skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
But why wouldn't they instead borrow USD? Interest rates are the lowest they've ever been.

In other words, if you're really savvy, you can earn even more than "much more than that" by borrowing USD at low interest rates (or Euro at negative interest rates), and then buying crypto and doing whatever you would have done after directly borrowing crypto at the much higher interest rates.

Who is choosing to forsake borrowing fiat currency at lower interest rates and then converting to crypto to do profitable things in favor of borrowing crypto directly at (much) higher interest rates, and why?
Definitely check out the part one of "Haskell: The Bad Parts" which is more relevant to the beginner to average Haskeller: https://www.snoyman.com/blog/2020/10/haskell-bad-parts-1/
The Threat of Algocracy: Reality, Resistance and Accommodation (2016)
Can't you take your shares and deposit them in your 401K (pre-tax) and then sell them within it (not taxed) and exchange for a fund or w/e you're interested in diversifying with?
ORMs solve several problems that depending on what you do may or may not be important for you.

Problem #1: translating between objects/classes and table rows is mildly tedious to program depending on what language you use. For small amounts of tables it's actually not that much and it's relatively straightforward to maintain this. I'd argue that having a large number of tables is probably a result of using an ORM and encountering the object impedance mismatch. So, it's a problem you aggravate by using an ORM and not doing a proper domain design. More tables usually means more joins. And that's only convenient because the ORM does this for you. It's also slow and a bit of an anti-pattern whether you use ORMs or not.

Problem #2: writing SQL natively is hard (for some). It can be of course; and you can do some complicated things in SQL. But if your table structure is simple, it's actually fairly easy to write the handful of queries you need. Being able to test and prototype your queries against a development database actually makes it easier. Also, this is another problem that is may be made worse by using an ORM because having too many tables means your queries become a mess of nested joins.

Problem #3: porting queries between different databases is hard as they each have their own SQL dialects and subtle implementation differences. Having your ORM generate the appropriate queries for you side steps this problem. But of course you then lock yourself in to your ORMs way of writing queries making switching to another ORM harder. Also, you get to deal with the limitations of your ORMs support for SQL, which typically is a subset of native features. Also, switching databases is not actually that common as it is quite invasive to do. And of course they can be different enough that even using an in memory database for tests and postgresql for production is going to cause you issues with subtle differences in transaction semantics, or how certain queries work, etc. I usually side step that by just using a dockerized db. That's valid whether you use ORMs or not.

Whether you use ORMs or not, good database design is important and knowing enough SQL that you don't need an ORM is kind of a pre-requisite for that. I've seen a lot of bad ORM usage where the people using it were quite clueless about that and made a lot of rookie mistakes. You can't blame the tools for that obviously.

In my case, the above 3 problems are not really problems I have or that are high on my list of solving. I keep my table structure simple and easy to query. Whenever possible, I dumb my schema down to a glorified document store with just a handful of columns. I can knock those queries out in SQL easily and generally I don't migrate between different databases. In any case, most of my projects also use Elasticsearch so most of my querying is actually done against that instead.
A Glimpse of a Bygone Life on the Shetland Islands, Plucked from the Trash
“Free speech” is not freedom from moderation either. Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and, yes, Ycombinator, have a right to delete content they do not like and block users who post content they do not agree with.

That’s not censorship. That’s moderation. Censorship is getting shot by police in Burma for protesting the military coup that recently happened there, or beaten up in Russia for protesting the arrest of the opposition candidate.

Back to the original conversation, I have seen online forums get ruined once unpleasant argumentative cranks, usually people who have been kicked off of other forums for inappropriate behavior, start overtaking a forum. Soon, the forum is a cesspool of conspiracy theories, and pretty soon, the place is inciting violence. For example, Parler. I don’t want to see that happen to Ycombinator.
Out of all the "killer apps" for the web... wikipedia is the one that implement the www most faithfully. Hypertext articles. Most apps got the web to do x. Wikipedia is what it was made to do.
No one knows who MicroStrategy is. The impact comes from normalizing - CFOs can point to a Fortune 10 company as a precedent and buy bitcoin without looking completely foolish. Buying bitcoin can soon be normal as insuring against currency risk.
Gore Vidal: His Life and “Lincoln”
Oh wow, what a topic. I have experienced this from all angles. I'm writing programming books in which I have to extend/combine the work of various philosophers[1], I am a huge fan of history, science, and philosophy, and hell, I just tweeted about this subject[2]

I agree with the general gist of what the author is saying, but I find that I have a lot of problems using the word "psuedophilosophy". If you want it bluntly, all philosophy is bullshit and trying to stick the word science in there does disservice to both. The longer version is that programming is applied philosophy: we meet, we learn, we define, we codify into a formal system, we use that system to explore the universe around us.

The longer version gives us a hint, a compass to find our way around in the bullshit maze (and I use "bullshit" affectionately. My only point is that philosophy is a terribly different thing from science). Where are we going? After all, I'd argue that philosophy is the mother of all sciences, including math. It's obviously critical to humanity. But in my formulation, coders use the process of philosophy to do something, agree, create, formalize, explore. We do philosophy all of the time, but we actually do it. We don't write books on it or spend much if any time quoting or hero-worshipping others who may have done bits and pieces of it 100 years ago or more.

Just this morning I ordered the Great Courses series "The Modern Intellectual Tradition: From Descartes to Derrida" I am extremely pumped to get started on it. Because of my books and my interests, I've ran across all kinds of philosophy groupies: professors, doctoral students, fans, grads who hate the subject now, etc. My take: if you don't study philosophy you're missing out on life. Some of the smartest people on the planet have spent their entire lives thinking about tough problems. Use that work. Having said that, most all of them only had a handful of good ideas and spent the rest of their career taking them too far. You have to understand that too if you're actually going somewhere with that knowledge. Otherwise you're just intellectually self-stimulating.

If you're learning stuff to go places you can always look back and ask "Where am I now that I wouldn't have been without this knowledge?" That tracks well with this author because his core complaint, whether he states it clearly or not, is that folks pick, choose, skim, and misunderstand great philosophic works as a crutch to actually understanding or teaching something. It's either a prop they use to make rhetorical points or it's a mask they use to cover up their own lack of ability. Yup, they sure do. And you can tell because when you get through reading them you're not left being able to do something you couldn't have done before. Instead your previous opinions are validated, just with bigger words and some loose-fitting historical anecdotes.

1. https://leanpub.com/u/DanielBMarkham (see brief intro videos to both books if you're interested in diving further)

2. https://twitter.com/danielbmarkham/status/135909496939971379...

and

https://twitter.com/danielbmarkham/status/135915625272354406...
The company took another step towards subscriptions on January 26 by acquiring Revue, a Dutch newsletter start-up that competes with companies like Substack. Twitter/Revue will take a 5% of cut of newsletter writers monthly subscription revenue. Here's more on that acquisition:
https://kjlabuz.substack.com/p/62-will-twitter-kill-substack
Should offer them some bitcoins as a match, I hear they've invested in some.
For best effect you can insert bracketed additions, and add a SIC to point out the spelling error the author did not choose to fix.
Email is indeed UI. Whether or not to send that email is business logic, and therefore not UI. Something on the backend though that this guy owed that much money, and thus the email was sent out. UI doesn't happen in a vacuum.
The author used to be my philosophy teacher.
Fun to stumble on a article written by him.

I think I agree with him just a smal amount of philosophy in grade school would probably be very helpful for getting more people on to a “better” path.
> The tone is not more important than the facts. It never is.

This is an error software engineers sometimes make.

When working with human beings, tone matters. Tone always matters. "Nature cannot be fooled," but presenting facts with the wrong tone can lead to them being discarded, harming the project and/or people involved. You get better outcomes recognizing that people make better decisions when they aren't emotionally tilted.

The successful projects operated by people who don't know how to interact with other people are significant outliers (and in some cases, their creators and maintainers have recanted their past approach as counter-productive, ref. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/09/linus-torvalds-apolo...).
Into the Blue Again – The Next Wave of E-Commerce
Laziness - or more precisely, non-strictness - is the essence of Haskell. Haskell was created because there were a bunch of non-strict languages out there, and folks saw a need for one non-strict language to rule them all.

Often a defining feature of Haskell is thought to be its purity. Purity arose from non-strictness. Monadic IO arose from non-strictness (other solutions to IO were also tried.)

This is best discussed in a paper: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/...

I guess you could make Haskell strict by default...but why? It wouldn't be Haskell anymore. Non-strictness is the defining element of the language. In my view a strict-by-default Haskell is...something else. Maybe it's better for certain things. Maybe it takes things to the next level. But it isn't Haskell. Don't call it that.
Ask HN: Is G Suite a viable option for private emails? Brief comparison included
Background: Since GMail bans are based on ML and recovery rarely happens (looking at all those HN threads), is G Suite, now called G Workspace, actually a good option?

It's paid, so there should be support (or not?). Re features/price it's on par/better than some others and the admin panel is ok (eg compared to MS Business Accounts). Anyone went that path and can tell their experiences with G Suite support?

FWIW, I checked out the others and my brief thoughts:

FastMail: Looks nice and I get more email storage than with G Suite, same no privacy, had often outages

ProtonMail: Much less or more expensive storage but has privacy

MS' smallest biz account: not the private one but the business one, biggest storage, account deletion is not that easy (90 days period) which is good, admin panel is crazy complex

Hey: More expensive than prior and too experimental UI for my taste but maybe I'm wrong, pretty young

The private Microsoft 365 is quite feature-rich and cheap and easy to maintain but this Godaddy lock-in is unpredictable. It can happen that Godaddy increase pricing in the long run.

My motivation to set this up and run for the next decades.
> I liked the old internet.

Where people would generally conduct themselves in a cordial manner. We would not engage in doxxing, brigading, posting negative reviews of goods or services we have not used, impotently try to manipulate search engines and we would not incite others to do so.
Signal is end-to-end encrypted. They have no way of discerning CP from non-CP as it transits their service.
This is a rhetorical trick that people have been using for a long time.

The Thinker takes a bold and shocking stand, which is compressed, by the rules of memetic natural selection, into the boldest and shocking-est possible framing: "People don't actually care about their children." Or "Truth doesn't exist." Or "We should kill poor people to increase the average level of happiness."

People are instantly nerdsniped by the idea. The implications! Could it be true? The curious reader finds there is always a deep and sophisticated literature backing up the crazy-sounding claim. Only after investing a huge amount of energy can the scholar even hope to unpack the fact of the matter, which is: the Thinker never really meant that claim, not the way it's stated, not using those words the way most people mean them. It always, always, always turns out that the Thinker was either being intentionally provocative with the big-bold-claim, or else using language in an idiosyncratic jargon-ified way.

(Sometimes there is no single Thinker, and instead the big-bold-claim is a meme that bubbles up organically out of a whole school of thought, and is memetically selected for promulgation on the basis of its outrageousness.)

If Foucalt had just written: "The agreed-upon 'truth' of the social, subjective stuff that people tend to loudly disagree about is often decided by who is in power, and who is advantaged by the 'truth' coming out one way or another," well, that's not a body of thought, that's a low-performing tweet. He needs to make it seem big, important, sweeping, general, touching upon every facet of human endeavor. This is not necessarily to say that Foucalt is some kind of intellectual grifter; this is simply the pressure that the universe exerts on all thinkers. To be more general, more important. But, as the Thinker is forced to make their big idea more general and more important, it loses the simple and obviously true (and fundamentally anodyne) tweet-length core.

tl;dr: Memetics ruins everything.
He first needs to discover Ethereum and broaden his horizens.
Up votes make all the difference. They are relatively transparent while Google's PageRank isn't.
Do you think there's any hope of Haskell community moving to Idris? It's years since I did either but I think Idris is just a Better Haskell without several of the issues brought up.
I'm no Facebook fan but the reasons behind the lawsuit are bad and could set a bad precedent.

Cambridge Analytica used the Facebook API to ask users to share data about them & their friends. Stupid users agreed to that.

The argument here isn't that Facebook is playing fast and loose with tracking & user data (which would be a legitimate argument), it's that Facebook is allowing people to grant access to their data to third-parties and Facebook should somehow be faulted for that. Facebook is a neutral carrier here, and they acted on behalf of the user - he decided that Cambridge Analytica should have had access to his data. Facebook should not be forced to somehow be the arbiter of this.

This lawsuit will give even more reasons to platforms to restrict API access which would impact legitimate usage much more than nefarious abuse (stupid people will always find a way to screw up, API or not - if the API is gone they'd happily enter their Facebook credentials directly instead).
Bitcoin is simply technological method to establish trust in trust less environment, anonymous online transactions.

What is the value of that trust? It’s whatever people think it’s worth. Read the white paper and decide if it’s for you or not.

My analogy is the value some people place on some art work. Whenever some art painting is sold for $100 million dollars, is it really worth $100 million? To some, yes. To most, no.

The establishment media doesn’t know basic math in encryption, let alone concepts like block chain. Reading the establishment media report on Bitcoin is just for laughs only at this point.
Microsoft Wallops Amazon in 2020 Cloud Revenue
In what way did he stop governing?
> "People are being preyed upon and the victims may not be the ideal rational individuals that we aspire to."

The subtext being that "we" are wiser and know better then those "people" and have the right and duty to protect "people" from themselves? I reject that; that way lies madness.
this guy mad at foucalt for not spelling out what he meant and allowing some ambiguity that let him choose the worst interpretation of his ideas lmao
[Author of the piece here]

Back patting? Whose?

This is entirely orthogonal to stuff like von Neumann architectures.

The core change is eliminating the distinction between primary and secondary or auxiliary storage:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_data_storage#Secondar...

> There's no such thing as "terabytes of non volatile memory" without either spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on RAM or settling for slow flash RAM.

You are technologically out of date. This is commercial, shipping technology now.

https://www.storagereview.com/news/intel-optane-dc-persisten...
Many thanks for the response, I'll take a look
Disagreed - this is the result of stupid users. If the APIs are gone they will just be entering their Facebook credentials directly (which would leak way more data than what relatively limited API access allows).
I'll believe it when I see it. Right now it seems like nobody cares about privacy in the ethereum space.
Every high school student should be taught financial literacy period.

The reason people go into these cycles of debt fueled poverty is because people just don't understand anything until it's too late.
Read a Paper: How Work from Home Affects Collaboration
I'm being redirected to EFF if my 'Referer' includes news.ycombinator.com. Anyone else seeing this?

$ curl -I 'https://www.dzombak.com/blog/2021/02/Securing-my-personal-SSH-infrastructure-with-Yubikeys.html' -H 'Referer: https://example.com'
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
*snip*

$ curl -I 'https://www.dzombak.com/blog/2021/02/Securing-my-personal-SSH-infrastructure-with-Yubikeys.html' -H 'Referer: https://news.ycombinator.com/'
HTTP/1.1 302 Moved Temporarily
*snip*
Location: https://supporters.eff.org/donate/join-eff-today
*snip*
I believe opinion is a defence against libel even in the UK. Accusing them of being a scam strays close to being a claim that requires proof. But I wouldn't have thought it would be that hard to lodge a defence that it was an honest opinion and the wording in question is used in the context of common language/slang where scam can also be considered to mean not worth the money.
Well SEC should start by allowing small US investors to invest in much safer things like the UK's Royal Mail privatisation and more recently Hipgnosis https://www.hipgnosissongs.com/ flat out bans US investors.
Very heavy elements tend to “break” the periodicity of the periodic table a bit, because there are so many inner-shell electrons shielding the nucleus, and because of odd relativistic effects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_quantum_chemistry
>That said, UK libel laws are unconscionably stacked against the defendant.

This defendant didn't even appear in court!

He sent this by email:

"I have already made it perfectly clear that this case should never be heard in court and I will not be giving it any credence or legitimacy by attending."

So, while UK libel law may be harsh (although less so than it used to be), it's hardly at fault in this case.
FYI, "It uses Tuft CSS, inspired..." should be Tufte.
HN is significantly better in its particular area of focus and somewhat worse in other areas. This is basically what you'd expect from a community with a narrower focus - HN hasn't done anything wrong on that front.
I mostly agree with your sentiment. But I don't necessarily see it as a question of respecting one opinion more than the other. The author of the book didn't make a statement like "books without solutions are universally" better or anything.

But he did make it clear that he optimized for one particular audience (his students at Illinois) over another possible audience (self-learners). And on that, he totally has the right to make that choice. It's unfortunate that some commentators ignored that point, or choose to be critical anyway.

OTOH, just because something is free doesn't mean that people can't criticize, IMO. The question just kinda becomes "what's the point of the criticism?" If one doesn't find this book useful, they're under no obligation to use it. And the author isn't likely to change his position based on a few grouchy Internet commentators.

Personally I appreciate what the author has done and am glad his book is out there. Do I prefer books with solutions in general? Yes. Does that matter in this particular context? No.
While there are (a lot) of parser generators out there, learning how to parse and validate text using a LL recursive-descent parser is still very useful, because you can easily implement one yourself and have lots of possible applications. Writing an LL parser by hand requires nothing more than a bit of theoretical knowledge and a few man-weeks.
Heck, if you really wish, you can even implement your own C parser in a few weekends.

Meanwhile, writing a (non-trivial, i.e. something that does more than MOV, JMP, CALL, CMP, ..) backend and optimizer requires a few decades and an investment of a few million dollars.

That's why most languages nowadays either emit C (which I find is a very effective way to learn code generation, by the way) or interface with LLVM. Even for the sake of learning, writing a backend that generates actual code is the equivalent of milling your own flour in order to bake bread: fancy, but pointless. As much as people stopped milling their own flour centuries ago, people stopped writing compiler their own backends a long time ago, because it makes close to 0 sense unless you plan to cover very specific use cases.

I think if you are interested in code generation, you should rather learn the math behind optimizing code and hack a bit around something existing like LLVM or GCC, because that represents better how stuff is done in practice. Writing a simple JIT compiler is also IMHO time well, but it's arguably different than writing a compiler backend.
> Can Haskell evolve?

Should it? Haskell has already shown an impressive ability to evolve. Evolution is how it got where it is today. Language design analogues of the blood vessels being on the wrong side of the retina and all.

If the goal remains to have an effective research language with a more-or-less unsurpassed capacity for evolution and pushing the state of the art in interesting directions, I'd say Haskell is still great just as it is. If, on the other hand, the goal is to have a productive industrial programming language that encompasses all of Haskell's great ideas, but without quite so many troublesome language warts, evolutionary vestiges, or {-# LANGUAGE EverythingInterestingThatsHappenedOverThePastThirtyYears #-}, it might be better to make a clean break.
For any not familiar with Osborned, the Osborn Effect refers to how prematurely announcing a next generation product can cannibalize sales of the existing product.

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