacker News.

I've always respected the man, though he and I were never friends. I respected him because of how he comported himself here when he was in my mind just a moderator for a forum that I participated on, before he was big time famous and big time wealthy, when his wealth was measured in words starting with M, not B.

I don't read every single thing he writes and I never have. But I certainly take his words seriously when I do sometimes read them.

He has a PhD and he suggested to his girlfriend that the two of them should start a company together. That company is, of course, YC.

I feel like it gets little press as a "pro diversity" company, but it's a big company with a woman founder and that's true because of Paul Graham. It was not Jessica Livingston who came up with the idea.

It's sort of a stealth diversity thing and I generally don't say too much about that because I think that's the best way to do diversity and I don't want to ruin it by calling a lot of attention to it.

But we've had a pandemic all year and the entire world is cranky as all hell -- me included -- and it's just rubbing me the wrong way that people are so desperate to find a dog to kick these days. So I feel a need to give a bit of pushback here lately.
From Airbnb to Tesla, It’s Starting to Feel Like 1999 All over Again
> their close cousins (Airtable, Notion) great as well!

Their close cousins are locked, proprietary, slow, bloated, exceedingly complex, poorly designed (ui/ux), emojized, vc-backed feature extravaganza and have a subscription fee.

Experts of Excel use keyboard exclusively, their keystrokes are a melody of efficiency, expressivity and productivity that is continued to be mocked in similar fashion as the 2007-era Mac vs. PC advertisements.
A web developer walking into a bar and leaves when she doesn't like the table layout
> IPv6 is fundamentally much more secure than IPv4 (no scanning, etc.)

The same was true for ipv4 until about a decade ago.

> opt-out is bad for innovation, especially since the cheap default ISP router firewall software is likely to not even allow opt-out for any other protocols than TCP and UDP. (Heck, these days on IPv4 even anything different than HTTPS can be problematic...)

I can't wait for conficker6 to innovate it's way around the ipv6 net.

> reliance on router firewalls is bad because they incentivize sloppy device security - the manufacturers should be instead liable when they are at fault for screwing it up (also, how many of these "insecure IoT devices running ancient software" are even able to run IPv6 ?)

Sounds like an excellent reason for an opt-out by standard. 99% of the world's internet users wouldn't have a clue how to manage a firewall. Directly connecting all their devices to the internet is an awful idea for 99% of the world.

Your 50/50 example is hugely biased, first it's on a Telco discussion forum so that clearly selects for technical users, then it's on ipv6 which is going to further select for technical people.

Go canvas 100 random people outside a supermarket if they want to have to manually manage a firewall for every device they connect to their network. If they don't give you a blank stare at that question remind them that includes everything from lightbulbs, washing machines, "smart" speakers, to their computers/phones (likely the only thing they think of as being connected to the internet). If you find more than 1 I'll eat my hat.

I don't own a hat.
Did you look at the references at the other end of that link?

It seems like you are equating rejecting papers like that, with denying white supremacy.

Would it be possible for someone to think that particular kind of academic work is of low value, and yet still think white supremacy is real?
I'm fine with private platforms (including HN) getting to decide what is and isn't harmful to the community. Should HN allow low effort comments and memes in the name of free speech? When online communities have no moderation, they inevitably get hijacked and become awful.

It's actually nice that instead of Twitter just hiding/deleting the offending posts, the posts are still there for you to see (in a less convenient way) so you can decide yourself that you're happy with the standards Twitter is trying to set.

If you're not happy, you're free to go find or create another community online that has moderation you're happy with. I don't understand how anyone can feel they should be allowed to inject themselves into a community and act however they want with no repercussions, and everyone else just has to put up with it.
> Reporters literally can't believe it when founders making piles of money say that they started their companies to make the world better. The situation seems made for mockery. How can these founders be so naive as not to realize how implausible they sound?

I can't speak for someone like Kara Swisher, but attempting to channel her, I don't think she would think it is beyond belief that some hacker teenager who dropped out of a good college to work on X was earnest that they were trying to make the world better.

The mockery over naivete and implausibility comes from that those teenagers will walk into a VC office on Sand Hill Road, where they will sign over various rights for the future. They will then form a Delaware corporation. With plans to raise more VC, after that an IPO, and finally dividends. Which means what? What came from those who did this in the past?

- The Steve Jobs orchestrated formerly secret cabal, that included Eric Schmidt and others, to drive down engineer salaries in the Bay.

- Social networks amplifying traffic saying Covid is a hoax, and here we are with 3000 dying of Covid in the US on Wednesday.

- The widespread spying and surveillance of people that almost all these companies have a hand in - even Adobe has become a surveillance company.

It's the thinking that the corporations that will be the IBMs, Oracles and Microsofts of the future are there to "make the world better". It is risible.