skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The other part of my argument is that your refactoring didn't really do anything. Think about it. Making it shorter did absolutely nothing other then save some precious microseconds during reading.

Another thing I would argue is that my version of the function saves time. You got rid of xy from the name so now this can only be derived from a type signature definition. If someone encounters this function being called in the wild they will have to follow it in order to derive the xy nature of the return value.

But that point is irrelevant in the grander scheme of things. My main point is that the differences between either naming convention has basically no logical significance at all.

A better way to illustrate it:

find_xy_coordinate_of_dogs_cats_and_baboons_in_picture
find_the_xy_coordinates_of_dogs_cats_and_baboons_in_a_picture

the extra grammar I added does zero damage to the code or meaning it doesn't hurt. In fact a weird thing occurs when communicating with the English language instead of code. In English we prefer the bottom way, in code we prefer the top. Both are mediums of communication yet we prefer two contradictory approaches. But in general people prefer reading English over code so the English style of verbosity is in fact provably better.

I'm saying because of this contradiction, long ass function names aren't actually hurting anyone... while at the same time the extra info helps communicating much more concepts.

> One is the amount of screen space needed to use your function, this bites when the could be many functions with long names used in a single expression .............

Others have used the math argument. I'll post my replies to those rather then rewrite everything.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25476030

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25476474
If this happened to me, I would tell my family to kill me in 1 year. We could setup an assisted suicide - I would feel it cruel to force me to live in such a state. If my family refused I would just go sky diving during month 5 and have an amazing decent down. The idea of people caring for me is worse than hell or torture. People should be allowed to die.
Select *
From employees
sort by salary desc
That's the point. They had numerous reasons to believe he was lying and they chose to ignore them.

Sadly it no longer surprises me to see the NY Times reporting what they want to be true rather than reporting the actual truth.
The problems here are fairness, but also time. Wealth tax gathers funds from past and future actions, income tax only from future actions.

If you believe laws were totally fair in the past, then a wealth tax should be unfair now. Is that your stance? Has taxation been fair?

My stance is that the notion of private property is ingrained, we went to civil war due to private property of slaves, the french revolution was fomented due to financial problems due to untaxed private holdings of the church and wealthy people. Does having private property from the past mean it's ours and no one can touch it?

History has shown that oligarchies and massive wealth disparities lead to negative societal outcomes. IMO, Taxes should generate revenue for public works and lower negative societal outcomes due to negative externalities, therefore wealth tax is fine with me in principle.
Plus it had an open world where most of it could be realistically lifeless other than wildlife and monsters.
I rode the whole TransVA 550 this summer. The route is beautiful, breathtakingly rugged. And logistics couldn't have been easier, as the route is very well planned, with great resupply points, camping, water, etc.

It made for a fantastic introduction to real backcountry touring.
There's actually a really good law review article about this that I encourage you to read:

https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...

It basically boils down to surgical training/procedural variance across geographic regions that make it hard to extrapolate some conclusions without multi centered trials, surgeon hubris, and self-regulation through way of surgical societies sponsoring trials and publishing guidelines. I think many also overestimate the FDAs ability to regulate "useless" medicine, so doctors that prescribe medicine also have the same problems surgeons do.

The article goes over more of this as well, but there's some regulation just not by a federal agency (unless you count CMS compensation/approval). Maybe we'll eventually have a group that specifically monitors surgical procedures.

Finally, I think it's fairly telling that the majority of these "useless" surgeries are elective procedures

(disclosure, if it matters: I'll be entering a surgical field that almost exclusively only performs elective procedures)
Awesome references, and I agree. Interestingly, we have been moving to several networks as walled gardens and left the open internet (to some degree)
See eg NICE in England who evaluate different things and then make recommendations.

Some of those are only guidance and NHS Trusts (the organisations that provide care) and CCGs (the organisations that take money from government and buy care from provider organisations) only have to consider it.

But some of them are mandatory and CCGs and trusts must follow it, unless they have very good reason not to.

Here's their guidance for "Arthroscopic knee washout, with or without debridement, for the treatment of osteoarthritis

Interventional procedures guidance [IPG230] Published date: 22 August 2007"

https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ipg230

And if people really want something that's been recommended against by NICE they can go private, I guess.
The iPhone itself? I mean, I am more than happy to be proven wrong. But can we know, for 100% that while I am simply using my phone, Apple isn't actually collecting its location via their own APIs, or those of my cell carrier?
But it seems like local governance doesn't work especially well for the state as a whole. I get the impression that the state has systemic problems that no tax will fix. Local governance is a problem in the state because all the wealthy cities do everything they can and use all their tax dollars to protect their own interests, often at the expense of everyone else. Needless to say it's a very complex problem and it's unclear that just throwing more tax dollars at everything will fix every problem every time.
The underlying counterargument is that tax dodging is a form of violence against the poor.
OT, but... That article has the most misleading graph I have ever seen. It plots two items with the same units, but different origins and scale. It looks like we had a huge drop in active leisure time and it was replaced hour-for-hour by screen time (and that screen time was near zero in 2000). Instead a modest decline in the former and a slightly larger increase in the latter
> in large part because voters have ideological commitments to confiscation, and no such commitments to effective government.

I highly doubt it's that rather than the fact special interest are prioritized over 'effective government' in large parts due to some conservatives and neoliberals promoting the idea of corruption == freedom. When there's a thousand ways to legally bribe politicians, of course there's no incentive for effective government.
>In an interesting turn of events, the investigation of the whole SolarWinds compromise led to the discovery of an additional malware that also affects the SolarWinds Orion product but has been determined to be likely unrelated to this compromise and used by a different threat actor.

Either that one was used to compromise the supply chain (in which case it makes little to no sense to keep it around and risk detection), or at least 2 different groups had the chance to target sensitive US infrastructure.

Funny how media coverage of this issue misses no chance of mentioning Russia and nobody else, not even possible suspects.

I wonder what happens if the attackers notice each other on the compromised system. Do they get along in exfiltrating data or do they fight quietly?
Washington University in St. Louis is currently under fire for the exact same "oversight."
I find the idea lovely for the following reason: I am a great believer in the idea of competition, especially between nation states, and in the US, between states.

If California were to ever make such a dumb move (I'm 99% sure they wont'), they are going to create tons of opportunities for nearby states as all the rich folks will move elsewhere with their capital.

Please, California, keep on taxing the goose with the golden eggs.

Politicians should be playing more Sim City.
The fundamental shape of all our current computer languages is one dimensional. You can take any current program/file, "encode it" to lego blocks, and it would be a one-dimensional string. This probably arises because our foundational layer is one dimensional binary.

Tree Notation/2D/3D languages are like a higher dimensional binary. Where you can traverse the program in multiple dimensions. Where physical layout matters.

Now all our current languages can be represented in this way. And that's what most of my stuff focuses on now.

But there are things that you can do with these languages and this style of 2D/3D architecture that you just cannot do with our current 1D register technology. (I mean maybe you could do them, but it would take billions of years to compute).

Wait, am I claiming that 2D/3D computers would be as big a development as Quantum computing?

No, much fucking bigger. Quantum computing is a fucking joke compared to this.

(pardon my french, I just find the occasional f-bomb as a good way to communicate my excitement about the OOM I am seeing)
Oddly enough, I have been reading the English poet Peter Reading recently, who did work as a laborer for two decades (and then survived for a few years afterward on the dole), and yet certainly had read at least Larkin and Montaigne during that time. And then of course there is the former Eastern Bloc where even many workers built up home libraries of some pretty deep authors, because there wasn’t much else to buy with one’s wages than books.

There was a time in the late 19th and 20th centuries when movements for worker emancipation went hand in hand with efforts to make those workers more erudite and give them access to the same reading that the bourgeoisie enjoyed. I regret that we seem to have lost this in the modern era.
"Baquet says the Times did not have evidence Chaudhry had ever been to Syria"

How do you fail to do even the most basic fact checking? They've clearly learned nothing since Judith Miller.
> A port happened before didn't it? I remember setedit and rhide about twenty years ago.

Yeah. SET published their port on GitHub a few months ago:

https://github.com/set-soft/tvision

One of the motivations to undertake this project was when I realized SET's Turbo Vision didn't support UTF-8 (https://github.com/windoze/tvision/issues/5).

> However, 16 colors?

This is not a design choice of mine. It's what the original Turbo Vision supported and I still haven't gotten around to extend it.

> Also, windows console is in maintenance only these days. Everyone is moving to Windows terminal and for good reason.

Using the Win32 Console API doesn't imply that applications will only work in the legacy Windows console. Windows Terminal supports this, as well as any terminal taking advantage of the Windows Pseudo Console (ConPTY) API (i.e. Git Bash).

From a programmer's perspective, using ANSI escape sequences to display text is fairly simple (and is what Turbo Vision does). But processing input is a pain in the ass, as it requires a complex VT sequence parser. So I stuck with the Console API for input. Anyway, there would be no problem in replacing the current console I/O strategy with something entirely different or even having many of them and picking one at runtime.

> Unlikely anyone is using DOS any longer, maybe freedos but still.

That's what I thought, until someone opened an issue and explained they were building for DOS... (https://github.com/magiblot/tvision/issues/20).

But still, I don't see the point in removing features that are already there if they are not a deterrent for further development. So DOS support is staying for now.
I agree there are too many $5 services, but a search engine is something that I use every waking hour of my day. I get so much use from it, that $5 per month is a bargin.

I would definitely pay Google just to be able to remove some sites permanently from my results. They're just spam to me, even if Google thinks they are legitimate.
Exactly. Islam took a similar route with Zakat (a form of "charity tax" if you will, over 1400 years ago, and it's proven to work. When you look at history, there was a period of time, when everyone paid their share of Zakat, and when there were no poor people left to take it!

It's not that much either, only 2.5% for currencies like gold and silver over a minimum threshold (so the poor/lower class are exempted anyway).

However, as I explain in my other post, there is no forcing to liquidate a fixed portion of any holdings you have. For example, if you own property and rent it out, the property value itself is not taxed, only the money you make out of rent if you hold on to it for over a year (and it's above a minimum threshold). Similarly if you owe shares in a company, the taxation is not a direct percentage of that ownership, it depends on things like debt and the amount of produce or products the company owns each year.

Income tax is unethical and predatory as far as I'm concerned, not to mention continues to fail even at absurdly high taxation rates.
The outrage stems from the fact that they doubled down on it after the problem was pointed out, this is what caused things to escalate to the level it did, which became a PR nightmare and resulted in them reversing their position. Heads should roll over this, not because there was a mistake in the algorithm, but because the leadership cannot be trusted to make correct decisions in the face of obvious errors.
They can't hire a lawyer for a nickel, so your claim is clearly false because that wouldn't be cost effective.

They contest large claims that aren't covered by your policy because that's what everybody does. You don't think Medicare refuses to cover certain things? They have to, because you can't spend a trillion dollars to save one life.

And for that single payer is even worse, because whenever they refuse to cover something, the provider goes out of business because the refusal applies to 100% of their customer base. Then what happens when something isn't covered isn't that you get a bill for $50,000 and file bankruptcy, it's that the provider who could have saved your life is out of business and you die.
I think it is less stupidity than the monopolists' disease. It is a combination of arrogance and paranoia that you can see appear repeatedly in monopolies.

I mean, yes, ultimately counterproductive to monopoly-preservation. But it isn't quite stupidity.
SF doubled their budget over the past 10 years, while virtually every problem has gotten worse.

More money isn't always the answer. Maybe the answer lies elsewhere...
Google Search today is repeating the same mistakes I remember from the late 90s.

For the first decade of the web, there were a handful of search engines competing, rising and falling in popularity. The best were altavista, and fast.

One thing that was noticeable back then was that bad search engines (and search engines that 'jumped the shark' and became bad) generally did so in similar ways:

a) they included paid results, or devoted too much real-estate to advertising

b) when they failed to find results, they tried to trick the user by showing related results (eg: omitting or substituting terms)

c) they avoided 'logical and' for search terms, in favor of 'logical or', making it difficult for users to search with precision.

The people at Google surely believe their recent changes have nothing to do with all that. Far as I'm concerned, aside from the extra millions of dollars they've spent on AI research, it's the same old story. Nobody needs a somewhat smarter version of AskJeeves.
London put in emergency lockdown as U.K. fights new strain
It's hard to experience true friendship without shared adversity. I'm not using the word "true" thoughtlessly, it's just that there seems to be a common theme among the varied descriptions of absolutely intense camaraderie between blood brothers, soldiers, and so on that leads me to believe that most of what we experience as friendship is a diluted version of those bonds. In an industrial information based economy with social media, where most threats are about soulless boredom or withstanding the daily grind, it's even harder to form such bonds in any genuine way.
Rich guy: “Mind keeping your hands off my stuff?”

Confiscationist: “he’s attacking me!”
Good on NYT for coming clean, but this is precisely why I don't trust institutions to vet their own product. "It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission" is a mission statement for pathological organizations to get away with gambling on the market and socializing their failures.
California also has marginal tax rates, so what I said is accurate. Could you offer a counter-example?
Speaking from the perspective of someone who has had his house smashed into an all of his stuff stolen, none of which was recovered and no meaningful attempt to do so was made, I don't particularly buy the argument that government enforces property rights. In certain cases, maybe. But mostly property rights exist because we all kind of agree they exist, and we generally don't go burglarizing each other.
This looks great. I’ve been playing a lot with WASM lately (working on a tiny frontend MP4/H264 encoder[1]) and using huge programming tool chains like C/C++ or Rust is not that appealing for building small WASM/web-centric modules. AssemblyScript on the other hand seems very web-first.

[1] https://github.com/mattdesl/mp4-h264
a Rube Goldberg machine of non-profits and inefficient, non-transparent spending leaving little to help the plight of the less fortunate.
This doesn't sound all that bad. There are people who lost the will to live in Nazi extermination camps or who died of radiation sickness from the atom bomb. Compared to those two, this is a very pleasant way to exit life.
I remember an article from somewhere in the valley that they considered to support families in need with some money for housing. Family in need was defined as yearly household income below $250,000.
I think it's worth contextualizing this bill by comparing against other wealth tax proposals that have bounced around in recent years.

Stiglitz has mentioned a 2% wealth tax for over $50M and 3% over $1B.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/17/economists-stiglitz-and-pike...

Elizabeth Warren's proposal was 2% for over $50M and 6% for over $1B
https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/ultra-millionaire-tax

Bernie Sanders had a proposal that started at 1% for values over $32M, 2% for $50M-$250M, 3% for $250M-$500M, 4 percent from $500M-$1B, 5% from $1B-$2.5B, 6% for $2.5B-$5B, 7% for $5B-$10B and 8% for >$10B.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/tax-extreme-wealth/

Piketty suggested phasing in much earlier and more aggressively, at 5% beginning at 2M Euros. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/12/billionaires-should-be-taxed...

People should save their panicked pearl-clutching for when a real wealth tax proposal comes. 0.4% almost sounds like not a serious number.

Yes, California's bill is at a state level. But then, California is larger than many countries. Is it really so inappropriate for California to consider taking even small steps towards ... well at this rate not decreasing inequality, but marginally slowing its rate of increase?

To me, the crazy part of this isn't the idea of a wealth tax, nor the fact that it includes a prorated tax for part-time residents. (If anything, it's weird that ordinarily we expect that the first 89 days per year of your involvement in any state are "free" for income purposes, but not for consumption taxes.) To me the crazy part is that we're willing to begin this conversation without first getting rid of prop 13. If the motivation is to decrease actual economic equality, how on earth do we justify this policy that allows people to pretend that their most valuable assets are worth far less than their actual value?
> The Langlands Programme was an effort in group theory to develop a representation (a way to generate all the elements in a group as far as I understand it) for all possible groups.

As a professional number theorist, I would not say that this is accurate.

A representation of a group, formally, is a homomorphism of that group to the group of automorphisms of some vector space. More informally, it is a way to make the group "act on something".

Here is an example. Consider the group generated by the symbols a, b, and their inverses a^{-1} and b^{-1}. As usual write a^2 = aa, a^0 = 1, etc. And impose the relations

a^4 = b^2 = 1, a^3 b = ba.

At first, this is very hard to understand. Which group elements are equivalent to which others? Is the group finite or infinite? If finite, how many elements does it have?

To construct a "representation", make a square out of cardboard, mark the edges and sides, and interpret the symbols in the following way: a means rotate clockwise 90 degrees, and b means flip across its vertical axis. a^{-1} and b^{-1} mean do the same thing in reverse.

Now you can see, for example, that this group has exactly eight elements -- corresponding to the positions of the cardboard you can reach.

For any group, there are always representations which you can easily construct, such as this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_representation

But there are representations which are "hidden" in some sense, where it wasn't clear initially that they should exist at all. That's where the magic happens.

The Langlands program is extremely technical; I specialize in another area of number theory, and I only vaguely understand it myself. But very very roughly speaking, the Langlands program describes multiple ways of constructing certain kinds of group representations, and says that you end up constructing the same representations.

The modularity theorem, which was the linchpin in the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, is an example of a theorem along these lines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modularity_theorem

And the Langlands program is very far from complete.
Interesting that they are posting a bunch of new reqs for their ads platform

https://jobs.apple.com/en-us/search?search=ads%20platform&so...
I’ve been tracking the news and the priority of administering the vaccine has been a debate in itself. If ML can truly find out the obvious and identify key areas to target, we can avoid a bunch of unnecessary finger pointing. What may seem obvious to humans may be totally wrong.
> It is ridiculous there aren't much more clear/specific guidelines, and in some cases enforceable policies/regulations, from the federal government. It's like nobody's driving the bus here.

Why is this not California's fault? States were each permitted to establish their own procedures, which somewhat makes sense given the challenging distribution requirements of the Pfizer vaccine. Montana has significantly different challenges than Rhode Island in that sense. Most states that I know of have established clear guidelines saying who gets it and when - I assume California is the same.

Seems like California is the governmental entity that failed to exercise proper oversight and/or requirements specification here.
> Can someone explain what the limitations are on a state's ability to levy taxes?

Ask yourself who owns the most guns, and you'll get your answer.
Individual cities can’t solve national problems. Due to migration there are no great solutions at the individual city level, other than being “blessed” with an inhospitable area.
What do you mean “removing yourself from the equation”? Abandonment?
Additive manufacturing in aerospace: How far have we come?
Do you think we should? Is it fair to everyone who didn’t go to college because it was too expensive?