skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
<<It lets you see every state change, in order, >>

In general, if we use any async APIs in your JS that modify shared state the order will consist of an interleaving of all events, including from timers (macrotasks), DOM events (macrotasks), resolved and finalized promises (microtasks) and DOM APIs like IntersectionObserver (microtask), IDB et al, along with synchronous calls (including any recursive calls) so looking at things in order does not mean anything in a complex UI with lots of interleaved events if you cannot filter by a named action (the action that caused a certain chain of events, which otherwise will be displayed intermingled with all other events from other actions) you can't really follow the data and control flow of your app. So order only matters in debugging and comprehension if you can filter by action. Another thing we should care about is domain driven design and domain aggregates for your state store to make sure that only one aggregate root is responsible for a given part of state. If more than one chain of events (more than one named action) modify the same part of state then trying to comprehend the relationship between state and action becomes too complicated and you lose consistency guarantee as a result (overlapping and interleaving reads and writes) unless you introduce some form of MVCC (multi-version concurrency control)

I've built tools to visualize how complex highly concurrent UIs work under the hood and found the principles and methods to be directly applicable to analysis of microservices based apps.
2 of these 3 are data collection products providing some level of features to end users. That is, they are an implicit contract to provide google with an unending stream of up-to-date user data, in exchange for "free" features.

GCP is a way to monetize excess capacity. The excess capacity in their data extraction machine.

Search is not their product. Advertising is.
The majority of new vehicles being sold today are still internal combustion based. Given they will likely last for at least 2 decades, there will be plenty of demand for petroleum in (say) 10 years :(
I think we’re in agreement. All I’m saying is that that’s the default behavior for most people - no one wants to be left holding the bag. If you actually strive to create a different culture you can have different results. I don’t think this is a lack of ethics in the political class per se. It’s really hard to build this kind of structure, there’s no credit involved (since you’re preventing hypothetical future catastrophes), and politically difficult to defend to constituencies that don’t agree with your caution (“repeal regulations”). You might also be wrong and your opponents could be right so you’re taking a gamble on something that has little to no upside and lots of risk.

That being said, (and as a person with a pro-nuclear bias) I will note though that Fukushima had engineers raising dissent about it and warning/begging/pleading with the bureaucracy to harden the defenses against a tsunami. Admittedly maybe you’re talking about Western policies.
To answer some of the comments:

The show with Jason Mamoa was unwatchable, pun intended.

I also watched all the kids content which was either boring or bad. I had high hopes for the Charlie Brown content but my kid who loves space was pretty bored by their show on Snoopy going into Space.

Netflix has can’t-miss comedians like Dave Chappelle and all their specials. They have excellent kids shows like Dragon Prince and a ton of Captain Underpants offerings. HBO Max had new movies coming direct to streaming. Amazon Prime has a bunch of movies for free and it has The Boys. I think their kids shows are decent. Disney+ had all the MCU content including the new shows.

AppleTV+ had none of the above. They may have one-off shows that aren’t horrible but it’s not enough to sustain a subscription. I haven’t heard any buzz about them from my social network because absolutely no one uses AppleTV+. I’m the only one I know that even gave some of the content a shot. I would say that’s a complete failure for a trillion dollar company.
Valid. I definitely need to get some concrete numbers on there as saying "it'll cost ya but who knows how much or when!" is rubbish. I can at least promise that for public repos it's free forever.

Thanks, H
Redux became a thing because of Dan Abromov's impressive tutoring and documenting skills early on and due to acemarke being a good leader after he left.

It's a nice pattern but in an artistic sense.

Changing UI state 10 years back:

state.totals = 100;

Changing state today:

1. Call an action creator

2. Dispatch an action to the reducer

3. Switch by action type

4. Apply action on state

5. Return new state

So imho the problems start right at the bottom - the extreme verbosity and the redundancy.
I fed the first tech article I could find on NYT's front page (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/08/technology/silicon-valley...) into Hemingway:

- Grade 12 (aim for 9)

- 14 adverbs

- 4 uses of passive voice

- 7 phrases have simpler alternatives

- 14 of 72 sentences are hard to read

- 30 of 72 sentences are very hard to read

That's very close to the score of the 2010 article, the biggest difference is the lower number of adverbs. I'm guessing nothing has changed and there've always been outliers.

(This is one article, I don't read the NYT, and I can't comment on the subjective quality of the piece, so take this with a grain of salt.)
> Firstly, everyone thinks AppleTV is an Apple-branded TV.

I consider that a good thing. Now I don't have to buy an Apple product to watch the channel.
ya but vegetable oil and corn fructose syrup did not exist >100 years ago as food products. we cook our food in wat used to be called boat varnish (vegetable oil)

yes you are correct, our genes are what determines weight in realtion to the foods you eat. it affects your bodies ability to metabolise those foods , etc

but most of the foods you eat, over 90% of what is available in walmart for instance, is industrial manufactured trash that no human except perhaps escaped roswell experiemnts and MBAs can metabolise correctly

this is compounded by modern trash propaganda telling people not to eat meat, to replace meat with synthetic mineral oils and watered down oats for $500 a litre
Good X and Good Y both increase in price over some period of time, but one does by 2% and the other by 4%. What is the true value of inflation? 2% or 4%? Or is it 3%? Or is it 3.5% because you buy one of the goods twice as often as the other? That's a question of first philosophical origins, and there's no "right" answer.

Particularly if one of those is a house and in the period of time mentioned houses not only got more expensive but they changed in character, being more resistant to earthquakes because of reinforced foundations, and because the fire departments built near them got new hoses for their trucks. So if houses were the one that went up by 4% but they also increased in quality, should we "count" them as having gone up by 4%? After all it's not like your money buys you 4% less house since it actually buys you a slightly different house but for 4% more. Now multiply the number of products and dimensions by a thousand or hundred thousand each and we have the true problem of compiling CPI.
No there's really no way to protect civilian power plants against modern stand-off weapons. It's just impractical at any reasonable cost.
Proposal for a decentralized, on-chain network hard merge for Keep and NuCypher
I am searching the video to watch the full interview. Not that I care about the "Royals" or anything like that, but we got three 'top-class' media manipulators/masters here.

Oprah with the MANY interviews. Prince(?) Harry that was groomed to always portrait a fixed set of answers, thought process, etc. And a trained actress.

As I was scouring the internet for the video I bumped into this article, which captures the precise reasons of why I want to watch it (not soliciting a link!!)

Body language, tone of voice, use of words, avoidance of words, this must have been a very well crafted dialogue, and I am looking forward to watching it closely.
Ask HN: What should I do if I’ve been rejected by top schools?
It seems that there’s a consensus that people who get into top schools are just as successful as the ones that both get in and go.

I didn’t get into any top schools - is there still a place for me in tech? It doesn’t seem like there are many people like me - people that went to low-ranked land grant state schools because they were rejected from good schools and still became successful. It seems most that did got into top schools and chose not to go.
Probably about the same time that they decided that being honest and making money couldn’t really go hand in hand anymore.
Going to a specific school, in this case Howard, and not knowing whether they cover the topics that you consider prerequisites for hire is pretty dumb.

How do you know Stanford, Harvard, Carnegie Mellon, etc cover the necessary topics? Are all students ask? I doubt it because that's the most basic background research OF THE SCHOOL that Google would do before going there.
Slight correction, I don't think the EastMed pipeline would cross turkish territorial waters. Territorial waters only extend 12nm (22 km) from the shore. The pipeline would definitely not venture that close to the turkish shores.
Hmmm... that's a good question. Its been a while since I studied the 2008 collapse.

What I can say is that a CDS wasn't purchased directly in most cases. It was indirect.

----------------

So for example: if you're a bank looking at a bunch of CDOs (and therefore: CDO-squared, which people didn't realize was a problem yet). You're seeing default rates creep up in 2006 and you're worried that things might collapse.

You then see a CDO that's insurance-protected. It has a lower %yield, but that's because some of the % is going towards CDS / insurance to protect your basket of mortgages. You check with the ratings agencies and they rate the bond at AAA (because even if the underlying mortgage fails, you have a big-bank providing the CDS protecting the mortgage).

You purchase the CDO (aka: buy a bunch of mortgages on the market), WITH CDS insurance. The CDS portion is sold to the highest-bidder at a separate time. The CDO-buyer didn't care "who" insured the CDO, they just wanted some kind of insurance.

That turned out to be a problem when AIG was revealed to be the owner of $500+ Billion in CDS. As such, the "insurance payout" protecting those CDOs ended up being vaporware.

--------------

So now you're the US Government, looking at this problem. Do you let AIG collapse? If you do, all $500 Billion worth of AIG's CDSes fail (and therefore the CDOs fail). But if you let that happen, other banks also fail (and these other banks made the CORRECT decision: buying insurance to cover their ass).

This is the "Toxic Debt" problem. The toxic debt was passed from company-to-company: everyone "related" to AIG was going to be affected, and no one really had an idea of who AIG was related to.

Note: Bush let the first few banks (ex: Lehman Brothers) fail. They saw in realtime as the "toxic debt" of Lehman Brothers brought down the rest of the market.

By the time AIG was at risk, George Bush had seen enough. When one bank collapses, it causes many other banks to collapse in ways that cannot be foreseen.

-------------

I admit that one could make the argument that it was the smaller-bank's fault for forgetting about counterparty risk (not caring who took up the other side of the CDS).

But by the time banks were falling and collapsing like dominoes in 2008, I think Bush didn't care about the morals of this particular case. It was about stopping the domino effect in general.
>I think a problem is that modern newspapers cater to an audience that’s expected to be very plugged in to the cultural and political topic of the day, or at least fake it.

Spot on.

The point of this style of writing isn't to provide you with information about new events. The point is to provide framing/spin for people who are already familiar (albeit uperficially) with occurring events.

At some point I stopped consuming news for several years. When I attempted to read NYT front page after that multi-year pause I couldn't understand a thing. All the titles and articles were referencing people and events I'm "supposed to" be familiar with.
Just switched from K9-mail to FairEmail.

I was using the Google Play version of K9 so at the moment I am quite happy of the switch. There is only one thing that I did not manage to find in FairEmail which is the ability to read the header of emails. Like the whole information, from SPF, DKIM validation and so on. Does anyone know if it's possible to get this?

For the moment I am planning to stay with FairEmail and maybe one day try the F-Droid version of K9 as I heard it has evolved a lot in the recent times.
Imagine if you were underpaid and overworked and your code that you stayed up until 3am writing went to production right away with no code reviews, and no one really cared because your code was sort of just filler to hold the space between ads.

EDIT: actually, even more dangerously: it's not just filler between ads, but also something that other people point to as a source of truth. Even though it was just cranked out by someone underpaid, overworked, and completely unedited/fact-checked.
Immer seems like it lets you take the same approach as mobx, but instead of rerendering based on an optimized run-time constructed dependency graph, Immer has to rebuild every single item "under" your mutation. Doesn't this seem like it would be insanely expensive for modifying arrays or things like this?

I also have to imagine the amount of boilerplate you write to use Redux + Immer is orders of magnitude over mobx, but maybe some people prefer it to be slightly more explicit
CDC Guidelines for COVID Vaccinated People
Yea they mention that in the post.

I agree with you that it seems like a self-imposed limitation. At the same time, it makes one think how said limitations can actually foster creativity and efficiency. They mention in the post - they constantly gloat about this - that they could run SO on one or two machines.

I'd imagine that said machine would need to be a behemoth and not a t3.micro, but intuitively I feel that this would be much cheaper than the average horizontally scaled web application. Or in other words, that they're hyperefficient, regardless of architecture.

Does anyone have any insight on whether this intuition is on the right track?
But I live in Texas and all my politicians tell me wind turbines can't work in the cold! /s
All countries (also
people) do that. If you have power, you put in use. See USA(Iraq), Russia (Crimea), Germany (WW2), Britain (colonies) etc... I do not support war or occupation but countries behave like high school children - bullies are going to bully.

But, you find all those countries that I listed above, “trustworthy”, is that correct?

The problem here is, “trustworthy” does not mean anything in international relations. It is all about having the outcomes you want, one way or another. If peace gets you what you want, its great. If war, then you go to war.

That is why European Union removed the borders, unified the economic area, so that they will be too integrated/extremely hard to decouple to have war again, because treaties or trustworthiness is meaningless in scale of countries.
Perhaps not.

1) "Potential readers" is limited to people who can afford newspapers. NY Times runs around $520 per year in paper, at 2020 printing and delivery costs, and around $100 digitally. Printing and delivery costs, as portion of GDP-per-capita, were much higher in 1921. In 1921, the audience was extremely exclusive. An online audience is more democratic, and ergo, less educated.

2) Newspapers aren't driven by selling papers, so much as by organizational dynamics. I need to satisfy my boss and my peers to keep my job. Sales is one aspect of that, and as organizations grow in size, a decreasing aspect. As far as I can tell, NY Times has hired a bunch of idiots, and a lot of the most competent reporters are heading fast for the door.

Many companies which go under do so because of bad culture, often resulting from wildly misaligned incentives, good people leaving, bad people failing to bring in new good people, and so on. I think NY Times is slowly heading that way. I've seen few organizations able to claw back from where it is. Facebook and Google are moving in that direction too, for that matter.
If one feels the need for a citation for something basic like this, a textbook works quite well. Pretty much any high school calculus textbook will have the necessary formulas.
I agree with most of what you said, but about a Spectre attack having never been spotted in the wild, that seems to be no longer true.

Just a few days ago there were some news about the discovery of the first real malware that had exploited a Spectre variant.

Unfortunately I do not remember where I saw this, but it was said that the Spectre-based malware might have spread for a few months before being identified recently.
I accept that it isn't easy and the requirements were lessened, weeks after they tried to enforce them. One of my dev. systems now dual boots into windows, it will probably be stuck in update hell if I ever need it.
I think discoverability is also a problem: the ‘channel’ is a confusing space to navigate. Unless I’m doing something fundamentally wrong, each time I’ve followed any sort of notification about new content, I’ve ended up in a space that includes promotions for Netflix and some Swedish channels we watch, and also some premium paid content that doesn’t seem to be part of the free subscription I received when I bought an iPad Pro last year. I honestly don’t know what there is for me to watch.

Now I’m curious about the couple of shows people are mentioning in this thread, as I genuinely haven’t watched a single show in the last 9 or 10 months. Not only has the content (when I think I’ve found it) seemed to be mostly aimed at a 35-45 year old American market, the shows all feel so ‘earnest’ and frankly boring. Bit worried that this content may fall into the same trap: TV you feel you ought to watch, rather than have fun watching.

Look forward to being proved wrong, but now only have a couple months before I intend to cancel.
Try looking at it in reverse: the stress you feel about "microaggressions" is similar to what people are complaining about. It's a minor thing, something you can live with individually, except that as a constant daily drumbeat.

Microaggressions do exactly what you say: force people to feel as if they're walking on eggshells. And telling them "Oh, just shake it off" gets exactly the same response as if I told you to just shake off the accusations of microaggressions.

The downward spiral already exists: people do exhibit a range of racist, sexist, etc. behavior on a spectrum every day, from outright asshole behavior to small, incidental assumptions about people that make them feel unwanted and singled out. It afflicts some people more than others. So you can take this as a thought experiment to see why it's a problem for them, and if "just ignore it" doesn't work for you, then maybe we can find a better answer.
Because you can bias the process to be more likely to represent data relevant to your domain.

Note: I'm not in any way a compression expert, so while it may be obvious to you/others, it's a little interesting for me to think of compression in this way (sending parameters to a shared process, instead of sharing the raw data).
But this is vulnerable to a number of attacks that my solution isn't. Right now it's pretty damn easy to create valid certs for arbitrary domains. I'm constantly surprised that nobody wants to fix this.
It’s “a possible strategy”, and whether the strategy is appropriate depends on the particulars of your service.

> A monolith easily achieves 10x throughput of what microservices will do on the same hardware.

If we’re gonna talk about unwarranted assumptions, this one takes the cake.

I’ve seen services spun up where the resources to run them simply didn’t exist in our data centers. As monoliths, their throughput was effectively zero. The cost tradeoff was “buy bigger servers and wait until they arrive” versus “spend engineering resources and stop buying bigger servers.” Again—this is going to depend on the particulars. The better answer is not necessarily obvious.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. Microsoft went through the transition from hip new thing to office & office accessories and yet they're still worth more than Google. A company deciding to slow down and swap reckless innovation for methodological reliability can be seen as a boom by the risk-adverse; remember, no one was fired for buying IBM.
Ted Lasso is very entertaining.

Your other points may well be valid.
I agree here, everyone seems to just be on some rabid rampage talking about the if's, what's and maybe's.

I couldn't access my Xbox for 2 months, I got it setup over the weekend. Downloaded 5 new games thanks to Game Pass, there's a lot more there as well but I need to play them and all for basically nothing.

Netflix - everyone pays $5 per month for the pleasure of scrolling. Add in Amazon, Hulu and everything else and you have over $50 worth of scrolling to do to watch the same movies and TV shows that was watched many times over.
1. Virtue signal

2. ?????

3. Profit!
A Basic Timeline of the Exchange Mass-Hack
It isn't just "capitalism", it's inherent to economics, period. One of the valuable lessons of studying differential equations is just how easy it is to have cyclic behavior appear. Anywhere you have a the size of a change in velocity that is the negative of how far the value is away from some baseline... in other words, the second derivative is negative... you almost certainly have a cycle of some sort showing up. (Technically it can be avoided, but a lot of those ways are physically implausible.) Negative second derivatives are going to be pretty common.

(It doesn't have to be "pure". "Simple harmonic motion" is the result of when the negative second derivative fully characterizes a system. There are, of course, plenty of systems that aren't as simple, and things get complicated... but where ever you get a significant negative second derivative you've got a system that is going to exhibit some sort of cyclic behavior, even the the cycles vary wildly in size, duration, how fractal the value behaves on smaller time scales, etc.)
While I agree with the main point, the specific criticisms author presented here made me even more confused than the NYT article he was criticizing. For example:

> The “though they’d like it if you’d follow them on Instagram” aside doesn’t even make any sense. What does big social media making community feel global have to do with soliciting likes on Instagram?

It means although The Drunken Canal was created as a reaction to giant online media, they (i.e. The Drunken Canal ) still use at least one such media (i.e. Instagram) themselves.