skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Point is, I’m not sure there is any middle ground that’s acceptable.

I grew up fundamentalist, then swung hard atheist, then ended up, as one friend who went to seminary described it, "the most christian atheist he's ever met". I've known Christians ignorant and intellectual, hateful and openly loving, urban and rural, liberal and conservative, and everything in-between.

Here's my take: A healthy faith is not about rules at all, or about finding a system for understanding the physical world or anything like that. If you get obsessed with rules you become a bitter fundamentalist; if you get fed-up with religion but stay obsessed with rules you become a bitter atheist.

A healthy faith is about people. Yourself, your community, the world. Cultivating habits of forgiveness and growth toward yourself, and openness and love toward others. Having a specific segment of your life dedicated to contemplation of the most important things in life, and doing so in a community on a regular basis. The iconography and the texts, ideally, are just a communal conduit for those ideas; symbols people can point to and use to talk about their thoughts and feelings around this stuff with others, and also to spark new thoughts and points of discussion.

Many (not all) of my close friends are christians, and none of them have ever tried to convert me. Some of them don't really think hell exists; most of them don't think some magic prayer is all that's needed to keep you out of it. Most, I think, see that even if it does, the best thing they can do for others is simply to love them and to help them be better through example and osmosis, if anything. They know they don't control others and they can't force them into whatever. They can only be Good and hope that it spreads.

I like this quote from Pope Francis:

> We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.
Another example of dishonesty or at least disingenuousness: certain countries’ health ministers pushing for further restrictions after already admitting in interviews that their populations are no longer observing previous restrictions. Here the expert's job performance is judged solely by how proactive he looks; he simply has to push for restrictions. Yet now the effective anti-COVID approach might be to slightly step back from restrictions and allow restaurant terraces to reopen – most people meeting each other in spite of restrictions are doing it indoors out of public view, but you really want to make them meet outdoors in the open air where spread is much less likely.

Or consider this example: Devi Sridhar, one of the UK scientific advisors, is a proponent of keeping UK borders closed for the next several years and requiring expensive hotel quarantines like Australia or New Zealand. In interviews, she has depicted people opposing this policy as simply "upset they can't go on holiday". In fact, much of travel from the UK is not inane holidaymaking but going to see family abroad – it’s an immigrant-heavy country – and the less affluent couldn’t afford hotel quarantine on return. Here we have an expert putting up a caricature, because being honest about the impact of policies would weaken her push.
This demonstrates the big flaw of Christianity. Even thought there are millions of sincere, loving and friendly Christians around the world, the whole thing is based around a book that espouses views that are exactly what you call fundamentalism. Sooner or later someone will be confronted with the fundamentalist ideas about women, non-christians, and sexual diversity (for example), and start spreading the hate ideas contained in parts of that book.
Because the human brain perceives time in odd ways.
If I understand the proposal correctly, it works like a stack.

So you're working on "git plan --commit-message='important feature'" or whatever the syntax would be.

Then you encounter a place where some refactoring would be really helpful, so you do

"git plan --commit-message='refactor: ...'"

Any changes made during this plan won't show up in the original git plan.

I'm not sure if this is how it works, but that's how I understood it.
Ten years ago I would have said this is a good thing. But now I’m actually terrified of whatever replaces religion for these people.
There was an impact on service. I can't remember the levels (I was 10), but I'm sure someone must have studied it somewhere. It would be a really interesting piece of history to dig into and dissect.
This. I cannot stress how important is this for modern app development. Just like Deno doesn't trust any script that is passed to it, no user should trust an app just cause it's installed directly in the system (and I can't believe I lived with that mindset as well). The developers should grow cautious of any tool and library they install, and the user should inspect more often what kind of access is it giving to anything they browse on the web, cause at least there they can block it.
You cannot always cleanly differentiate these two. You could argue that "Node vs io.js" was an "ideological" split because they wanted different governance, but one big reason they wanted different governance is to make different technical choices (for example, track upstream V8 more closely), so you could also claim this was a "technical" split too.
Shout out to emacs' brilliant git porcelaine magit. It makes doing a bunch of disconnected stuff 'in the zone' and then staging and commiting whichever lines and refs you want totally straightforward and easy.
IMO, that's the most insidious aspect of organized religion. Rather than acknowledging death as an engineering problem to be solved and overcome, it teaches people to embrace death and conditions followers to not even consider fighting back.
That's not it.

None of those problems are caused by elitism for a language. Advocating and language elitism are symptoms of larger ideas. Attacking elitism in language choice is silly and a waste of time as it's naturally inclined to happen. People do give a shit and for a myriad of reasons.
real-world implementation of Pascal's wager

Indeed, well put
> Well, the actual question was "Committed any crimes?", verbatim

Perhaps my grammar was too ambiguous, but the question was intended as an either/or, not a continuation clause. I listed real harm first as a higher priority too. Committing a crime was if anything, a secondary concern - if someone had claimed he was guilty of stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family I wouldn't be up in arms against him.

> I find that we spend precious little time, considering such trivialities as Honor, Integrity or Honesty, when looking only at the legal code.

True enough - codification is treated as a very Holy concept under modernism. If the letter of the law doesn't explicitly state so, then it's OK. I consider that one of many of modernism's failings.

> As to "harming someone," I suspect that we may not be the best judge of that. I deal with highly traumatized people, several days a week, and am quite aware of the grievous harm that can be done by folks, not intending to do harm.

This is not a useful measure because people can claim harm for nearly anything. The best thing that can be done for highly traumatised people is to help them get over their trauma and successfully begin navigating society again. Wrapping victimised people up in cotton wool does nothing to help anybody, especially if doing so requires that wider society constrict itself. I say that as someone with complex PTSD myself.

> In my extracurricular world, I also spend a lot of time, running around with baby wipes, and a pooper-scooper, cleaning up emotional and physical damage, caused by the careless words of folks with authority that refuse to take Responsibility for their positions of influence.

Emotional and physical damage are not equivalent. If I say something in innocuous innocence and you take offense or it triggers an unreasonable response from you, it's not on me to navigate your issues. If I do physical harm to you, I should be in prison. Of course there's a line between being accidentally and intentionally hurtful, and the line is intent.

> I get rather peeved at people that have achieved some position of influence, then disregard the considerable Responsibility that comes with the trappings of power. Like I said, a bricklayer can spout off a bunch of guff, but their bosses are morally (and sometimes, ethically, and even legally) Responsible to watch what the heck they say.

Of course that is true, and why I don't believe RMS should steward the FSF: he's just not socially capable of the position, too abrasive. But that doesn't make him a toxic person or worthy of cancellation or whatever - it's just not his wheelhouse. This entire thread is about me asking if he's actually done anything bad, besides being socially inept.

> I really wish that society did a better job of teaching simple ethics, courtesy and logic.

That's what parents, personal experience and community are for. Unfortunately, community is dead in the city, so parents and personal experience it is.

Most people in my experience get stupider as they become more logical. HN is a perfect example of this.
I think part of the idea is that weapons systems have changed such that if another country invades, what exactly would they capture? Laptops? Maybe the people - and then what? You're going to make them be as productive as they were but working for your regime? Plus, small nations with asymmetric warfare opportunities - e.g. you're a small city and you have a big aggressive neighbor, why not create a bunch of cyber attacks that can be triggered at any moment rendering the value of any attack moot or negative. Agreed for islands where the intrinsic value isn't the human capital this might be a serious concern, but I doubt it for a place like this.
I think it’s more likely governments will lie to you and force experts to agree with them, or be sidelines. If you don’t agree with the government line they’ll find someone who does.
i’m guessing one or more of the following happened 1) the traffic was not back to 100% instantly and they ramped it up over a longer period of time 2) they offered the people that were fired the option of temporarily keeping their job while they figured out their “new careers” 3) they started training asap and they also relaxed some of their standards/requirements when it came to hiring.

It probably was not as swift and badass as it’s portrayed now.
Shrug, it's a spectrum. All jobs are somewhat fragile. Huge old Bank SWE could be considered less fragile than Uber driver since you make more money for less time working remotely, and thus can store money, experience to eventually transition to something better
Fixing a typo as you work on something else is not bad - that's called Boy Scouting[1] and it's totally acceptable to sprinkle small improvements/cleanups in a change.

As for getting distracted and refactoring something else - you're context switching. When you do that, you can also context-switch your repo by stashing your current changes (git stash) while you work on that tangent. Or commit your current changes to their local branch (you're liberally using branches, right? Branches are cheap in Git) and switch to a new branch for refactoring.

If you really want to write your commit first (which is a great idea, because you should know what changes you're planning to make before you start working on them!), then you can create an empty commit when you switch to your new feature branch:

git commit --allow-empty

Write your "plan" as the first commit in that branch. Then do your work, committing frequently, and when you're done and squashing your changes into a single commit for review you now have that first commit available and waiting.

Most issues I see from people getting confused with their changes and using Git is not using enough branches for their work, not being practiced at branch manipulation, and not being disciplined and intentional about their changes. People aren't thinking about "how am I going to release this?" or "how can this be reviewed most efficiently?", and they get carried away with making a lot of changes at once instead of many small changes.

My rule of thumb is that I'm only allowed to take one step off the path/plan, anything else gets put on a todo list to revisit later.

Plan the work, then work the plan.

[1] https://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1235624&seq...
Yes, there is a setting in the dashboard to disable JS by default and enabled as needed.[1]

Even more advanced users can set up uBO to work in default-deny mode to only allow resources from specific 3rd-party domains as needed, and on a per-site basis.[2]

* * *

[1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Per-site-switches#no-...

[2] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode:-medium...
You forgot dredging tons of material. And dredgers have some of the more complex naval engineering out there with all its moving parts.
Fair enough. But I don't see it as the community will be moving away from older approaches. The old ways will always be there. I see it as this is a on-ramp for web developers to get into systems programming.

The reality is there is a huge wave of new developers in the last decade who entered into programming through web. I guess the OP sees this a 'threat' to his way of doing things somehow, but I don't think it's a threat at all. Normal to feel that way though.

These tools are meant for web developers, and if you are not one that's okay. There is probably no good reason to make the jump unless you are just curious or bored.

Last sentence of the blog post:
"The Deno company hopes to enable the millions of web programmers out there to maximally leverage their craft in other domains."
You mean self-righteousness and a superiority complex. The person who lives a decent life because it is right for everyone is morally superior to someone who lives a decent life because he fears of being cast into a lake of fire.

And even then, Christians murder more people in the US than anyone, per-capita or otherwise.
That's a very harmful assertion to make without supporting evidence.

Police go on strike in other developed nations occasionally without major issues. In countries with healthy labor relations the union and employer sometimes negotiate about maintaining critical operations during a strike as well.

Military strikes don't necessarily seems that harmful either considering the majority of military personnel is not on active deployment at any given time.
I am agnostic, but, I don’t necessarily see this as a good thing.

I was raised Jewish and as a kid we would go to the reform synagogue on and off throughout the year. My parents are completely secular (atheist and agnostic), and yet that did not stop my mom from becoming President of the local reform synagogue, so at least for a period it was a big part of my life.

The main benefit of the synagogue, and I assume it is the same one you get from being involved in your local church, is the community that is built around it.

When someone was sick, someone died or someone needed help, people from the community were always the first ones to help. They would took care of the poor, help the weak and also the elderly. They would lead food drives and volunteer efforts.

I have yet to find any community that is as strong and as helpful as the one that was built around the local synagogue. There is something unique about places of warship that drives people to be more generous and helping. My only assumption is the communities they build are passed down from generation to generation with their own traditions which makes them stronger.

As an adult, I don’t go to synagogue at all. The weird thing is I miss it even though I hated it as a kid.

One last thing. I see a lot of hatred for religion in the comments and as of late in general.
Please don’t hate! Understand that extreme anti-religion is no better and no less dangerous than people that take religion to the extreme. Yes, religion has caused or been excuse for a lot of bad and intolerant behavior. You aren’t going to end intolerance by being intolerant yourself. Assume best attentions, judge people by how they act and help through education to change their misconceptions.
Container ships burn horrible, cheap bunker fuel, and the shipping industry is infamous for hiring crew from low-income countries like the Philippines, paying them a pittance, and treating them like modern-day slaves.

I'd strongly suspect that the costs for spoilage and knock-on effects from late delivery etc would outstrip crew and fuel costs by a large margin.
> valuable tools written in them

That nobody can make changes to, or upgrade to take advantage of newer technology, or optimize for execution time or memory usage.
> While consumption of various fish and seafood on average is not of significant concern, health risk could not be ruled out for high consumers.

Consume moderate amounts?
That’s a crazy leap to make from my statement which was that killing off black churches would not make the world better. That is the key counter factual for those who claim religion has no benefit to society, or even stronger claims that it retards our moral progress. I think the evidence is clear if you’re honest about the data. Faith helps people with life’s difficulties. I’m certainly not saying any one group needs faith more than any other group. No Christian person will ever make such a claim which is antithetical to the core premise of Christianity, universal brotherhood.
"We need to put you in poverty to please China, but you wouldn't understand the nuance of this so we're just going to lie instead."
> Recommending a product (a programming language in that case) is anything but elitism

Let me rephrase it:
"It's 2021 people. Why aren't you driving Lamborghini? It's time".

Still doesn't sound like "elitism"?
> You'll have a broken moral system imposed on you either way

I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how moral systems work, one that is perpetuated by the church.

In Christianity, there is a specific "source" of morality, one that's (supposedly) infallible and unquestionable. This leads to problems when the infallible-unquestionable source of morality endorses things like slavery [1]: if it's unquestionable and infallible, how can your moral system be adapted to address this shortcoming? (This is usually handwaved away by theists by saying something like "oh that's the old covenant", or "that was a different god", which uses strange internal doctrinal shenanigans to somehow justify this supreme perfect being's obvious moral shortcommings, and looks to everyone outside the religion like someone just playing the cup game.)

Outside of religion, there is no single "source" of morality. There's a codified system of laws that our societies adhere to, certainly, but there's plenty of examples of how the laws do not codify morality (e.g. I am not required to be even a minimally-decent Samaritan to anyone I encounter on the street). Morality instead is something that an individual has to build for themselves, as a framework for decisionmaking in the wider world: how do you choose between your available actions? what are your guiding principals?

Some decide that, for various reasons, they cannot support industrial animal agriculture, and turn vegan. Some decide they fundamentally disagree with the structure of our police forces. Some turn pacifist--but all come to these conclusions through their reasoning. They absolutely can (and do) borrow reasoning from other sources, but it's impossible for it to be 'imposed' on them because there is no 'higher power' that has the absolute moral right.

This is something that's frustrated me when trying to engage with religious people on other moral issues; a few months ago I was talking to my mom about the concept of wealth redistribution, as to me it seemed incredibly immoral that people like Jeff Bezos can have an insane amount of wealth while we still have children in our schools who can't afford lunch or library books or are even homeless. My mother (Christian) couldn't get around the idea that she had no right to impose her perceived morality on another: that it would be wrong to support laws requiring the redistribution of wealth. She had similar issues with LGBT rights: she could see the harm caused to LGBT people, and did not want to participate in that harm, but struggled to support them because she felt like codifying moral support for something, which she didn't have the power to do.

This removal of one's own ability to develop and test morals is part of what disturbs me greatly about the church. It makes it very difficult to demonstrate when people make mistakes, how they have harmed other people, and how they might go about avoiding that in the future.

[1]: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21&versi...
Would that have been Hushank (sp?) Balyuzi? I remember him well.
Had to think of that Simpson's episode where MacGyver appears and says something like "Don't thank me, thank the gravitational pull of the moon". Well, it seems that that line wasn't complete nonsense at all :-)
It's probably not a joke. Many people report things like this when talking about time. Our brains are just not that great at accurately thinking about long periods of time.
When you lie to the public, you not only keep them in the dark, but you actively discourage them from thinking the right way or finding the truth.

There are so many problems with this that I can’t even list. What would’ve happened if the government would’ve made a call at that time for mass PPE manufacturing?

Anyone trying to start up a PPE factory would literally be going against CDC guidance, and the CDC would have to double down against it to maintain the lie.
Well, if you want all of those things in one place, then that means github, practically by definition. But the example of the kernel shows that open source can carry on, on a massive scale, with no need for that.
I just press D in gitup for unrelated changes and continue to spam with commits that are related to feature, works well.
The other resource you might be interested in is Minimus, designed to introduce Primary school children to Latin, and to allow non-Latin speaking teachers to lead a course. None of the interactive elements you offer, though there are CDs :)
http://www.minimus.com/
It is time to post this again. The Birth & Death of JavaScript ( 2014 )

https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/the-birth-and-death...
true, the language-evaluation side is keeping up. But isn't that just a case of integrating newer versions of v8? NodeJS doesn't implement its own JS engine.
Are there clear examples of that in the Bible (New Testament) or is it just how people interpret it?

Edit. I’m not challenging or arguing any point. I was genuinely curious.
Probably the actual "damage" that was caused will be given by the insurance companies as a sum of claims covered, but there will be a lot of companies that simply have to eat the loss incurred by idling factories and the likes because their supply contracts allow for delivery delays or because pursuing coverage isn't worth the effort (e.g. for those who still had sufficient stock to cover a week of delay and no "real" damage occurred).

A many weeks long shutdown (in case they had to unload the Ever Given) would be many orders of magnitude more expensive.
Unfortunately, you are the exception. I grew up in a church household and family. It is sad that so many people see the bible as a weapon to enforce their point of view instead of a manual to direct their own life. It is crazy the amount of hate that my "christian" family members post on FB.
I don't think there will be any spoilage, the goods travelled through sea are never fresh.
Opinion: Best remote job site in 2021
I like Career Vault’s clean UI. It’s easy to navigate and there’s over 20,000 jobs. Other job sites look too cartoony for me.

Any others you recommend?