skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Did you try to help them or just point out their utter mathematical cluelessness?
Sorry you're right, I had the terminology wrong. It's abandoned, not orphaned, and the specific program is FDA NCIE.

IIRC this program grants advertising exclusivity (weaker than patent exclusivity) as a carrot to give companies "IP protection-lite" in exchange for re-testing old drugs under the FDA phase flow.
NY Enacts Law Suspending Use, Directing Study of Facial Recognition in Schools
I think people should be careful with the "seek legal advice" thing. Obviously, you need to talk to a lawyer. But:

(a) You need a lawyer who deals with this kind of stuff regularly and has a realistic and well-informed view of what the outcomes are going to be. Most lawyers aren't like this.

(b) Legal gets expensive very fast, especially as it transitions from advice to negotiation and document review. At this scale of opportunity (the way the company is described), I'd stick to get getting advice!

(c) Past the "can I be fired" question, which I agree is urgent (and probably predictable), a lot of the negotiation here isn't going to be about the law so much as it's going to be about what both sides are willing to accept. If you have friends who have been in founder disputes like this, their input is going to be just as valuable as the lawyer's.
Hi, you can apply current corporate surveillance issues under any type of economic or government system and still have the exact same discussion of, "oh woe is us, how terrible the people are up there". Or you can utilize the tools that capitalism offers everyone, even the poor.

We set as either public practice or into law that people own their personal data, which is not a hard stretch. Think about that for a moment. What does it mean to own something in a capitalist system... think... think hard... YOU CAN SELL IT! Actually license in this case, but you get the point. If you're in the back of the class or still on the short bus, what I'm saying is this: a company can collect and sell YOUR data... for a fee. You get a percentage (or flat rate if that's your jam) of whatever they make, in perpetuity. Let's even classify your data as copyrighted content, just like books and other media. You do "create" your own data. After your death, your estate (children, etc.) get that fee as well for... I think it's 75 years after death, or is it 50... I don't remember how long book copyrights are. Exact number doesn't matter, but you get the point of where I'm going.

But nay you say! Nay I say in return. Companies do this already. As a fond and active capitalist, I've made it a habit to get paid to learn new skills to great success. I've even held in shits so I can make sure I get paid to shit (only a few times and strictly so I can truthfully make this comment, again, you get the point). Anyways, companies do this by licensing their own data out to other companies. Now, since companies get taxed/treated as "people" (USA), there is ZERO reason actual people can't do this. Oh wait, I know why. "People" are better educated in the sex lives of celebrities, memes and what's the latest pop culture, superhero show/movie.

The tools to solve this issue are built into capitalism and basic western governance in the last 100 years. Hell, it's also a decent way to redistribute wealth in a very fair method that's hard to argue in a capitalist society. No one is "overburdened" by letting someone else coast on someone else's work. Everyone thus has a "product" to sell in a mass format just like book publishers or movie streaming services.

But hey, I'm the asshole that likes real world solutions that are based on centuries old established working principles instead of unicorn fantasies that have never worked, like communism.
> filled with praise for a company that just released a turd of a game

Hey now, that's harsh. If you have a decent-spec gaming PC you have the "blessed combination". The console releases were a trainwreck but unless you're calling Skyrim and Fallout 4 turds as well I wouldn't put CP2077 in that category.
Most of the comments here are along the lines of: this is old tech!

But this isn’t really about the tech, it as much a productivity hack that allows people to be much closer to that old fashioned concept of a full stack developer

This is what has allowed Basecamp to create Hey with a team just a fraction of the size of their competitors
I think you can have your experience while understanding the massive disparity.

I am the same as you. Purely self-made. Handed nothing.

Here's a situation I saw which changed my view from yours to the person you're replying to:

My friend is successful. He did not go to college since he couldn't afford it. Rather he worked after graduating high school and attained a senior engineering role before his peers had graduated college.

Well...the company he was working for folded. He desperately took whatever the next job was because he was young and did not have much savings to fall back on nor a college degree. That next job was across the country and in his words "was a waste of two years". He stayed at that dead end job for resume purposes in a city he hated but had to relocate to.

Now I have another friend. That friend graduated college, moved to a new city. His parents paid for the first year of rent in the new city while he looked for the best possible job in software. He got a great job.

You see the massive disparity? The first guy essentially threw away two years of his youth working a cubicle farm job because he did not have inherited wealth to fall back on. Today, he's doing very well but that does not change what happened to him.

Seeing that first hand changed my "boot straps" thinking. The world isn't fair although I agree, you can make it more fair.
"Should you work hard" is not aimed at people with lots of inherited wealth (unless they want to grow that wealth.)

Hard work is part of the equation of success, a necessary part I would argue. There's not a lot of successful lazy people - inherited wealth is not success, it's just a higher baseline. Success to me is something you achieve, not something you can inherit.

The money quote is:

> You can get to about the 90th percentile in your field by working either smart or hard, which is still a great accomplishment. But getting to the 99th percentile requires both....

That seems beyond debate to me. Being at the 99th percentile is a relative measure and you don't get there unless you work smarter and harder than most everyone else.

Once you get in a position of leadership (that is you have leverage) I'd argue working smart is far more important because that is a force multiplier on everyone working for you.

If you somehow do both then you're Elon Musk.
I don't think anyone would disagree that what you're highlighting are systemic problems that need to be addressed (well, except racists of course).

The point I was making is that labeling a racist, IMO, should require a conscious action linked to a bias along racial groupings, just like sexism and ageism do as well because it implies so many very negative characteristics that should only be linked to someone making a conscious decision that they hate some race, sex, age, or whatever. I guess I'm arguing how we should go about addressing the underlying problem and I don't agree that classifying someone racist and crucifying them, in the systemic context, is the way to go about making positive change.

I don't think labeling people purely ignorant of these side effects in a directly negative and confrontational way is productive at all, it might instead insight resentment and further entrench these stereotypes.

When you observe an example that was stated above where a hiring person said they "don't look like an engineer" or something to that effect, you may instead ask them to clarify what they mean--force them (politely) to ponder what are those attributes that make someone look like an engineer? What is the stereotyped biased picture they hold in their mind.

Chances are that person just picked up or borrowed a pattern they saw and have nothing consciously against black people or some other race. By pushing someone to consciously identify and quantify those characteristics you bring their biases to light and hopefully a connection quickly clicks and that person now realizes "holy crap, was I stereotyping against that person and not trying to look at it objectively? Did I just unknowingly discriminate against that person based on purely on race?" I've seen this happen many time when people are made aware of their biases and I've seen people genuinely try to change as a result.

Some people may require a bit more directed questioning to make these observations and surfacing the stereotype alone won't get you all the way there.

This is how you stamp out these biases: you make people consciously aware of their biases. Once they're aware of the bias, it becomes a conscious act of deciding if they want to reject that bias or continue to adopt it. If they reject the bias, they're probably not what I would call a racist. If they accept the bias, then that's a racist. We're all surrounded by bias and I'd argue there are biases deeply embedded in humans previously used as survival shortcuts that no longer apply or run counter to modern cultures and rules of societies. What matters is how we consciously identify such biases and how we then act on those observations and work to improve ourselves to become less biased, especially when the bias harms others for no good reason.
How China Broke the World's Recycling
they could just be deluded.
Agreed, but similar to before, I find the analogy bad.

It's more like the Club is free to enter, and it's BYOB. The good drinks are $50 each.
You should read the Foreign Policy article they reference instead. https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/12/21/china-stolen-us-data-ex...
"Genetic material" is memory.
Therefore it must have the following properties:

1. It must be able to store any random sequence of symbols belonging to a certain set (e.g. any possible sequence of bases in the case of nucleic acids).

2. There must be a way to make identical copies of it (e.g. nucleic acid replication).

(the previous 2 properties are true both for its own genetic material and for a foreign virus that does not have any use for a living being)

3. There must be a way to use the stored sequence of symbols to direct some process that is useful for a living being.

(for nucleic acids, the better known useful processes are protein synthesis and the synthesis of certain kinds of useful by itself RNA, but there are also some other poorly understood functions of most of the "junk" DNA)
I don't think one is needed. Plastics helped us to get here, now we're ready to look for the next step, or solutions to the current problem.
Most of the technologies have had a more positive effect than negative, but that's no reason to ignore the new negative effects.

Coal power definitely saved a lot of lives, and probably more than it killed, but it introduced new problems, not worse one, highly probably less-bad problems, but problems nevertheless, shouldn't mean that we ban coal tomorrow, but that we should (as we somewhat are) work toward fixing the new problems.

The same goes for all technologies, they generally save a lot of people from A but then causes B which is a new, less efficient source of death. This is one of the situations where we should strive to have our cake and eat it too.
Hell, asbestos probably helped save more lives than it took, we just found something less terrible to replace it with.
Well, I'm not quite sure I buy that they will look crappy (terrible CRI is an issue, but white balance does work) in low light, because they have larger apertures!

"It's the lens stupid"... is often true for bad images. More pixels (or even larger film) won't gain you that much, but more light will help with focus, contrast, saturation, noise etc.

Really, you could also say, "it's the lighting stupid"... but better lighting is a bit harder to set up than a larger lens. The cost can be moderate to make it really good. On the other hand making it just suck less, it usually pretty cheap. Thus the ring light you see suggested everywhere.

What amazes me is how good our eye is so that we don't notice terrible lighting.
the addendum is clearer about the author's position than the article itself.
The math I did was pretty basic. BOM*quantity + mold cost. Those are sort of the basic knobs you can fiddle with. Not all molds are equal. I was just talking with someone last week who was going to 3d print one of the housings for a component he's designing, since the quantities are low, but found a molding technique that's low quality but simple, and he said it was maybe an order of magnitude cheaper than anything I was familiar with, so learning about molding processes can allow you to design products with a cheaper upfront cost there. I think he said this mold he was looking at was like on the order of hundreds of dollars, instead of thousands of dollars that I typically expect.

BOM reduction can be tricky. Lowering your BOM makes more sense the larger your production runs, but when selecting components I tend to sort by price, then find the cheapest component that satisfies my needs. Of course, a more expensive component may allow you to skip other related circuitry, giving a cheaper overall build, so diving into datasheets is important.

Quantity is the other thing you have some control over, but lower quantity batches have higher per item costs. Setting up a pick and place for a single board takes the same amount of time as setting one up for a larger run. If your quantities are low enough eventually setup fees are likely to start being a bigger percentage. Quantity also effects BOM costs. You can easily pay 2x as much for a component at low volumes, so you may not actually save as much as you think you will.

I agree with you that 30k isn't cheap. But if you look at things historically, we've finally reached a price point for hardware, that you don't need to be a big business to even think about having consumer quality electronics. Apple started with kits 40 years ago and took investor money pretty early if I recall my history correctly. Today I expect it to be easier to bootstrap a hardware company since there's more infrastructure around bootstrapping. I've seen successful products that won't do a production run until they have a certain amount of preorders. But hardware is just always going to be fundamentally more expensive than software
JS interacting locally can make a web page be perceived to be faster, even if there's no meaningful content yet. Humans enjoy working with systems that so _something_ as soon as they interact with them and a placeholder/spinner/animation is that exact something. Of course, you don't want any placeholders or animations to go on for too long, but it's good to know that the button you just pressed actually did something and the screen hasn't hung.

Minimal JS pages often have very little direct interaction built in, so they feel blazing fast when the connection is good and the payload is small (HN is a great example) but terribly slow if your internet connection is bad and it's not masking the network delays (again, HN is a great example).

The 2-5s mentioned on Twitter are something else though, perhaps the Hey app is being transferred through a saturated connection in the US or something.
what I don't understand is why all these "Preview" options only show the cover, table of contents, and back cover.

why not show a few pages from the actual content? isn't that fair use?
Hmm, a lot of the in-store imagers/readers are 2D capable now (eg: readers at HD and Kroger in USA). Not all, but when these facilities get a hardware refresh they get 2D - but still have nothing to read. Scanners have to be deployed first, then 2D can move to on-package
Because the DOM can be updated client-side before the server responds
5 Books That Changed My Business
It might not necessarily, and I was genuinely wondering what patterns people use, but there are a few things about our monolith in particular that have seemed to make it harder for us:

- The monolith has to do all the work of the whole system when it starts, so start-up time is a lot longer, which makes rolling deployments much slower

- The monolith is much heavier in resource requirements, so it's much more expensive to spin up multiple of them

- The monolith has a much larger surface area, so post-deployment but pre-release verification is much more complex

- The migration path for a smaller service to support zero-downtime is simpler than for a larger service, so on average it's probably easier to get it working for an existing 'microservice' (although may be easier for the monolith than an equivalent full set of microservices)
flowerlad seems to have the position that only security bugs matter; other bugs can be dealt with. I disagree with that position - non-security bugs can also be devastating. Second, even if you accept the starting position, I disagree with the idea that re-writing C++ code in Rust will remove all the security bugs.

So there's two categories of "taking those precautions". One is "fix security bugs", which, yes, of course take those precautions.

But the second category of "taking those precautions" is "re-write the whole thing in Rust". That's much more questionable whether it's worth it. How much time and effort will the rewrite take? What else could those people do with that much time? How bad are the security holes? How bad will it be to introduce the new bugs? What fraction of security holes will be closed by the rewrite?

flowerlad's idea seems to be that, in light of this latest attack, it's worth going to any lengths to fix every security hole. I think that idea is mistaken.

And, which software are we talking about? The network stack? Excel? Everything ever written in C/C++? The trade-offs are different for each piece of software. And if the answer is "everything", that sounds like roughly a decade of work for the entire software engineering workforce. That seems totally unrealistic, even in light of this latest attack.

Look, the attack was huge. I'm not trying to minimize it at all. But it still isn't worth the measures that flowerlad proposes.
I also prefer boring and love how HN works. That said though, modern consumers expect much more. We tech people like command lines, the ultimate in simple and boring. Modern consumers often want animation and things[1].

Source: UI/UX researchers tell me this when I push back and say "let's keep the tech simple and forgo some of the animations, etc in the name of using simple OOTB stuff without hacking thousands of lines of JS together." Also family members will tell me the same things.
It's very much not intended to be a democratic body so I'm not sure why you would fight on this hill. In my view we've essentially become a failed state because of one party's institutional stranglehold on the Senate.
Everything is on the razor thing margin while everything is expensive at the same time and salaries are stagnant. Those money should go somewhere after all, like those metaphysical yachts.
Twitter POTUS Account Will Reset Followers to Zero for Joe Biden
https://www.congress.gov/search

https://www.congress.gov/member/thomas-tillis/T000476

I've had decent results consulting this site.

The bill in question has not, as far as I can tell, been brought up for consideration yet anywhere so the only text that exists is that which is linked in the submission.

Just looking at the co-sponsors alone, I'd be worried about this legislation.
Seriously? With laptops costing $1000+ I think they can afford to put in the $15 smartphone part from $300 smartphones in the higher end ones.
In Danish it's pronounced the same way as the word for hunt - "jagt". I almost forgot what the word sounded like in English just now because my native tongue version of the word, spelled the same, sounds better to my ears.
What does your founder agreement state? When I founded a startup we discussed how an exit would happen (for either party) and documented it.

That's the controlling factor here, and of course HN has no insight into those docs. Depending on what legal jurisdiction you are in, you might have some other rights/obligations.

Either way, please consult a lawyer who has helped clients through this kind of situation before. Preferably a local one.

After doing so, you may want to reach out to the investor and make sure that your co-founder isn't controlling the narrative with them. Again, the lawyer probably has some advice on this approach.
Nintendo is a pretty interesting company, the stories I have heard are completely the opposite of the colorful friendly reality they paint on the outside. Maybe it's because of how ruthless they are that they are able to do it--I wouldn't know, no one told me.
Token Ring, redux?
Motive and intent are not important to the person being discriminated against.

Not getting a job because the hiring manager is outwardly racist and not getting a job because the hiring manager worries you're a poor "culture fit" or that your HBCU degree isn't prestigious enough has the same effect on the job applicant.
It did if you used XMLHttpRequest.
Organize a non-fork alternate development team, accept crowdfunding for specific goals/features.
Praising nintendo is almost meme-worthy.

Sadly there are a bunch of people that have a cult of a certain company and nothing will make them realize that their cult company is, in fact, a regular company trying to squeeze as much profit as possible.

All this stalking looks illegal though, that is really beyond acceptable.

The guy being stalked is a 26 years old person. Looking back at when I was 26, if I suddenly had known I had a multinational company sending out PIs to stalk me, I'd be freaking the f out.

I hope he's fine.
The video game software development industry is fundamentally broken in its corporate culture. I simply do not understand where they're finding people who are willing to work 'crunch' 60 to 75 hour work weeks without overtime to ship a game quicker. There is seemingly a near infinite supply of young, somewhat naive people who can be recruited by video game development studios to do so.

I work in a role where there is a real possibility that I might be woken up at 3am by an on-call alert. Or that I might have to work the occasional work week far past 40 hours due to an emergency. But it's in service of a critical infrastructure project (carrier-of-carrier ISP backbone links), not a video game. There is no video game on the planet that is so important people can't work a normal 40 hour work week.

If a video game developer can't build, QA and ship a game with a team of people working normal office hours, then in my opinion their priorities are grossly out of whack.

I have lost track of the number of instances I have seen of big video game development studios treating their employees in an abusive manner.

And yes, I suppose I'm somewhat of a hypocrite here. I bought a used copy of Assassin's Creed Odyssey for $20 on ebay. I bought a copy of Fallout 4 for $18 on the xbox one game store. Am I contributing to the problem? Very likely.
It's specifically built for Rails, so yeah, it definitely assumes full-stack control.

And there are definitely applications I would prefer to write as an SPA over the Hotwire approach. But given that the vast majority of websites are just a series of simple forms, I prefer this approach over the costs you incur from building an entire complex SPA.
This is about intellectual property. Not personal property.
What about Dremio? I get the impression it’s much better at querying parquet and other static file formats than Spark.