skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Breville BES870XL Barista [1].

Hands down the best purchase of 2020. It feels a bit expensive, but I bought it via Amazon paying in installments. I configured it for 1x = espresso, 2x = larger like almost a small americano. My wife & I have been making 4-6 coffees/day for the past months, flawlessly.

Nest on the list: roast my own beans.

Edit: another relevant note, how did I choose it? I've asked 2 Italian+foody+nerd friends independently, nerd as it typically they compare 100 products before choosing. They both had this machine. The machine is French and they both are Italians... that's a lot of trust :)

[1] https://www.breville.com/us/en/products/espresso/bes870.html
Leaded gas and CFCs.

« Thomas Midgely Jr. had, in the words of author Bill Bryson, “an instinct for the regrettable that was almost uncanny.” »

Mr. Bryson can turn a phrase! Great author.
Hey Patrick! Thanks for the article.

"Producing Artifacts" is definitely what we called that at Fog Creek, and I think our cousins at Stack may have used a different term but followed much the same spirit. I didn't realize until now that that was a term from our little software microcosm, I had assumed it was one of the terms that was known broadly in the startupverse.

I definitely came to my opinions around it through my interactions with the Business of Software conference and (later) Microconf, and I think in parallel Stack Overflow came to much the same conclusions as we did at FC. Stack also lead with something in its early days which pushed us to go further, which was that they had a "default open" policy on all their artifacts-- code, company writing, etc. This specifically was inspiring for us at FC and many of us sort of implicitly adopted it. We doubled-down on our artifact publishing, leading to a bunch of open source contributions, blog posts, conference talks, etc. Interestingly (and to your point!) I think that those public artifacts for the most part didn't impact the company very much (as much as we did try to harvest the artifacts for blogging/marketing/recruiting purposes), but they unquestionably strengthened the careers of the folks who created them.

"Make sure your work is creating artifacts; Collect and share your artifacts to multiply their impact." Remains among my top items of career advice for software folks.
I can't speak about any specific company, but there are several VCs that specialize in life sciences and medicine and have people with the requisite expertise to evaluate claims on their team (or know the people to talk to in order to get it). The average tech VC might not have a deep bench of life sciences people to validate specific tech with, may not know the experts in the field, and may not know how the industry varies from tech.
So it's comparable to Theranos in more ways than one.
I guess I don't think of an ORM as abstraction, it's more of a complication. The abstraction would be something like:

class User {

static get(id) {
embed your SQL here
}
}
> European, Asian, and North/South American supply chains are internally integrated. A truck driver transports goods from the Czech Republic to France and unloads them at the destination.

But does that truck driver need to have direct contact with other people to do their job? Why can't they unload their cargo, sleep at a quarantine facility, and then drive a new truckload in the opposite direction, without an opportunity to infect anyone else?

Also, island nations still have internal traffic. What's different about the borders between parts of Australia that allowed them to be closed when European borders had to stay open?
> "DRY would say we should combine these together" - "Yeah, but Single Responsibility; while the code is mostly the same, they fundamentally are dealing with different things in different contexts"

As originally coined, DRY speaks of ensuring every piece of knowledge is encoded once. If pieces of code are "dealing with different things" then those are two pieces of knowledge, and DRY (per that formulation) does not recommend combining them.

I agree that there is a prevalent notion of DRY that is more syntactic, but I find that version substantially less useful and so I try (as here) to push back on it. Rather than improving code, it's compressing it; I've joked that we should call it "Huffman coding" when someone tries to collapse unrelated things in ways that will be unmaintainable.

Note that it's not just that syntactic DRY sometimes goes to far - it also misses opportunities where the original DRY would recommend finding ways to collapse things: if I'm saying "there's a button here" in my HTML and in my JS and in my CSS, then I'm saying the same thing in three places (even though they look nothing alike) and maybe I should find a way to consolidate.

There are, of course, still tradeoffs - maybe the technology to unify the description isn't available, maybe deepening my tech stack makes things less inspectable, &c.
I think you misunderstood the context of that sentence.

It's about the IP property ownership, and many employment contracts have specific clauses about IP ownership. And those clauses are sometimes draconian. For example, the preceding paragraph has this sentence:

> Companies in our industry are gradually becoming more reasonable about IP assignment clauses -- there's less of the "we own everything you think of at any point in your employment" nonsense these days. Even at my very straight-laced Japanese megacorp, they were willing to write an exception into the employment contract for a) OSS work that I did outside of company hours and b) Bingo Card Creator.

I think patio11 is saying you should be on solid legal footing for your IP ownership of your outside of work projects. If your employment contract already gives you control over your IP, then there is nothing you need to ask for. But if your employment contract may ambiguously give some control to your employer, then it's better to ask for an explicit point in the employment contract about the project.

So, "forgiveness" in this context is less about getting permission from your employer, and it's more about ensuring you truly own free and clear the IP you generate.

> If you're not sure that your employer will screw you over then get something in writing.

That's exactly the point patio11 was making, I think.
Well, the extent of harm is presumably influenced by how far material is shared, and how publicly, if people are duped by it (such as media covering a deep fake unaware that it is).

Just like existing illegal images are usually only discovered due to people sharing them or being investigated for other things I expect that this would be policed in a similar, somewhat flawed fashion.
What does 'control' mean? In humans, if a small number of people are sick and you know who they are, you can eradicate the infection with isolation (it would only take a couple months).

That it infects various animals may make that unworkable, and the difficulty in vaccinating a large percentage of people globally is another problem.

But the effectiveness of the vaccines against the current variants does not appear to be a problem, high levels of vaccination will slow the spread of the virus dramatically in those populations, to the point where it barely exists (compare to polio, which is still endemic in some places around the world).
You probably need everyone else wearing masks to have a big effect and that's not likely to be the case going forward although you can obviously take whatever precautions you like.
Most of the time I've seen dependency inversion "so we can test" the code is littered with hundreds of single-implementation interfaces and no mocks, or stub mocks that are written just to pass the tests. It doesn't actually test anything.

In the case where there are mocks, the unit tests are almost always literally testing "can my programming language call a function and return a result" or "can we store data in a database if the database works?" They are functional tests disguised as unit tests, and are testing only non-production fake functionality.

Write functional code instead. Liberally use the compiler and the type system to make mistakes impossible instead of unit testing.

Unit tests are for when you can't express something in a way where the compiler and type system will save you from errors.

Everything else is a functional or integration test and should be testing the production system, not a mockup of the production system that works differently.

Basically, write Haskell programs in whatever language you're working in. Use unit tests as a backstop for when the type system isn't as good as Haskell's.
“Stimmy” and “stimmies” are just colloquialisms for the stimuli. Strange that the NYT is linking that to stock purchases...
When I got online in the late 90s the internet was already filled with fake images of celebrities. This isn't a new issue. Sure, there are images that can be identified as fake based on the content, like Vladimir Putin riding a bear, but for 20 years the internet has been filled with images that the average person cannot determine are real or fake.

Yes, technology will improve, we'll get realistic fake video and audio, and it'll become easier and easier to generate. If anything, that'll simply make people more skeptical of fakes, since they'll be able to generate their own in a few minutes on their phone. The US government isn't going to see a YouTube deep fake of Putin declaring nuclear war and take action.

As the saying goes, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Audio and video will just no longer be extraordinary evidence in the future.
This is an important topic and I think a browser could do more to not only give people options, but to guide them as well - and do the guiding on device instead of sending sensitive info to the cloud to determine if a warning or suggestion is on order.

I really wish google had never taken the search strings out of the referral info - way back in the day, stats were really useful to help understand what users were searching for and helped us do more to give them what they were looking for -

I've always felt it should be up to the individual user to choose to share search referral info or not- and the browser could have a checkbox for such - and I would be fine / maybe happy with a browser that paused a sessions and said 'your search includes 'sensitive info, should I strip the referring url and block the search term from appearing in stats for the destination site? -

As a web site operator I'd have a note about wanting that data to help people and a note about how we could really use the search term and be happy to fuzz the ip addy like the EFF does with it's stats..

But.. google has taken those options from all of us in the name of privacy or whatever.

I have seen some anti-virus suites pop up with things like 'you are going to a bank site, turn on whatever-feature for this site?

There are many things browsers could help with - for those who want to say UX! - not too many options! - I get that - but there should be options for people who want them, and the fact that incognito mode tracks for google yet gives the illusion of non-tracking kind of takes the big G folks out of the discussion of that imho -

I've also seen browser extensions that are privacy slaying in ways people likely will never realize - and a good browser could warn about that kind of thing - and for people that use someone else's device - it might be nice to know that 3 browser extensions are sucking in your shopping data when visiting bachelorette raunchy gifts dot com - or whatever - might be nice if the browser suggested turning on VPN for some things that could affect 'you might like this cock lollipop' for the next couple of months from popping up everywhere.

A few random thoughts on the browsers and consent. I am pro options, education, and consent for most things - and browsers could do a better job enlightening people and do things without the cloud - it's a huge missed opportunity for privacy and security imho.
Beeple EXPLAINS: What is an NFT? [video]
There's much here I agree with -- and especially with the general lesson of "don't get too hung up on principles," but at one point the article speaks of "1980s entity modelling," in a denigrating way, as if methods of formalisation age. It's like saying that doing logic-style type-level programming or SQL is "1970s logic modelling", and using high-order functions combinators is "1950s functional modelling." Many of the interesting ideas in programming languages from the 1980s haven't yet come of age, let alone grown outdated. Also, it is true that there's much we learn over the years, but also much we forget and reinvent.
Pytype (Google) pyre (facebook) and pyright (microsoft) all have more institutional backing than mypy. They aren't going away anytime soon.

Otoh, development of all the major type checkers is fairly collaborative. Mypy usually gets features first, but not always.
They are already illiquid. So they will only become worthless.
Cartesian product means a very specific thing - testing the predicates on every possible combination. This is not what occurs in practice
Restored and colorized footage from New York World's Fair, 1939 [video]
I believe that there are people that can handle more abstractions in their working memory, maybe up to 6 or 7 layers of abstraction, and there are people that can't go further than 3, before feeling lost.

The "bigger heads" types will use SOLID or any other argument to justify a higher number of abstractions.
While the other type will do the same to justify a lesser.

At the end of the day, there is no right solution, but what is so called "cultures" that group people with similar taste and cognitive fingerprint, and provide best practices.
> Don't get put off by the fact that nobody cares about the first few (several, dozen, hundred...) things you put out there

Your first few things will suck. Keep going. Practice takes time.

Ira Glass, advice to beginners: http://www.zenpencils.com/comic/90-ira-glass-advice-for-begi...
Most of the companies in YC have always been boring starting from the first batch.

Reddit was BBS software.
I don't think the focus should be on "understanding what it is". Others eat ice cream and don't get into a physiological loop that they can't control without a lot of hardship and scientific tools.
> Is it just me, or NFTs is just useless bragging rights about ownership of digital goods which can't be owned? You can make unlimited indistinguishable copies of an image. Do people really care who pretends to own it?

In my understanding the NFT doesn't even cover the ownership of anything except the NFT itself. It's like owning a sheet of paper you write "certificate of authenticity" at the top on in sharpie, then sign yourself. You should probably write the bits in the middle in crayon.

> I mean I guess if you look at show of brands like Luis Vuiton (sp?) There are plenty of people willing to pay for said bragging rights.

Merch is at least an actual thing you can own and use, or get pleasure from by looking at (for works of arts e.g. prints & posters, limited run or not), sometimes tied to life events or memories (e.g. band, museum, or tourism spot merch).
we wrote and ran software that invaded your computer and destroyed it

Were these personal laptops, or university provided? The fact they have H: and M: drives mounted suggests the latter.
"However, there is an even more worrying effect: if attacks are possible at such a scale that their effect is felt across whole sectors, countries or even globally, as is the case with the “SolarWinds” attack, they have the potential to fundamentally undermine our trust in information technology."

How is that a worrying effect? Trust in IT systems is undeserved, because they are built in an environment of economic incentives that make stability, performance and security secondary concerns to features and time to market, and poor engineering practices that derive from those incentives. A software BOM will do nothing to address those problems.

Healthy skepticism of IT and adapting with defense in-depth and other measures like data minimization (you can't leak what you don't have) are desirable, or even simply using less software.
TL:dr; SOLID is basically a set of principles saying "keep things small and modular and encapsulated so you can keep them in your head at each layer", and so the specifics of SOLID are silly but the overarching goal is sound.
> Amazon does not tolerate violations of labor laws," Leah Seay, an Amazon spokesperson told Motherboard. "Where we find repeated violations, or an inability to correct labor violations, we terminate contracts with DSP program participants.

That is NOT a no-tolerance policy. They're literally saying they tolerate some violations so long as its not so bad. Amazon is responsible for this and I'm guessing it stems from a work culture that sees some abuse as inevitable or okay in small amounts. Its not okay. You can't violate worker rights just some of the time and think you're being responsible. This is well outside acceptable business norms in the US. The fact that the official spokesperson thought it was okay that to publicly admit they sweep violations under the rug so long as it doesn't become too bad speaks volumes to Amazon's toxic and amoral work culture.
I don’t think there’s anything stopping Redhat folks from starting a new enterprise and building another commercial version off of CentOS. If successful, they could strip mine IBM for the useful Redhat talent and leave IBM with the cruft.
As a wannabe extension author I’m curious about that... Could you tell me more about why that is, or do you know of a good link?
Actually it's the human bodies that are quite wasteful (so are humans themselves). Many big animals can keep going without food for months. And it's not just their oily fat reserves, they are much more efficient with energy.
i believe that used to be called grey hat hacking
Do you have evidence (or even a reason to believe) that the costs are misrepresented such that the government allowed a higher ongoing toll than is appropriate?

Because otherwise ... yeah? Private toll roads can be a good solution.
The same crowd that does porn on the side and drugs to party has their own tabboos. Fake them saying something homophobic, racist, or anti-semetic, and they will be denounced by their supporters.
Sounds good initially, until you realize the ancient setup was there for a reason (for example a person responsible for quality assurance for a legacy system a few still use). :-)

Not saying it is likely, but from working with production systems that could have come from the stone-age I am too well aware of the possible risks of meddling with a setup that looks obviously wrong or too old to be used anymore, only to realize way too late that it was there for a very good reason.
I am saying that words are hard, and some things are more easily expressed in different languages.

Any Turing-complete programming language can implement anything from any other Turing-complete programming language, but that doesn't mean that a web application is just as easy to write in assembly as it is in Ruby, even if you could do it. And if we said "all serious programming must be done in assembly," it would make discussing web applications more tedious than allowing folks interested in stuff Ruby is good at to write Ruby. More generically, this is the argument for DSLs.

And, while theoretically possible to do so, practically speaking, a lot less people would do it, and so we'd probably wouldn't have as advanced web applications.
Honest question: if I were to buy this, how would I prove to everyone I meet that I am the owner?
If only there was some way this could have been predicted. Perhaps using Watson?

Meanwhile https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/17/ibm_exec_payouts/

“IBM CEO Arvind Krishna and ex-exec-chairwoman Ginny Rometty were collectively awarded more than $38m in compensation for their services in fiscal 2020, a year in which Big Blue's revenues shrank and operating profit more than halved.”
>AWS is about learning and memorising GUIs, not real skills, and those ‘skills’ become useless anyway as soon as you move to a customer/server that doesn’t have AWS

This is not my experience with AWS or Red Hat whatsoever. Most, if not all AWS users I've worked with use languages like terraform and emphasize importance of Infrastructure as Code, _not_using the GUI. Cloud concepts are more important than the GUI.

The same goes for the core concepts behind Ansible/Openshift. Both are not only available free, but they emphasize IaC over GUI.
Opera was first as usual I guess - and as usual Firefox would get the same a few weeks later as an extension.

NextPlease! was the name of the Firefox extension I think.
Is Eglot the go-to for LSP in Emacs these days?
I type all my data science/ml code and I absolutely love it. Now when I explore packages or data I have a more clear understanding of what I’m dealing with
Index Ventures OptionPlan
This is very very sad and may jeopardize the future of linux. IBM produces POWER processors, they could buy or mimic Raptor Computing Systems and offer an entirely IBM-designed system from processor to OS; something that today only apple can offer. It is very sad to see such great potential wasted.

When IBM bought Red Hat, many people were waiting an inverse buy out, something like when apple bought NeXT. It looks like that is not what is happening.
Yup. As a PR reviewer, my gold standard is "I understand 100% of what's going on in this change, and I'm confident it does what it says it does". All the rules and standards and stuff we put in place is basically in support of that goal.

If I can't understand it, neither can the next guy.
I have an embarrassing confession to make. When at first I read "Lennart", my immediate knee-jerk reaction was "If it's by Lennart Poettering, I already know I don't want it". Then I clicked on the link and found out that wasn't the case.

It looks very thorough for a one-man hobby project. What motivated you to build this?
It's not about doing trades without moving market afterwards, it's about market moving _before trade_ as a preliminary response of the trade existence.
This can work both ways. If an ex sends out revenge porn, the victim could claim it is fake to minimise the damage. Hopefully in few years porn will make people indifferent and so it will cease to be useful as a weapon.
If your favourite browser is Safari then there's a good reason developers might have targeted another browser - Safari is consistently slow in adopting the kind of features that enable more cutting edge web applications.

That's not neccesarily a bad thing but you can't complain if you're trying to run cutting-edge apps on a conservative browser.
Touché. "Only the Sith deal in absolutes" and all that.
I can see what you're getting at here, and perhaps "language of logic" is not the most accurate way to describe what software is. Maybe "language of complexity" or "language of systems" or something else. Someone could come up with better terms or metaphors here.

The difficulties you describe, however, assuming they aren't being caused by flaws or bugs, are part of the "language" we're talking about. I think one of your assumptions here is that logic is simple. That's true to begin with, but the software systems we build are usually towering arcologies of logic, with all manner of intricate, sometimes counter-intuitive details. A single detail, when examined by itself, is relatively easy to understand, but when taken together, they form a serious challenge for any human mind to grapple with. I think you could make comparisons to sprawling works of literature or advanced forms of mathematics, where the bits and pieces can be grasped, but the number of pieces, and the connections between them are often too difficult to see all at once.
Fwiw there are type systems that can catch this. C++, rust, and pythons in fact both have support for erroring on this by default, unless you have overridden the addition operator for Money to always result in the lhs or the currency, or whatever.

See, for example, the absl::Duration apis in c++.