skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Partly because shifting gears is fun. Partly because you can get more usable power out of the motor with a transmission.

It's a bit of a trade-off. To use Tesla as an example, they take the approach of just putting a massively overpowered motor in each car so that they can overcome the lack of a low gear. That works fine, but the kind of parts you need in that sort of system are expensive. Not just the motor, but the motor controller and the batteries have to handle that much power.

A different approach is to just have a normally-sized motor and an ability to shift gears. It should make for a lighter, more efficient car. (Though you also lose some efficiency in the gearbox.) The conversion I'm doing has a 120 horsepower motor, and it's going into a car that's about 3,000 pounds. I won't win any 0-60 races with a Model S, but it'll probably handle corners better and generally be more fun to drive, not to mention be about 1500 to 2000 pounds lighter.

I'm willing to concede that wanting an EV with a stickshift may be an unpopular opinion, but it's hard to know if there's a market for that kind of thing until someone starts manufacturing it. (And I don't mean the Taycan, I mean something that some ordinary middle-class person might buy.) It seems kind of a shame that we have all these legacy car companies that know how to build transmissions, but none of them seem interested in using that as an advantage they have over Tesla for that part of the market that want an electric car but would rather drive a manual transmission.
Yeah the crux is, if you invent your own ethics then how do you make sure that they are universally applicable? How do you make sure people will agree with you instead of creating mutually incompatible ethics with the same intentions as you? You base them on logic with a sprinkle of emotion.
.NET was designed from the get-go for creating large programs. There is of course some overhead/boilerplate to this. So you could not do a Write("Hello world"); without wrapping it in a method. In a class. In a namespace. In an assembly.

After all, why optimise the language for "Hello world" ? How important is that case? language designers rightly decided that supporting large programs was more important.

In the code that your team has been working on for years, you'll be glad of all of those "overhead" things, that help you manage complexity and decompose the program.

But yeah, show it to a c# newbie who is used to e.g. Python where "Hello world" is literally a one-liner and they might think "what a crapsack language, there's like 6 lines of overhead per 1 line of code, argh this is as bad as Java" - I've seen pretty much this reaction. Is it justified? From my POV, not at all. But I have seen that happen.

Top-level statements (i.e. compiler-generated boilerplate instead of Visual Studio-generated boilerplate) does seem like an "on-ramp" feature that would be discarded as the program grows past a few lines though.
Not really. But if you understand the basics of how OTS works, it's fairly easy to figure out how to do that with the `ots info` command. Basically, it just prints out the raw commitment operations the timestamp proof performs, letting you follow along.

Note that OTS proofs do not have any notion of a transaction in them. Rather, they perform commitment operations that end up at a merkle root of a Bitcoin block (at least in the 99.9999% of proofs that use Bitcoin). With the `--no-bitcoin` option, the OTS client will tell you what block # to look for, and what the merkle should be for the proof to be valid.
Webinar: Debugging Serverless Locally to Speed Up Development Cycles
Yes, that's been one of Poettering's long-term goals [1] [2], and what Fedora SilverBlue and OSTree are trying to achieve. systemd features like the ability to create users via installable files [3] are geared towards this goal.

[1]: http://0pointer.net/blog/projects/stateless.html

[2]: http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linu...

[3]: https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/sysusers.d....
Huh. Would it be possible for someone to hijack the SIM card in such a device and use it to get free calls all over the world, including long-distance? Would that be illegal? Would anyone care? :)
You can only see the trains around sunset and that only a while after launch.
I think they mainly employ a JavaScript perspective where a frameworks lifetime is measured in minutes.

Sure many classical backend frameworks use a central database technology which limits their scalability, but the mature frameworks with sufficient backing behind them still do the job and save a ton of time. With those you will end up with a maintainable application on the long term. Think of django, heck even JavaEE if done right.

Most of you are not Google ;)
In this case I do not see a reason to do that
Back in the day Apple decided that text on the Mac should be as close to text on the page as possible, and Microsoft thought that text on screen should be larger since computer monitors are normally further away.
When I retire, I'm going to make online board games.

I'm doing it from the ground up with my own programming language:
http://www.adama-lang.org/

I'm going to build my own UI kit for canvas:
http://www.adama-lang.org/blog/ui-flow-with-adama

(I'm learning rust right now on the side)

For the UI kit, I'm going to build a collaborative editor/IDE: no link yet, it's a thought experiment. The language makes the 'collaborative' super easy.

Then, I'll build out the distributed system for making this a platform.

THEN, after all of that, I'll ship a single game.

Being retired sounds like fun, and then I'll build a lifestyle business SaaS around generic state machine-documents as a service... Or something, no idea.
Probably. I'm a PhD student but I don't study the trendy stuff so I have no idea what money Google pays.

Some of us are actually in it to scratch an intellectual itch, not for the money. I gave up a lucrative career as a software dev to study the subject I'm really interested in and took a huge pay cut for the privilege of working in the only environment that offers anything near the freedom to research whatever satisfies the little gray cells. The OP's turn of phrase about gatekepping sounds like a bitter joke to me. My field gets maybe one or two new entrants a year, folks like me who don't know what's good for them and can't tame their intellectual curiosity enough to get a real job. Most PhD students, most researchers of any level, don't want to gatekeep anything, we want to tell the world about our work. But most people don't give a shit, unless Google is interested. Unless you can grab my research and be an instant millionaire nobody cares.
> MS really made a grave mistake by coupling the evolution of the C# language to the .NET version.

It’s not directly coupled, but each version of C# has a minimum .NET version it can support, due to the requirements of the features in the language itself (like LInQ in the past).

And MS has been very up front about .NET framework being legacy and not getting any future upgrades for years now.

Keeping every new C# feature compatible with every obsolete .NET version obviously has a big technical cost. MS has clearly decided it would rather spend its effort to improve C# for those keeping up to date.

> It is becoming a a lot less fun to be a C# developer because you more often will have to work with obsolete tools.

On the contrary. The language and platform is better to work with than ever and I can do everything I need, on Linux, with just Emacs and the CLI.

I couldn’t be happier!
Life's Countdown Begins
> why isn’t data definition — which is a much better fit, in my opinion, for a declarative model — also declarative?

My opinion on this one point (apart from DDL being ossified by the ISO standards) is that DDL being imperative is useful because it's used in migrations and imperative approach gives you more control over protecting existing data (i.e. not just the schema).

Some contrived examples:
1) shortening a varchar - are you sure you want to just trim the values or do you want to have the option of doing something with them?
2) renaming a column - would have to be a explicit, a special case in declarative DDL
3) dropping a column - maybe you want to transform the existing values instead of just throwing them away

Sure, it could all be probably handled even in a declarative DDL. My point is that in declarative DDL you would have to think to explicitly protect your data. In imperative DDL you see what you are doing.
In my experience the performance is nearly the same as without. The code is fairly optimised.

And I agree: one could use systemd-sysext with something like rpm-ostree to create very robust systems with selective immutability.
>Or maybe I'll join a bigger co-op than us three-old friends who don't sysadmin much anymore...

That's something i though about for a long time, something like sdf, with own hardware and a service that is comparable to google's (with the exception of search), some mail, some next-/own-/seafile cloud, mobile sync (push contacts calendar) could be done with SoGo..etc.
i use microtik.

It needs some getting used to, but preform well.

They have their clod versions also, but they keep putting out non cloud devices.
They name it frameworks, but they seem to rail against libraries instead. A framework is for application development, gives you a handhold and should solve 80% of non-functional problems like idk, API access, escaping, data(base) management, etc.

But a lot of the resources are of the 'you may not need jquery/underscore' variant, which is a different discussion.
The CERN have something exactly like that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25652503
As a general rule, the entire medical profession has the incentives set up the wrong way - the more problems you have, the more they benefit.

I have read that there was a time, in the distant past, where you paid a doctor only as long as you were healthy. I can come up with some problems even in that case, but I can't help but think it might still be an improvement over the current situation...
My phone can’t run an IDE or compile code, can’t run solid works, can’t be shared with multiple people, can’t render CGI, can’t mine BTC, and can’t run office, etc.

If this is a personal computer, solely because it runs a browser, then the goalposts have shifted dramatically.
What are you talking about? Advertising and marketing are among the oldest concepts and jobs in history and have since the early days of tv or journalism paid for free content.

If you have a new business idea that represents this third way... What are you doing here? Build a business and become a billionaire.
I tend to listen to pain points of friends or even random internet comments and seek to fix that, then have an incentive to get others.

Nothing huge but provides a living and backup over 9/5 job.

Main problem of asking friends is feedback in the form of "this is super" but often not super constructive.

But if it solves two people's problem, then it likely solves more than two. And iterate on that. Which can go from payment to organisational stubbornness to recognise their pain.
Because he can? It's fun to know where your data lays :)
It isn’t adtech, per se.
I'd say that was when he misread the signs, but probably was never going to be topdog in the deal. Maybe ego got in the way.
* systemd-cryptsetup gained support for unlocking LUKS2 volumes using
TPM2 hardware, as well as FIDO2 security tokens (in addition to the
pre-existing support for PKCS#11 security tokens).

that's really interesting. i'd have to look at the details, but it could mean we could have encrypted disks and have a machine boot unassisted.
I've started using React.js in 2014 and I'm still using it today. That's probably quite a lot of minutes TBH.

Month ago I've started another project - again React + Redux. I don't think React.js will disappear from the scene anytime soon.
Learn one framework quite well. I had the fortune in 2014 to be obsessed with making iOS apps and learned Cocoa Touch as a result.

Later when I learned React, I noticed there already were a couple if concepts that I saw before such as lifecycle methods, to the point I could guess what other lifecycle methods React might have.

Once you are on your fourth framework, while only knowing one well, it will feel all the same. At least it does to me.

The questions I ask are:

- what is the preferred way of working with this framework?

- what constitutes fighting against a framework?

- what concepts look a lot (or are identical to) concepts in other frameworks?

If learning is still difficult:

- who wrote a good beginner book?

When I was learning React, I read The Road To React in a few days, then made a small project, then an actual project.

When I really got serious, I had a lot of code already written that I reused as boilerplate/template code and would simply alter it and expand where necessary, learning more advanced concepts on the way.

YMMV
> I think it's an indictment of our current system.

Do you mean the USA, or tech in general?

In the UK, whilst there is VC money, it tends to be less, and more focused. I believe the bankruptcy laws in the US vs the UK are significantly different to the point where attitude to risk influences business start ups.

In the US, from this side of the pond, venture capital investment appears very cavalier, with VCs throwing money left, right and centre, hoping that they'll land on the next unicorn. In the UK, VC money is much more targeted on start ups with a plan to profitability.
Thanks for the detailed information. Unfortunately, the UK prices don't reflect the US prices, both on Amazon UK and other retailers here. The only way to get Ruckus gear that cheap (or cheaper) is to get them used on eBay. I think I'll probably go down the TP-Link Omada route as someone suggested elsewhere in the comments here. The feature set and prices look to be about right for me.
So a big problem with that is that the long term durability of transparency logs is doubtful. Being a record of every SSL cert ever issued, they're an enormous amount of data, and I won't be surprised if actually getting that data in the future becomes hard.

OTS just depends on the Bitcoin block headers (megabytes/year), and the databases of timestamps maintained by the public calenders, (a few GB/year; it's new entry per calendar per second). It's a more easier to archive a few GB of data than the tens of terabytes in the public CT logs.
I thought it was obvious that you, except for the most trivial systems, would have to roll some kind of replacement. The advantage of rolling your own would be that it could be a simpler, tighter, framework just for your specific use cases.

Just starting to code without any plan or architectural concerns, of course that will go to shit.

And maybe this points to one of the biggest advantages of frameworks. They force (inexperienced) developers into some kind of structure, where there otherwise would be none.
> The obvious: CMake compiles into either Makefiles or Visual Studio solutions, allowing for cross Linux / Windows builds.

I get that this is especially attractive for some companies earning money with Windows. But how important are contributions from developers on Windows for Linux distributions and the free software community? I think that most companies which use open source libraries on Windows are unlikely to give anything back.

Also, when it comes to things like networking and server software, Windows has many important differences, and is not that relevant at all any more. Well, every project will need to figure out on its own whether supporting Windows builds is worth the time and hassle.
Yes checkout iRedmail:

https://www.iredmail.org/
How do microservices replace web frameworks at all? Every microservice I've seen uses some web framework (django, flask, asp .net core, spring boot, etc).
You've been able to do LUKS filesystems auto-unlocked by TPMs before; the new thing here is just that systemd-cryptsetup can do it.
> And there was some restriction on the two files which matched checksums.

I know. That's why I mentioned the difference in difficulty between getting a collision in binary files and git commit objects themselves, and textual sourcecode.
Fun fact: Microwaves are also used on a larger scale to generate plasma, e.g. in the experimental fusion reactor Wendelstein 7-X (and I believe they've worked on that with the people from ITER as well). It's just that they use 1 MW instead of just 800 W or so :-)
I feel this guys pain. I too did the same thing with a startup, only at a much smaller scale.

Failure, sometimes, really is the only way to learn.
I have nothing against todo apps, on the contrary! In fact any improvement in that area/tools can easily affect thousands/millions of people, because organising work/projects/collaboration is needed everywhere.

What I would wish for was that to develop things that don't require native functionality (e.g. only need storage/ram/connection) that there was a unified, consistent, performant, API that allowed one to program against that, and have the owners of the OS provide that API, in this case the browser would be the closest (and many issues people have with it against native apps are solvable).

While it's almost sure that the money and time spent on providing native versions wasn't the sole reason, it just adds a gigantic overhead in many cases - as mentioned in the tweet, it's either time you have your devs dedicate to it instead of all other things, it's the continuous maintenance costs as now instead of having a source of bugs you have N, and new features have to be implemented across N, it's the limitations that it imposes in how and what can be implemented (it has to basically work to the lowest common denominator), the hoops you might need to jump to bring it on pair, and then if you use "wrappers" many times their performance is bad. And if you're using a tool to simplify your work you don't want to be wasting time on every interaction you have with it.

Or you can hire a team to do it for you, which brings costs and still management overhead and dependency or you can choose to develop only for web, but this then comes with the issues of not being normalised well enough.

Have an WebGL interface that scrolls a container and needs to interact with mouse/motion events? Well, outside of Chrome it's going to suck.
And etc...

As a consequence, given two ideas that are similar, those with much bigger pockets can outrun the UX and quality of their "adversary" products easily. In the process wasting thousands of hours and $ on just replicating the same thing across platforms.

This was my main point!
"How do I add two integers together with Twisted?"

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/7313761/how-do-i-add-two...
Exactly!

The problem is, when do you consider a library more than a library though? And when do you consider yourself more bound to the "framework" than not?

I'd say given the way that react completely inverts the way you structure the code you write, that's more of a framework packaged in a library. It's not a library you can just move away from (unless you like writing DOM compilers in your spare time, or you plan to move to one of the clones written by people who like writing DOM compilers in their spare time).

Do we consider Ruby on Rails a framework? And if so (because the site makes the distinction...) is it the kind we should only use until we can "code without it"? What about in Java-land, Spring or Struts or Hibernate (or even Swing, though that comes packaged with Java so maybe isn't included in the question) - should these be avoided or embraced? (for reasons other than the horror show that each might be)? And then there's PHP frameworks - too numerous to number, but given the pain of trying to write secure PHP code definitely worth considering - do the security benefits outweigh the risks?

I feel like the summary of the original post is "Know your stack" - and that's a great message - but the page conflates Frameworks (which are generally a good thing to use at least until you reach guru status) with spurious libraries that do next to nothing yet introduce another attack vector.

I'm all for developing apps with fewer dependencies - libraries or frameworks. Totally against developing apps without frameworks.
I've used a few light weight frameworks (e.g. re-dom, which is pretty nice) and recently a kotlin-js framework called fritz2. My observation is that even "heavy" frameworks like react are not all that complicated or particularly big. The reality is that most websites don't actually pull in a lot of external code in any case even if they do include a framework. There are a lot of build time dependencies but not a lot that ends up running in a browser with typical frameworks like react, vue, angular, etc.

So, the difference between using a framework and not using a framework in terms of the amount of code you need to write is not that large. Mostly frameworks are just about getting you to structure your code in a particular way. In react's case most of what it does is getting you to generate html via their templating language and having a thin DOM facade to make DOM updates less of a PITA to manage. That thin DOM facade is very easy to replace with something else. E.g. the re-dom code base is tiny and most of it is just some best practices around using the DOM api. React is a bit more elaborate in what it does but most of that is strictly speaking just nice to have and not really required with modern browsers.

Fritz2 is a Kotlin framework that emulates a lot of good stuff in other frameworks. It uses a Kotlin DSLs instead of templates, Kotlin's co-routines and StateFlows for managing state and handling events. Otherwise, it works more or less directly against the DOM. Seems to work and scale fine.
Null island is the place to be!

You might be able to set your bssid to all zeros or something to fight this tracking. Not sure if this would lead to your devices no longer associating though...
I agree with you. I clicked the link being ready to object and leave a comment and found that it was much more in line with my opinions than the title would suggest.

Literally the title isn't what the concept says it is. I think there is an element of marketing at play with it. Some of the alternatives seem tentative. Perhaps the Framework Skeptic Movement is better?

Like Scully in the X-Files, which I've been re-watching lately, you don't go in blind wanting to believe things are as they seem but you look for the evidence and if there is no better explanation then yeah maybe it was a man with a regeneration gene that can't be killed. Maybe relying on the framework is the best way forward.
This is one of the failings of SVG as a really good graphics format. The ideal solution would be to embed the font in your graphics file so that it will always be available to the renderer, but the font’s licence may not allow this. The second best thing to do is convert the text to curves, and embed a blank font which can hold the text. This trick is pretty common in PDF files, especially scanned documents with added OCR data.
I would be pretty hesitant to suggest not using a framework at a startup of all places (although really anywhere). They may seem overwhelming, but they are ubiquitous for a reason.
The problem with conan is that it is yet another language-specific package manager. This is especially fatal since the importance of pure C and C++ projects is shrinking in proportion, and both are more and more used in cross-language projects. And for the latter, I think a Linux distribution or a system like GNU Guix is much better suited.
Because it is super expensive to manage on your own, the point of insurance is to spread the cost over the society and reducing this type of financial risk to any one company. Basically a private version of what every other country does (we are just stuck in the dark ages).

Maternity/Paternity is extremely rare. Coverage is only 6 months out of a person's entire working career (multiple kids is still low).
Show HN: Anon – Create anonymous, self-deleting blog posts