skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Motives aside ...

Motives aside isn't a valid reduction of their action, the motives you have when you take an action are very much a part of whether that action is illegal. This is why both murder and manslaughter charges exist as separate crimes in most legal jurisdictions.

I don't know if this would be strictly illegal - it'll depend on what, precisely, police officers are required to do w.r.t. civilian oversight and it might require specific legislation to resolve. However, the intent of the police officers is to prevent people from filming, if they are attempting to accomplish this through playing music because more direct actions have been restricted then a court is probably not going to look kindly on their actions. As a parallel if you are barred from dumping hazardous materials on state park land and instead dump that on an interstate that passes through state park land a court will likely find you in violation.
I still use operamini.jar for reading hackernews, for me it gives even better ux than typical smartphone browser, because I want just text and nothing more. No popups, no suddenly videos, no proposals to install freaking apps, no cookie banners, no bothering about slow https handshake when gsm coverage is really elusive. Operamini saves old button phones from being just bricks.
Sourcegraph (https://sourcegraph.com) | Software Engineer, Security Engineer, Product Manager | ALL REMOTE

Sourcegraph is building Universal Code Search so developers can focus on solving problems instead of struggling to find and understand code.

We’re hiring for several teams:

* Code insights team (Frontend, Backend): The code insights team is looking for experienced, passionate engineers to build with us an entirely new product area of Sourcegraph. Code insights is the first feature in Sourcegraph that provides high-level information about code, building atop all Sourcegraph’s other features and even external data sources.

* Cloud team (Frontend, PM): The Cloud team is looking for a senior frontend engineer who knows how to build intuitive user experiences to make the power of Universal Code Search accessible to everyone on sourcegraph.com. You will have a lot of ownership to solve tough technical and UX problems that will drive massive adoption of our product by developers all around the world.

* Campaigns team (Full Stack/Frontend): The Campaigns team is looking for an experienced engineer to help us build a new product that will define how our industry accomplishes large scale code changes. Campaigns enable developers to make changes across many repositories and code hosts, using code.

* Search team (Backend, PM): We are looking for backend engineers who know how to design and build performance-sensitive distributed systems. You will make Universal Code Search more powerful and scale to our customers with the largest codebases in the world.

* Distribution team: We are looking for software engineers who are passionate about and skilled at making software easy to build, deploy, configure, monitor, and debug. You will have ownership to solve challenging problems that our customers face when they deploy and scale Sourcegraph on-premise in a variety of environments, and that we face when we deploy and scale Sourcegraph.com (the largest Sourcegraph installation in the world).

* Security team: We are looking for an engineer who will proactively improve the security of our codebase, our product, our cloud, and our customers’ on-premise deployments. You will be one of the early security team hires at Sourcegraph, where everyone contributes to our shared goals, from writing code to running vulnerability scans.

We are a completely open and transparent company and you can learn more about how we operate by reading our handbook: https://about.sourcegraph.com/handbook. Technologies that we use: Go, TypeScript, React, RxJS, GraphQL, Postgres, Docker, Kubernetes.

We are an equal opportunity workplace and our all-remote team is spread across the world. We embrace diversity and welcome people from all backgrounds and communities.

If you want to make software development more accessible to everyone, come join us!

Apply to one of our many open roles here: https://about.sourcegraph.com/company/careers
There are many proofs:

- God is greater than the greatest imaginable thing, so must exist (this one is proven to be logically valid with computational theorem prover, and Bertrand Russell even said it was sound at one point in his life)

- the world is intelligently designed

- there must be a first cause, and that must be God

- nothing in this world is perfect so there must be a transcendently perfect being

- we can only be satisfied be an infinite being, so the object of our desire lies beyond this world

- moral laws exist and require a law giver

- our mind is not reducible to our body, and must have been created by an even greater being

- jesus existed, claimed to be God, and rose from the dead according to reliable historical documentation

Off the top of my head

On the other hand it is impossible to prove atheism, you cannot prove a negative

So we are left with theism and a lot of proofs, and atheism which is inherently incapable of being proven

Seems the rational choice leans towards theism
"downvote abuse" === "whiny loser community"
I’m not sure how you would prove it. I just feel like everyone jumps on the idea that this is a technology problem when it might be caused by something else. Maybe more people really are experiencing the world differently and they seek out relatable media? Anecdotally, I don’t feel like Canada is any more divided than before which wouldn’t make sense if the American division was caused by algorithmic curation pushing extreme beliefs. We use all the same websites.
>The Queen can't create legislation, she can restrain it. She is purely a moderating influence in this sense.

Assuming the only negative changes that can occur to a person or group's interests are from the government, this makes sense.

In reality, where we have enormous corporations who have the power and ability to negatively affect the lives of citizens in new ways previous legislators could not have envisioned, un-democratic checks against legislative action strongly benefit the powerful.
> no ability to change history.

This is a version control misfeature/bad practice.

It's almost the single version control system that has it as part of its regular commands (though others allow it, generally as part of an admin set of permissions and usually with super clear warnings not to do it).

And it's far from a reason why git won. Git won because it was written by Torvalds and every script kiddie dreams to be a Linux kernel hacker and because the Facebook for Code, Github, took off and it was based on git.

Heck, I'd "accuse" you of rewriting history right now :-))
on a site like this, all the best comments are always gray or at the bottom :)
As we get more comfortable with the idea that people have decades long fully public histories of inconsequential things, we will also get more comfortable with the idea that a person at 19 is different from the same person at 39.

Rereading my blog entries from 15 years ago, I wouldn't write the same things today, but if someone points at a 2006 blog entry to say something about 2021 me I also expect people won't take them especially seriously.
Structure is useful; there's a social burden to going out of your way to arrange a one-on-one hangout. I wouldn't bother to do that with someone I'm not already close to, but I'm loving this structured arrangement where I don't have to feel awkward about reaching out myself.

Different stuff works for different people
- I set up a CS:GO server, and that took us through a few weeks for those that were interested.

- We have open games of Among Us which are also great.

- We also did an online Virtual Escape Room within my small team, which was great fun.
It doesn't actually matter what that number is. 10% of the current levels? 20%? 5%? Either way it's cutting out vast amounts of carbon dioxide -- so much that attention would switch to things like farm production, concrete, etc.

Whatever the number is, it will naturally decrease over time as batteries improve, more renewable sources are installed, and other ways of smoothing out demand are invented.

We're not really anywhere near the limits yet. There may be some floor which is always supplied by fossil fuels, but that floor isn't relevant to the goal of drastically reducing carbon dioxide output. The next steps to take, adding more renewable sources and removing more fossil fuel capability, is straightforward, and we'll see the limits well before we get there.
I imagine something as large as a railway is already covered (especially with the railfan community). In fact in most locations they actually include the number of tracks, passing loops and other features that a simple GPS track will not have.
While I agree that OSM is great and highly accurate, I would be careful using it in remote locations where your life may depend on a correct trail. It is very easy to edit OSM (changes are propagated into map tiles after a few minutes), and malicious intent is not immediately spotted. The latter is especially true in remote locations.
I think what you say is technically true (technically speaking in the cited case the issue is indeed with the Content ID system), but the broader issue is absolutely with the DMCA because the whole reason Google/Youtube implemented Content ID is to cut down on the number of actual DMCA requests they receive. In other words, without DMCA there would very likely be no Content ID.
6G Communications: The Trillion Dollar Battle Commences
Haxe macros are very powerful, but not needed for that particular issue - the compiler supports inlining of methods and even constructors (which is useful for iterators in particular): https://haxe.org/manual/lf-inline-constructor.html
This has been true for many, many years with "old-style classes".
Pretty outside the scope of this discussion. There are lots of reasons apps exist, Reddit is no different than Facebook, Twitter, any social media app. Heck, Instagram and Tiktok barely even have websites.
Of course, you could do these same things with git if you just recite this or that obscure sequence of ~~shell commands~~ demonic rituals. These are common and reasonable things for vcs users to want to do, and gits ux for them is a steaming pile.
I might find articles more convincing and persuasive if researchers were not on record constantly impugning the integrity of their own investigation by going in with pre-conceived notions.

Or hell, one detailed thought experiment about the nature of BSL4 outbreak mitigation systems and how they can fail.

Of course, that's unthinkable. That strays too close to highly inconvenient questions.
Thought I'd try to balance out all the Perl hate in the sibling comments.

I still use, and love Perl. If you stick close to the original inspiration of using it to process text, it flows very naturally and isn't hard to read or understand.

I do get that the proliferation of sigils ($,@,%), breadth of built-ins, things like $_, complex dereferencing, and overall terseness are a visual putoff.

It may be that I still like it because it uses mostly the same functions as 'C'...things like stat(), getpwent(), ioctl(), and so forth that were already in my head. And it was way less tedious for strings and text, and no malloc/free to keep track of.
> The Belgian situation seems fairly dysfunctional. Is the monarch completely absent from politics?

The monarch appoints "preformateurs" and "formateur" who are elections start talks between people from the different political parties and (try to) form a cabinet, in different stages of the process. That's where he (or possibly she in a few decades, when Filip dies or abdicates and Elisabeth becomes Belgian's first Queen, if that's still a thing then) has by far the most influence in politics.

Some people he shouldn't even have that influence, and I'm inclined to agree. In any case, finding another process for that is probably the most difficult issue to deal with in case we would transform to a pure parliamentary democracy.

Reserve power ... I don't know. I don't think he has enough power for that. Maybe symbolically, maybe that counts for more than I think. Some say the king and/or the whole royal family is one of the few things that still hold Belgium more or less together.

If indeed having a figurehead can protect us from civil war and other kinds of chaos, then by all means, let us have a figurehead.
YouTube Bitrate Statistics
The aliens in Cixin Liu's books don't blow each other up because they're trying to expand. They do it because there's no defense against getting blown up, so the only safe option is to blow up the other guys as soon as you detect them. There's no possibility of a tit-for-tat if you're dead as soon as the other side defects.

I once read an article that calculated how much warning we'd have, if we could detect an incoming projectile at the edge of the solar system, and it were approaching the Earth at .99c. Since it would be traveling just behind the light we see from it, the answer was eight seconds. Cixin Liu might have a point.
> Obviously there's nothing to force her to follow the laws, but that's true of any country.

Not quite. The laws that are unenforceable, because they apply to the 'person at the top', act as a bright line; in any country with a sufficiently capable citizenry, this line is the indicator that the 'person at the top' needs to be made to step down.

Edit. I'm thinking of the Magna Carta as an example, where the monarch was held accountable by the barons who forced him to sign. Seems like the barons make my point, since they're not planning on enforcing their agreement within the legal framework. One of the provisions in that document was:

> Under what historians later labelled "clause 61", or the "security clause", a council of 25 barons would be created to monitor and ensure John's future adherence to the charter.[44] If John did not conform to the charter within 40 days of being notified of a transgression by the council, the 25 barons were empowered by clause 61 to seize John's castles and lands until, in their judgement, amends had been made.
Just wait until you get Python 3.9 and can do:

>>> a, b = 2, 4
>>> f"{math.gcd(a, b) = }"
'math.gcd(a, b) = 2'
What is the best-in-class iOS app using OpenStreetMap? For iPhone, MagicEarth looks extremely good (https://www.magicearth.com/), but I'm wondering if people have other recommendations...
Try turning up a radio station in a public area of a private business and see how quickly ASCAP reps come out of the woodwork.

Now that I think about it, if we could get ASCAP to go after the kids with their rattling cars... Hmmm!
It doesn't reassign the 'status' variable, it reassigns the 'not_found" variable.
This was my train of thought as well.

I think I'm ambivalent towards this. Handling different types of inputs like that is kind of fun. I don't really expect to need to know this one looking at coworkers code in the wild.
What if "hello {x}" is not a static string but was read from somewhere else?

Surely this would not work:

greeting = "hello {x}"
greet = lambda x: f greeting
V8 has Google and Microsoft behind. If there is something that's definitely fuelled by big bucks, it's that.

If you read my post above, I explicitly excluded JIT backends from my argument - I was mainly taking about "classic" compilers, which in general don't have a stringent need to also compile fast.
> Property owned by the Crown is not the property of Elizabeth, as a person.

The Crown and Queen Elizabeth II are different persons. Queen Elizabeth II is a natural person. The Crown is a legal person, a corporation sole – a corporation with only one member, who right now is Queen Elizabeth II. Actually the Crown is not a single corporation, but a number of legally distinct corporations which all have identical membership. There is "the Crown in Right of the United Kingdom", "the Crown in Right of Canada", "the Crown in Right of the Commonwealth of Australia", "the Crown in Right of New Zealand", etc. All up, there are 16 nations with Queen Elizabeth II as monarch, and each of those nations is a distinct corporation "the Crown in Right of X". But, also there exist distinct "the Crown in Right of X" corporations for each Australian state (6) and each Canadian province (10), and also each of the three British crown dependencies (Isle of Mann, Jersey and Guernsey). So there are 35 legal persons (corporations sole) "the Crown in Right of X", and one natural person who is presently the sole common member of all of them. Each of those 35 corporations has distinct assets, which in turn are distinct from the personal assets of the natural person called Elizabeth. If any of those 35 entities became a republic, the assets of the "Crown in Right of X" corporation would pass to its republican successor.
The monarch isn’t above the law, it has been granted immunity from being sued but this is all entirely on the gift of parliament. Inside the robing room used just before she addresses the House of Lords is a copy of the death warrant for Charles I as a little reminder of who really is in charge.
>In this case, when someone is being aggressive, I'd just ignore it. Let the market have their say on which product is the better solution without getting into public conflict over it.

While that is nice and all, if someone is actively messing with your rating, that can negatively affect your product from growing regardless of the quality.

There are many example of past products where the "lesser" product won out due to simple weird things like the above. You can't just ignore this stuff all the time. Bigger examples of this happen a lot in tech. Where a large company tries to buy out an idea and if they refuse, they simply make a similar product and then "trash rate" the other product with larger marketing budget and kill it off.

What do you do when you can't ignore it?
So, to ask again, what is a specific way that choosing Github and Microsoft can hurt a software project in the future?

I'm not asking in bad faith here. If there are such dangerous I would very much like to know them.
Not the same kind of nesting, is it?

[[None for _y in range(y)] for _x in range(x)]

for two dimensions is fine, while

[None for _x in range(x) for _y in range(y)]

(to create a flattened 2-dim list? excuse the dummy example) is just begging for later headache. Explicit looping is much more readable. Note the flipped order of expressions -- these two statements create the same iterators.

Not to mention, you can even reuse the name for extra evil:

[i for i in range(2) for i in range(3)]

results in

[0, 1, 2, 0, 1, 2]
> C#/.NET, Go, JavaScript/Node, Ruby, Python, C++, and PHP probably all do way better than Elixir in third party support.

hard disagree on all but c++, .net and maybe python

I think people forget erlang has been around a long long time and I've written ruby for years and can speak with great confidence that the equivalent ruby libraries in elixir are typically much higher quality
Upvoted; I like your analogy. IMHO (and IME as a daily practitioner of zazen meditation), mindfulness is entirely about being in the present moment. Ideally, you simply stay there all the time at which point the "sword" is already sharp and always swinging, whether there's a "battle" or not. (shrug)
Guido has been strongly opposed to the use of tagged integers:

https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-July/04614...
SoftBank 2020 earnings presentation [pdf]
I think there's a certain "hacker cred" that comes from using really user-unfriendly software. And that's cool, but at some point OSS communities are starting to realize that "ease of use" is a hugely important quality. If they don't, they won't keep up with closed-source alternatives, end of sentence.
Bbbbbot
Core dev Larry Hastings [0] puts it well. The cost-benefit case for this complicated language feature is limited.

"I dislike the syntax and semantics expressed in PEP 634. I see the match statement as a DSL contrived to look like Python, and to be used inside of Python, but with very different semantics. When you enter a PEP 634 match statement, the rules of the language change completely, and code that looks like existing Python code does something surprisingly very different. It also adds unprecedented new rules to Python, e.g. you can replace one expression with another in the exact same spot in your code, and if one has dots and the other doesn’t, the semantics of what the statement expresses changes completely. And it changes to yet a third set of semantics if you replace the expression with a single _.

I think the bar for adding new syntax to Python at this point in its life should be set very high. The language is already conceptually pretty large, and every new feature means new concepts one must learn if one is to read an arbitrary blob of someone else’s Python code. The bigger the new syntax, the higher the bar should become, and so the bigger payoff the new syntax has to provide. To me, pattern matching doesn’t seem like it’s anywhere near big enough a win to be worth its enormous new conceptual load."

This while we have elephants in the room such as packaging. Researching best practices to move away from setup.py right now takes you down a rabbit hole of (excellent) blog posts, and yet you still need a setup.py shim to use editable installs, because the new model simply doesn't yet support this fundamental feature.

I can't afford to spend days immersing myself in packaging to the point of writing a PEP, but would help pay someone to do it well. I can see no way to fund packaging efforts directly on the PSF donations page (edit: see comment). It's great to see Pip improving but there is still not even a coherent guide that I can find for packaging using up-to-date best practices. This appears to be because the best practices are currently slightly broken.

[0] https://discuss.python.org/t/gauging-sentiment-on-pattern-ma...
Its just a step before Doxxing as a Service.
> Why not put up an effort on speeding things up, removing the GIL.

You are making it look like there is nobody working on those things but there is actually multiple core devs trying to making Python faster.
Who remembers when Reddit was sold to Condé Nast?

The guys got t-shirts saying they built something people want
There's also a Clojure wrapper for it https://github.com/boechat107/eye-boof

Disclaimer: I was one of the maintainers many years ago
It's telling that your arguments ignore the history of how some black communities got so dangerous. When considering the history of how rich white people abused their status to repress black people then we must discuss reparations in terms of things like scholarships, extra funding for social services, more school funding, more resources for the poor or disabled, etc. You know, things a lot of white Americans take for granted.
I don't know, Louis Rossmann (an independent Mac repair technician who campaigns if favour of right to repair) has become a bit of a celebrity in recent years[1], and Apple has been forced by public pressure to soften their stance with regards to independent repair shops[2].

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that when someone mentions right to repair, more people think about Apple rather than John Deere. (Especially considering that, in my experience, many city people don't even know what John Deere is, this is definitely the case outside of the US at least).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Rossmann

[2] https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2019/08/apple-gets-halfway-to-all...