skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Your link appears to be broken

We can debate the value of one-word (or even acronym) vs five-word variable names, but the key factor in my view is that the name holds some sort of intrinsic meaning to the person looking at it, vs being an arbitrary symbol. For example, x and y - despite being one-letter variable names - are perfectly sensible in a context where you're talking about euclidean geometry and referring to values on the x and y axes. But they are not reasonable names in the context of business logic where they represent customers or transactions. Alternately, a software shop may establish a convention that generics A and B mean something specific across all contexts in their codebase. A company-specific convention this arbitrary will still increase the barrier for newcomers to comprehend the code, but once learned they will at least be able to re-use the knowledge and A and B will become meaningful to them. In this way, "meaningful" may be relative. Usually meaningful names will take the form of one or more words, but not always; I wouldn't say the actual length itself is what's important.

With that established: by choosing names that have intrinsic meaning to the reader, the reader's mind is allowed to skip a step of indirection where they would otherwise have to perform a mental "dictionary lookup" from symbols to concepts. To be frank: study or no study, it's literally unbelievable to me that removing this step wouldn't help the slightest bit with both comprehension and recall.

Addendum: There's a further dimension to this which is that code is more than what it does. Take the following function:

function m(a, b) {
if (a < b) {
return a;
} else {
return b;
}
}

Is this code wrong?

Because the function lacks a meaningful name (or documentation), it's not simply hard to tell, it's a question with an undefined answer because the intent is not represented in any way. This function currently returns the minimum of the two arguments, but there's no indication whether it was meant to return the minimum, or the maximum, or even the sum for that matter.

Maybe you could argue that we should be writing comments anyway, but that still moves the meaning across a step of indirection, where you have to go find it instead of seeing it inline. We absolutely should be writing comments, but they don't completely replace good naming.
In the 1990s, I knew dozens of people who faced major financial problems because they immediately owed taxes on options they had just exercised, on shares that were not tradable. These were just regular developers (or in some cases, shipping crew), and they didn't have $50-500k sitting around to cover taxes like that.

Maybe the rules have been changed since then? I do know that by the early 2000's there were financial services companies offering wierd loans to help cover the taxes (obviously using the stocks as collateral).
> I hope that as few as possible have gamed away money they cannot afford to loose.

This.
> And I'll add - that exact style of code has been a source of bugs in our production codebase before.

Very much this. That scenario will break if e.g. the backend API changes. This is a constant source of frustration for someone I know, whose backend team has a habit of not communicating their changes to the frontend team.

There's nothing TS can do to enforce that the actual type of the response matches what the type declaration says (hence the need for runtime checks in this case).
This is basically a hit piece, and this type of journalism really hurts us because it misses the big picture. The reality is that Astrazeca ran full trials which proved safety and efficacy in peer reviewed journals. Were things a bit messy? Yes! Its a pandemic, things didn't go perfectly. But is there any scientifically based reason to believe that the vaccine is not safe and effective against death? Their studies categorically proved that.
Some did. It's quite easy using hindsight bias to see how everything worked out.
IMO monospace fonts can make the nose look ridiculous, but for other fonts I leave it in so the face is easier to read as a face.
My (overly charitable?) interpretation is, "Is Checked C so painful to write that we'd be better off just using a better managed language"

Of course, if it's feasible to refactor existing C code like in the paper, this seems like a good path forward, vs trying to "start over" with whatever other checked language of choice you pick.
The median income for the US is 31k.
First protest this year was at Jan 23rd. Lots of people, lots of, as we're calling them, cosmonauts. Lots of violence towards unarmed people, zero looting. Singular acts of someone hitting or fighting policemen that were wearing full body armor and a helmet with lovered visor and often without badge. (hence cosmonauts)

If you were to tune to any government-controlled news channel (pretty much all of them), you'd only see three-minute compilation of "violent protesters" whereas numerous internet media outlets were showing the full picture, all day, live, from all angles.

Go figure.
Thank you for writing this article. I'm a DevOps Engineer and spend most of my time with Terraform and Kubernetes. K8s yaml is simple clean config, and Helm turns it into an obfuscated monkey pile. If I need to use a Helm chart, I use helm template which outputs the yaml to a file. Typically I do this in a Makefile. Then I use Kustomize to modify it for my application. Kustomize has lowered my stress level from when I used Helm substantially. Helm might be fine if you don't know [and don't want to know] K8s and use it as a package manager, but the second you want to modify the config with something that isn't in the chart, like adding taints and tolerations, pod disruption budgets, pod priorities, etc, you have a nightmare. Helm literally turns something simple into something complicated. It's like trying to code with a welding helmet on.
Ignore human child trafficking and starvation.
Practically have to do backflips to avoid accidentally signing up to Amazon Prime. Dark patterns deployed front and centre.
1) I'd rather not say, although you can probably figure out from my post history if you really want to know

2) Yes
Configuring CORS and JWT in Istio for secure, cross-origin requests
Well, I think that saying works better is an understatement.

On windows I just plug my external monitor with regular DPI and it auto-recognize that this external monitor have regular DPI and size it acordingly while keeping the HIDPI of my laptop perfectly untouched and also auto recognized.

While on xorg, goodluck with that.

On Wayland it works, but require manual intervention of enabling fractional scaling and setting everything manually.
As far as technicians, I've always felt sad for the two Space Shuttle technicians who died in 1981 after entering a nitrogen-filled engine compartment (John Bjornstad and Forrest Cole).
And often in parametric code, there is nothing you can say about the types you're working with.
why except Montreal/Quebec? I've never heard of such a restriction before
It's time for a new stock market honestly.
Because despite the common request to "let me pay a monthly fee to not see ads", the vast majority of people are too cheap to pay up. This is why ads are as prolific as they are.
I have inherited speakers before, but not headphones. Those don't last after years of sweat/travel, the internals can break down, and the quality of headphone design has gone up with things like planar magnetic technology.

It's worth getting old headphones if they were the real top of the line like Stax electrostatics, since you can't afford new ones, but those were especially poorly built back in the day.

As for open headphones like AKG, people praise them for critical listening but I've found they're not good in realistic situations where there's any background noise at all. I can't get a separate soundproofed listening room in my apartment, so if the fridge decides to turn on, I can't hear the bass in an open headphone anymore.
> The author's proposed solution is for sites to use DPI instead, but this would thwart the preferences of users who use scaling because they want the whole site to look bigger.

The author's problem is not things becoming bigger.
Larger was the goal after all of settings that scaling.
The author's problem is things optimize for mobile interaction.
Like making thing touch controlled,
Or making buttons disproportionately large to make easy to click with thumb.
A lot of investor education is needed ...
I think it’s more the case that so many years have passed that it’s not like they were likely to fail. They just failed to succeed quite as much as their original CEOs could have made them. Steve left Tim a cash machine.
First, I really appreciate your response :)

> High marginal tax rates on super-high levels of income and/or wealth doesn't discourage working.

Do we have precedence for this? From what I'm aware, even when the US had high marginal tax rates which some dems seem to be calling to bring back, no one ever paid those rates because there are always ways for the very rich to reduce their income on paper, while still increasing their wealth.

I do agree with you that it takes a very special kind of person to have the wealth of Elon or Bezos and still continue to want to work, it's obviously more than money at that point. But those people are outliers. I know I wouldn't be motivated to spend more effort if it meant a proportional decrease in the total amount of money I would end up pocketing due to increased taxes.
They can pay Microsoft.
The main reason for me of suggesting email is because I simply don't find writing responses on HackerNews as a great medium to have a conversation that likely will be lengthy. Basically, there's no good way to quote or even make a list with bullets and I prefer my macOS mail interface than a html textbox.

The phrase "making choices" is just semantics for the topic of free will being an illusion. There's no different outcome for how a person will live from start to end. That's the reality we live. Science hasn't proven otherwise and the current evidence from neuroscience suggests we don't have free will. Even logically it's impossible to imagine free will being possible when you're inside a system and every thought or act you perform is because of the system you're in. People are no different from water choosing to flow downstream.

Knowledge is power in society. Does it change your fate? The answer is no but generations do get better than the past because humans are progressing from knowledge. So the argument I think we truly are having is whether the norm of the populace should be deceived that they have free will or told the truth that there is no free will.

You already know what I believe the answer is for the foregoing. I have my own personal reasons as well. My life was fairly damaged by people that believed in free will because of religion and after many years of self reflection. I realized they were in fact acting mentally ill because of their belief that people make choices when regarding one's sexual orientation and gender identity.

I don't blame them or ever want to desire they had free will because I would've sought vengeance for the conversion therapy I suffered. Instead I'm glad fate had me realize they weren't to blame but how the universe unraveled and no individual had any power over how they came to be. I personally don't think that means people should be left scot free when they violate others. I think the social systems just need to change to a rehabilitation system like how the healthcare system treats people that get sick. It just happens in life and the systems are what make people behave the best and have the best life contrary to other systems.

Anyway I'm writing in a text box and if you want to have lengthy discussion about it. I really do enjoy email back & forth about it. I personally could probably chat about the topic in-person and never get bored about it.
Its typical of vaccines for longer spacing to improve the efficacy. This is why for most vaccines you get your booster spread out by a lot more (like 1 year). So generally speaking, the expectation was that it would improve efficacy and it did.

Another study supporting "First doses first".
Really happy to hear that! Great idea, I've set up a landing page which I'll use to let you know when it's ready for early adopters.
https://join.flowtelic.com/
I don't think YT should interfere. As I see it, YT is a pipe for content. If you pay for it through ads/subscription you are paying for the pipe not just the content. The content creator should be free to monetize their videos as they choose to like TV channels can show ads for a TV show.
Running Debian on a $5 Single Board Computer with 32MB RAM – The Lichee Nano Pi
> 2a. The parties have a very strong incentive to secure their transaction-posting-keys, because those are the same keys as they use to protect their own other valuable assets such as cryptocurrency, or whatever else they are securing these days such as DAO governance.

If you were to be (s)elected as one such holder of an encrypted key fragment, what's to say you're going to use the same key (the one your key fragment is encrypted with) for your personal Bitcoin account? I wouldn't; I'd get another one for that. Wouldn't you? If you'd use the same: Why?
A value of type "any" is assignable to anything, a value of type "unknown" is assignable to nothing. unknown forces a type cast.
They're only 20 years too late on that. We now have huge established players who do that already very well. Steam and Xbox, Playstation, AppStore, Epic Store, all platforms already have a good store and a bunch of second and third tier stores. We also already have commoditized the "CD-key" reseller space with G2A and a hundred others.
Awesome. Thank you for responding!
So now ONE person dictates what is a win for humanity?
> Robinhood actually fronts the least money out of all major brokers (something like $1000).

None of the brokers I have ever used have ever fronted me money. If the required equity isn't going to be in the account by the settlement date, they won't spot me so much as a fiver.

There's an argument to be made that Robinhood Instant is a violation of federal margin regulations because it allows margin risk to be taken in an account with no settled equity.
It’s a self-serving lie: even places like HN use shadow and to enforce ideological conformity — and then people like this come along to give everyone a pat for being open minded.
Since switching to low-cost stainless steel, SpaceX design philosophy is to rapidly prototype using low-cost materials and assembly line like mass manufacturing ("the machine that builds the machine").

They expect to lose many rockets along the way. They only put 3 raptor engines in there because that's the expensive part.

This is in contrast to the SLS where they spend 5 years and billions of dollars designing and building one rocket that's make of break, with the second rocket launching people.
Want to Save $10k? What About $100k? Start by Being Realistic
"nearly goes under because it over extended itself" is not really accurate. They took the steps necessary to prevent that from happening, by blocking the behavior that would have led to that. Unfortunately, those steps, in combination with poor communication on Robinhood's part, and emotion, ignorance, and paranoia on the part of the general public, has led to a PR crisis for them.
Beyerdynamic headphones are not actually that good, so I'd hope he bought something new instead.

Beyer is the kind of thing nascent audiophiles liked about 15 years ago because they sounded very detailed, but people are better at measuring now, there are newer competitors like planar magnetics (eg Hifiman), and if you compare them now it's obvious that the detail is fake. It's an artifact called sibilance that just happens to sound good, like vacuum tube distortion.
Clearing crypto doesn't require debt because the broker is doing an internal transaction. If done on-chain, it will be an atomic transaction. Neither require clearing with another firm.

Banks don't actually shuttle physical dollars back and forth as most transfer via SWIFT. The physical money banks need is only for teller withdrawals, ATMs or whatnot.
Too bad he doesn't care about the people who work for him
Disagree with you on 3. 'unknown' is handy to prevent 'any's from leaking into the codebase. It's very easy to accidentally assign an 'any' to another variable and then return it, or to accidentally read a property off of it before ensuring it exists.

Unknown is basically asking the dev to confirm the choice (ideally through a typeguard, but also with a simple cast).

And if you're using a typeguard, just define the argument as 'any' ex -

type AType = {
c: string
}

let a: unknown = {
c: 'test',
}

if (isAType(a)) {
console.log(a.c) // no type errors!
}

function isAType(a: any): a is AType {
return typeof a.c == 'string'
}
Schwab, Fidelity, TD Ameritrade & IB all engage in PFOF. They all have free offerings.

Here is what robinhood advertises for their price improvement https://robinhood.com/us/en/about-us/our-execution-quality/

All NBBO improvement requires is that if you send an order through the book you’ll get the best price on NBBO. Even when Robinhood got fined it wasn’t for that, it was for promising better than their competitors and then putting it in writing that they were happy being worse than their competitors.
> Jeff's pitch at the time (1997); so on point, so precise:

Agreed! He knew exactly what he was doing.

Interesting that he talks about attention being a scarce resource. Things did not improve from that point....
Which is why they shouldn’t have restricted it at all. Volatility is the name of the game. If they can only trade equities with predictable prices they are probably in the wrong business.

And where the price is now is arguably the direct result of their actions. The price would be higher if they didn’t restrict buys while allowing hedge funds to gobble up the panicked sells from retail investors.

Judging by the sentiment on WSB it seems that this is far from over. Hedge funds have overshorted several stocks and those guys have figured out that if they simply buy up a large portion of the available stock they can name their price when the hedge funds need to buy to cover the shorts. It is of course impossible to quantify but casually looking at the posts, nobody is talking about selling GME at all, and every dip in price just means more retail investors can afford to buy into this. It’s a bubble for sure but it seems a lot of the users there are mostly interested in using it as a weapon against hedge funds more so than making money off it.
Thank you for your efforts and sharing.

I like to read opinion pieces that are pithy and well presented. I may or may not agree but I will think about the issue. In this case I know very little about the intricacies involved and its good to know that some people do. I've just recently converted about 45 Phase I IPSEC connections to AES128-GCM, AES-XCBC, DH Group 31 and similar Phase II. Most of them were 3DES MD5 G2, without PFS at Phase2 so I think it's an improvement! A big surprise to me was a major drop in CPU usage at the "hub" end. The hardware doesn't have AES-NI yet but it will soon be replaced and your notes have accelerated that change up my stack of stuff to do.

Sadly some of our peers seem to have forgotten to actually read the thesis first before shootin' wildly. I have quite a low Slashdot number and used to hang out there back in the day - nothing is new in the world!

Again, thank you for sharing.
Not even to mention using options to play S&P 500 futures. If thats a little rich for you theres also mini version of that and the Nasdaq 100 (ES, NQ respectively). The thought of a well known and capped loss amount on a long call/put is very attractive and perfectly suited for this kind of gambling.

If the mini version is still too rich for you don't despair - theres MES and MNQ which are Micro versions of the Mini versions. The option activity on those isn't so great but you can afford to trade the underlying FUT without going broke the very first mistake you make.

Put another way - you can lever up and make a lot of money off a small move -OR- you can try to make a large amount of money on a large move. One of these 2 situations is relatively common and the other is a moonshot.
you might if your headphones are worth more than your phone ;)

I doubt many people are trying to drive HD-650's with a phone anyway.
I think of “T” as the template parameter the same way I think of “i” as a loop iterator. It’s a conventional shorthand, so if it’s contextually clear, like if T is the only template parameter and there aren’t complex constraints on how T behaves, there isn’t much harm in using it for succinctness.
I wouldn't agree they're a bad habit either, but only when used with care. Types like T, and K, V might be as clear to most people as i and j in array operations.

Your example is clear enough because the signature is simple, but in more complex functions I've found that becomes obscure real fast, particularly if types are then passed down to something which also uses generic types. Enabling people to reason about things is not as clear as actually telling them what it is. If the 2nd of 3 generic types is the return type for whatever reason, call it SomethingReturn type and remove that ambiguity.
You're not disagreeing with the argument or conclusion of that post, though: it would be bad for sites to look at dpi and determine the native screen width without factoring in zoom level, because doing so would make text unreadable for you.
512x480x1 ftw :)

What I liked about those days of computing is that you could invest time in a system and not expect it to be obsolete by the time you felt comfortable with it. And also that you could actually know the whole system. In that sense modern software development is very quick to give you some result but you're building on so many layers of potential trouble that the result never really feels quite as solid and deterministic. Old computers failed because the hardware failed, modern computers fail in weird organic ways when some subsystem far down in the stack temporarily gives out and you'll never know what actually caused the problem.

'Refresh the page' is the modern day equivalent of 'control-alt-delete' from PC era, but before then stuff usually 'just worked' once it worked and it kept on working until the hardware gave out.
I’ve been doing web development since 2007, and I’m struggling to think of an era that had more professionals doing front end than we have now. I’m not sure my experience agrees with you
Hmm, not sure what you're saying exactly. Null and undefined are different. A common example would be any sort of patch operation - setting a value to null is valid, whereas if the value of that property is undefined, it likely should be ignored.

Sorry if I am misunderstanding your statement.
I gain the impression that in Anglo-Saxon media, there artificial cultural meme of “gay” has been created, ostensibly originally as a form of mockery that fronts certain stereotypes of lack of masculinity, whereas the common image created by the actual “gay” community was always one of flamboyant, excessive masculinity in the vein of The Village People and Tom of Finland.

Thus, it seems that Andrew Schafly does not recognize it as such, because it does not meet his stereotypes, and I have seen him speak of what he calls “machismo” which seems to more so align with the aforementioned image created by the actual “gay community”.
Spider ID – Community driven spider identification
There seems to be a consensus that Real time Settlement or even real time Clearing might not be feasible, without major risks.

Can someone explain what it took to move from T+3 settlement to T+2?

Why did they not go from T+3 to T+1?

Can clearing be real-time (or near real-time) with settlement happening overnight? Or do they need to be in sync?
10x: Hype or Reality?