skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
What do all businesspeople have in common? They are trying to make money – and that's all they have in common. So we can expect a pro-business publication to advocate for policies that funnel wealth to businesses, without much regard for anything else.

In contrast, the one thing all doctors have in common is that they try to keep people healthy. So we can expect the medical community to advocate for policies that accomplish that. Of course there are doctors who could potentially have a conflict of interest between getting more business and doing their job correctly. But then we can still expect both factors to play a role, i.e. very few doctors would focus purely on getting business. And many doctors don't even have that conflict, e.g. employed ones whose job is secure.

If vaccines harmed people's health while benefitting doctors' bottom lines, we'd see a split between employed or ethical doctors vs unethical self-employed ones. It's inconceivable that there's a consensus among doctors for a policy they believe is harmful.

Anyway, I doubt vaccines even do increase demand for doctors. Administering them is cheap (~5 minutes of a nurse's time), treating the diseases they prevent is not.
Currently maintaining a very large codebase in TS, and never going back to vanilla.
The initial migration found hundreds of bugs, typos, imperfections. And now every refacto, bugfix, new features... can be trusted.

More than that, when you use JS in the back and the front, your types can follow from the database, to the api, to react... even to your integration tests or your public SDK.

Add one more column in your DB and suddenly 1000 errors pops, but those are good errors, you just have to follow them until nothing scream and you have done a perfect migration.
It can feels negative at first but it is actually very pleasant and reassuring, like having an angel watching over your code.
Thank you for the great summary of my comment. This is exactly what I meant.
This is the entire distribution. The last bucket is everything greater than 200k. When you look at it plotted out, it is a long tail.
> I just wonder why Ada didn't get the credit it deserved as being absolutely bulletproof

It's not. All languages make trade-offs in the performance-convenience-safety-etc space, and Ada's choice is not "100% safety". It lacks memory safety and has holes in its type system: https://www.enyo.de/fw/notes/ada-type-safety.html
> I ONLY trust negative reviews now.

That won't last long, negative reviews will get flooded by glowing reviews with trivial complaints. "This thing is perfect except I don't like green so 1/5"
If you’re going to argue that supply will only go up if you allow price to rise infinitely, you’re getting it backwards- the increase in supply is supposed to make the price go back down, that’s the whole idea. There is supposed to be a balance that develops that holds the price down to an affordable level.

Why does this never happen? Well, there are many areas of the United States where real estate prices are skyrocketing even though all the houses are vacant- because real estate is being used as a vehicle for speculation. And the same thing is happening in almost every city in the western world. It’s likely the same thing is happening in Berlin. The demand is not coming from renters so allowing the price to go up does not help renters, it’s all just a tidal wave of free money from central banks looking for somewhere to go.

Also the author of the article is an Ayn Rand free-market-as-magic-bullet ideologue with an axe to grind. He makes no pretense of trying to write a balanced analysis. He even appears to be framing things like rents and real estate prices falling as pure negatives when both those things are purely positive from the point of view of anyone but a real estate owner.
his day job is Project Zero at google so it's a bit like reverse Indiana Jones: hunting for "treasure" at work, archeology as a hobby...
Nations with bad currencies and mismanaged economies sometimes switch to the USD.

Such nations collectively switching to a different currency like the Euro or the Yuan is way more plausible than switching to Bitcoin; and not only do none of the USA, the Eurozone, nor China have economic policies compatible with giving up direct control of inflation, the usefulness of a shared single currency isn’t enough to outweigh the political costs for the UK to use the Euro (famously), or South Korea to use the Yuan, or Canada to use USD.

Money in the scale of governments isn’t like money on the scale of individuals. For governments, money isn’t even like it is for the richest individuals, different as it is between the rich and normal people.
I'm happy to see I'm not the only one who had this problem.
And WordPress, even current versions.
How does, exactly, the US government print money to fund wars?
I don't think the issue is hosting the app itself, it's hosting each user's data. For the vast majority of users, hosting their own data is not even on the radar. They assume that whatever app they are using is hosting their data, and the only price they will accept for doing that is "free".
The fundamental is harmonic #1. This is the case for essentially all additive synthesizers for example.

Overtones are any partials other than the fundamental. While overtones CAN be non-harmonic (notably in bells), I think it's fair to say that most of them, or at least the most important ones, are usually harmonics. This is because the terms "fundamental" and "overtone" are historically music terms, and are generally applied to sounds we perceive as tonal or musical: and such sounds are largely composed of harmonics.
> The Javascript document API is super verbose.

Can't say I've ever heard that as an issue before..

Also I think the main point was there are so many better frameworks that manage the DOM better than jQuery as the need has evolved. I'll always have fond memories of jQuery but I don't see it as my go-to anymore, by a long shot.
> What if it was the only way to defund the US military?

It's not.
I'm pretty sure that was just a Sun/Apple thing, not a POWER thing?
No. This is incorrect. You're talking about model accuracy and observation accuracy.

I am talking about something far more fundamental. Using axiomatic logic and probability, you cannot prove anything in science. Even with observations that are 100% accurate with 100% precision. This literally has fundamental consequences on our interpretation of reality as we know it and has affected out perception of reality and our science as well.

This occurs because at any point in time a new observation can be made that falsifies a theory. Let's say you have a hypothesis that all zebras have stripes. You can observe 500 zebras with 100% accuracy and see that all of those zebras have stripes. But at any point in time in the future you can happen upon a hidden island that has 2 million zebras on it that has spots instead. 500 observations is minuscule in the face of 2 million and it literally renders your initial hypothesis ludicrous. Zebras are creatures that are more likely to have spots then stripes is the complete U-turn conclusion based off of new observations.

Keep in mind the new conclusion occurred regardless of how methodological and accurate your initial observations were. The accuracy of the observation is Completely and utterly irrelevant. Because at any point in time I can encounter another new island with 1 billion zebras that has stripes rendering my second conclusion completely wrong, again.

This is the fundamental flaw of science. It is far more fundamental then limited accuracy in observational measurements.

For example take newtons laws of motion. There is no 99% right or wrong on that model. Assuming that our observations are accurate, Newtons laws of motion are 100% percent wrong.

Yes they may be accurate numerically to a certain extent but the theory has ultimately been falsified and we now know relativity is a more accurate description. However, keep in mind that even relativity is not "proven" it can Never be proven and it will always be open for a complete reversal the same way Newtonian motion was.

In fact Newtons laws of motion is the perfect example. It was the ultimate example of scientific verification. All experiments pointed to the theory being completely accurate, to disbelieve the science was to disbelieve reality. It was at the time equivalent to disbelieving evolution.

This is the fundamental flaw with science. Nothing can ever truly be proven. And everything even the fundamental pillars of reality we rely on today from Newtons laws to evolution can never actually be proven to be true, and is always open for a complete rewrite.

This is the exact reason as to why people can pick and choose the reality they believe in, whether it be Christianity or evolution. Neither can in actuality be proven, nothing has and nothing ever will.
90s is better than ∞ (infinity) which is what it would be if the Archive didn't exist, eh?
There are three computer systems on each Voyager. They are dedicated to specific tasks (Flight Control System, Attitude and Articulation Control System, and Computer Command Subsystem), each with two instances for redundancy.
I have been toying with the idea that version numbers should really be release.risk, where release is an incrementing number and risk is the projects estimate of the risk of breakage from the previous release. Eventually the risk part of a release would not be static, so as time goes on it can be changed to better suite how risky that release was.

This would then allow people to normalize risk (after enough releases) so they can have their own risk preferences. Also since we would be no longer trying to indirectly measure and indicate risk, we as an industry can get better at managing it as we would be getting higher quality feedback on how well we estimated or accepted risk.

Tooling could be developed that examines your codebase and the dependencies deltas to better estimate the risk to you of taking the update.
>Science is simply the process of using of data to come to conclusions. Is there a better method for building a model of the world?

If we go with such a case, then yes, there is a better model. Using data to come to a guess that have yet to be disproven.

The difference is that a conclusion is more final that a guess not yet proven wrong. A scientists steeped in research may read conclusion and automatically conceptualize a notion much closer to guess not yet proven wrong, and maybe include the current winner among countless other guesses that have been proven wrong. They have enough experience to recognize that what we know may be wrong. It may be a little wrong due to some experimental error, it may be complete wrong (but relatively accurate as an approximation in the systems already applied), or some other option.

A layman wouldn't have the same take away. When they see conclusion, they would think it is a settled matter when it isn't. The difference between trusting science because it is best we currently have and trusting science because it is right. One is a trust tempered with caution while the other risks becoming blind faith.

The system could also further be improved by better expanding upon how disagreements to existing guesses are not always equal. A disagreement backed by data is better than one that is not, and a disagreement that fits the current data, though with no unique data supporting it over the existing guess, is better than one that contradicts existing data. Recognizing the possibility that data may be bad, and it is reasonable to be willing to refresh the data from time to time. A tolerance of letting people explore the wrong paths to see what data they may find. Lastly including the issue that all data is done by humans and thus subject to our biases (which is why things like double blind data is better than single blind data which is better than data without any layers of blindness). But that ends up being hard to fit into a few sentence explanation.
Perhaps even htmx?

https://htmx.org/
AI overlords would still require physical presence via metal box and electricity. Two scarce resources. I'll let you connect the rest of the dots.
No mention of FAA's DO-178C or Green Hills Integrity-178 RTOS? Green Hills's IDE is named after Ada[1].

[1] https://ghs.com/products/AdaMULTI_IDE.html
For new businesses, most support tickets will probably be handled manually. This could even include such mundane things as "could you reset my password" (if you haven't bothered to implement a "forgot my password" mechanism yet, which is perfectly reasonable). Another request could be, "could you delete my account and data". Normally, if a user asks you that, you should probably already do so anyway, GDPR just says that you must. It also says that if they ask for their data, you have to give it to them.

If you don't have many users yet, not many such requests will come in, so I don't think this is an undue burden. In the beginning, the burden will be roughly proportional to the number of users you have. If the burden becomes too high, it's easily automatable. So personally I don't think an explicit exemption for small businesses is really necessary.
Hiring: Are you aware of the discussion around Elseviers profit margins? Various fields are considering abandoning journals (or have abandoned them long ago, see cryptography) since it is increasingly difficult to identify the value of a for-profit publisher for science. They will need to redefine their business model if sufficient scientists stop playing along for free.

„Currency“: Broad expertise, knowledge about methods and ideas are gathered by reading literature in-depth, which most scientists have little time for in modern science (hence the reluctance to engage in a long peer review process). Working as a paid reviewer for a few years can lead to a scientist who is informed very well about the state of the broader field and its various fallacies, and could move on from there. We have very few of those.

Editors: We wouldn’t have various discussions around peer review if the current system would be working satisfactorily well and nothing needs to change.
> "active_users" isn't a table, it's the result of the CTE in the query

Maybe we really are at cross purposes. In the duckdf example above "active_users" is a dataframe. The duckdf library applies SQL queries on dataframes. It's not (necessarily) querying an on-disk database.

If you're querying data using dplyr then it's highly likely that data is already in a dataframe. By the same principle write the original SQL query to use SELECT with wildcard, to return everything. Then use a relevant library to apply SQL on dataframes and it's pretty much the same result as dplyr.

That's not to say complex SQL queries shouldn't be used to only return the minimally required information from the database. Clearly, sometimes there's too much data to fit in memory. My point is that if you're using dplyr on dataframes (or tibbles), then you could just as easily use an SQL based query on the same dataframe.
Actually... it usually is a special case. For performance reasons there are some sneaky things Bash tends to do to avoid spawning lots of extra processes. In this case the `[` binary is more for backwards compatibility.

You can verify this by writing a simple test script and doing (at least on Linux) "strace ./test.sh 2>&1 | grep exec" and observe no explicit call to that binary.
There's no need to complicate static sites with jQuery. All it does can be achieved with vanilla.
Amazing. The client API is profoundly simple.

Also, this post prompted me to look closer at Fly.io, and it's leapfrogged to the top of my shortlist for an imminent client "edge proxy" project.
There's so much magic in programming that as a beginner, it's hard to know which magic you should dig deeper into, vs which is such a treacherous rabbit hole you're better off cargo culting.
Rookie coding mistake prior to Gab hack came from site’s CTO
Introducing the .NET Upgrade Assistant Preview
I was a little disappointed since the poster didn't weave in tulips...
>Secondly, studies have shown that 10% increases in supply lead to 1% decreases in price, more or less.

Source?

This also hand waves the fact that a 1% decrease is still great in the face of say, a 4% increase, totaling a 5% spread — even more if factoring in inflation.

Sounds like increasing supply is still one of the best ways to keep prices in check.
Well, it’s no major mystery WHY you get religiosity and post how rationalizations. Those with Bitcoin, especially those with a LOT of their net worth tied up in Bitcoin, will work the hardest to protect that investment.

Of course, rich people have always done that (post hoc justifications for their wealth), but when that wealth is not codified and protected by anything other than speculative value, it just increases the volume of that effect even more. The lack of technical fundamental superiority of Bitcoin vs other approaches (and no need to mention alternatives, y’all know them) increases the fervor of defense of Bitcoin as that’s basically the only thing keeping it up.

Anyway, as long as Bitcoin has perceived social value, it may still have niche uses like allowing you to get money out of Venezuela. And maybe slightly cheaper than wiring large amounts of money.

So actually you’re left with just: 1) pure social perceived value and 2) small use case when you have utter failure of the formal financial system. The first case is a self-licking ice cream cone, but... Unfortunately, #2 could end up being a self-licking ice cream cone, too, because now you have a bunch of people kind of invested in the formal system failing. I’m not really worried about it as the number of Bitcoin true believers is low vs the total population (and there have often been such people with a stake in system failure), but it is something to keep in mind.

But not everyone just acts mechanically in response to financial incentives, as there are some cryptocurrency advocates who see the need to shore up the formal system and advocate for that.
Some people prefer all caps for keywords, just like they do nowadays on SQL code. But the language is case insensitive, you can choose otherwise.
I'm still a little bit sad we got fetch as part of javascript when the request module had such a great interface. I still prefer the look of it.

https://www.npmjs.com/package/request
Google is constantly running the the background collecting you location data. you can't stop it
Aside from its transaction costs, which may be mitigated by the lightning network, Bitcoin is still a lousy currency. One important function of money is the creation of credit. If you have a large quantity of money that you don't want to spend in the short term, the money is better put to use by loaning it to a small business or couple purchasing their first house.

Without regulation or FDIC insurance, very few people would be willing to give their bitcoins to a bank so that it could be lent out to people who have a better use for it. Even if a Bitcoin bank could exist, an economic downturn could cause a liquidity crisis, where everyone tries to withdraw their Bitcoin at once. The banks would have no way of returning the Bitcoins to many of their customers. Because there is no central bank that can print out Bitcoin, the entire Bitcoin financial system would be in ruin following the crisis.
I remember Mathematica being a bit weak with units actually. Natively there's no support, you have to rely on add-on packages and I didn't have much success with the popular one. But my experience is from version 8 (a while ago) so it may have improved since.
It is neat, but it also trips up a lot of us in the beginning. Because at one point you instead write: 'if [condition]' and get weird errors. And you can't understand how suddenly you can't even do a simple if-statement.

And there are tons of gotchas like that that made me terrified of bash. Even the simplest construct can attack you from any angle and the trial and error and distrust is everywhere. I'm getting better at it but for me and I guess many others, I just don't use bash enough to remember these quirks and the resulting experience is rather poor. Which is a shame!

The savior for me was shellcheck. Instead of needing character-perfect memory of each construct and common snippet I can run shellcheck on it and it will tell me what common pitfall I might have stumbled upon and most importantly, why it is an issue. For a beginner I think it is an absolute must.
I use it extensively to maintaining our apps ui which has coded with old fashioned Backbone, Underscore and Jquery. our UI is working and we do not see need to re-engineer/refactor it to go to newer frameworks just for the sake of it.
Geometer, not geometrician, but yes, you're right.
If memory serves, a real world example was Angular doing a toString then injecting dependencies before calling eval on the new code.

To be honest, I don’t know that there’s ever a good reason to use it in production as it almost always involves performance and security problems.
Your example does not work. querySelectorAll returns array and you can't write `array.classList.add("...")`, because array does not have that property. You need to iterate over that array. And that's exactly why jQuery is so much more convenient over native API: you can just treat collections of elements like an element and jQuery will iterate for you if necessary.

Another jQuery advantage is pseudo-selectors which don't exist in CSS.

There are plenty of convenient one-liners in jQuery which will expand to plenty of lines in native API. That said, with modern API and JS features it's not that bad either.
It might be a win-win but it also might be a win-loss. There's a difference between hijacking MSM or corporate power to subversively push your message, and messages that originate within the establishment directly designed to further their goals. Like I said in my original comment, the danger is that because the in-authenticity is so easy to detect, it triggers an aversion that makes people reactionary, and in this case moves people further right.
Important to remember that Amazon’s strategy for everything is to scale to infinity. Even if something offends .01% of people, those are people amazon wants as a customer and a slight app icon change to accommodate them is well worth the money.
or Lit-Element.
There is also a time-domain problem with regards to total integrated dose. All the parts will degrade over time. Radiation hardened parts can have lives of 15 years or more in a GEO environment. A commercial part might be lucky to make it 1 year. Radiation shielding is not as easy as you may think. Heavy ions in space can pass through anything and will impart a charge in whatever they hit as well as creating secondary sources of radiation. Neutrons are not as common in space but can be found near reactors, they are also very penetrating.
If you want to see a real Decentralized Central Bank I highly recommend digging into SORA Network.

It's a self-funded project by the founder (No VC's, No ICO, No Presale, etc.) with a fair launch and the team has already developed a live central bank digital currency called Bakong in Cambodia.

https://sora.org/

https://sora.org/blog/

https://sora.org/soratokens/

https://soramitsu.co.jp/
That would give competitors an incentive to buy&return said product to drive up the return rate
jQuery is also an amazing educational tool for teaching people to program in steps, learning the native DOM methods and then being introduced to jQuery has been really fun to see light bulbs going off for new students.
The people that spam my referrer logs are going public?
that's a very interesting analysis

what's the name of the app you co-developed?