skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Why dont you test how I drink from a cup of water to ascertain that I am able to function as a normal human being?

> Where is the line drawn?

The line would be drawn at the place where like 20% of people who interview at places legitimately can't solve fizz buzz.

If I lived in a bizarro universe, where 20% of people that I talk too legitimately can't drink a glass of water, then I might have to test for that as well.

Fortunately, we aren't in that kind of situation yet.

> If there is 20 years of programming experience it could be perceived as an insult in my opinion.

Ok, and what about the people who put 20 years of programming experience on their resume and are just making everything up, and legitimately don't know even the basics of coding?

Thats the problem that exists in the world. That there are people who you have no way of knowing how to actually code at all, and exaggerated to an extreme degree on their resume.

How else would you suggest figuring out if the person that I am talking to basically just completely made everything up, or is instead just such a good talker that they can bluff their way into people thinking that they know what they are doing?
It's definitely him. Having read Uncanny Valley, I'd take his advice with a grain of salt. Having met him in person, i'd say don't take it at all.
How does this startup plan to make money? Services?
I'm against the death penalty, but I would have no problem with seeing a corporation put to death in the worst situations.
My theory is that college has become too expensive to afford to drop out and start a company with a massive student loan bill that you may never pay off, and will cripple you with debt for a couple of decades.

Given that reality, it makes way more sense for someone to finish their degree, land a FAANG job, work a few years to pay off their debt/save, and then take a swing at a startup if they still have the itch.

This has changed the financing substantially, because an ex FAANG engineer is only going to do a startup if they can get back to a similar pay/lifestyle within a few years. This means the VCs have to write much bigger funding checks, and the companies need to have bigger ideas and reach unicorn status much more quickly.
I don’t have an answer for you. But I remember finding a lot of research on the subject published on First Monday many years ago:

Just the first hit searching now: https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1488
> Do you believe the earth is overpopulated? If so, and if you cannot live in such a way as to offset the damage caused by your existence, effective altruism calls for suicide.

I think that has a lot more to say about the belief the Earth is overpopulated (and the idea that living in a way to offset that damage is impossible) than EA. There are several pretty substantially misanthropic implications in this common belief that are not often well-examined, and (flaws with the EA approach aside) that a proper rational approach seems to point to a pretty drastic solution should cause us to re-examine these super commonly held (and flippantly repeated) ideas.

People say so flippantly that the Earth is overpopulated and there’s nothing I can individually do to offset my negative contribution, and that is just sort of jaw-dropping to me. I don’t think that realization is helpful, and I certainly don’t think you should blame effective altruism for pointing out the logical consequences.
If I send you a stolen iPod in the mail, do I forever taint your home address? Are you forced to accept it? No, of course not. You can return it to the police, throw it out, or return it to the sender. If you keep it and use it, then it becomes your problem. The same is true for Bitcoin. You can refuse any transaction output. You are not your address.

Edit: This post is being downvoted by people who don't want it to be true. Sorry folks, it is. Bitcoin is UTXO-based, and every output sent to your address is a unique piece of mail. If you don't like that, use an account-based system where it all gets mixed together.
Not AFAIA, though that's possible.

The original concept didn't have that.

Another approach was tried by Advogato, which had a "trust root" (ultimately Raph Levien). It was based around individuals rather than content and ... that also has issues. Nothing pathologically bad in the case of Advogato, though the site largely languished.

For Levien's concept, see http://www.levien.com/thesis/compact.pdf
If you are considering using this tool, then I would suggest that you seriously reevaluate your life choices. You should never run shell scripts without reading them first, ever. That is so irresponsible. Validating shell scripts will make you a more competent and informed worker. Tools like this breed incompetence, and encourage carelessness.
Good questions for discussion. There seems to be a commonly held or propagated assumption that GPL good other licenses un-ethical.
> When a command that is found to be a shell script is executed (see Shell Scripts), rbash turns off any restrictions in the shell spawned to execute the script.

Can you provide example of a scenario where this restricted shell is useful?
>that's like, three orders off from the kinds of problems that actually happen when you try to do political activism

I think this just goes to show how people who live in places with stable political institutions take them for granted and don't value what they have.

That you believe that political agitators who aim to destabilize institutions will face no problem greater than issues with fundraising or movement-building just goes to show that the conditions you live in are exceptionally stable.

In most of the world, movements for change being taken over by malicious, self-interested players is a very real, very serious risk.
None of these fines are about laundering money.

Also, showing these fines is a long way from "the most law breaking entities".

I do believe Wells Fargo got in trouble for helping launder money - and they spent a LOT of money to help fix it.
> If the rightful owner tracks it to you they can go "that's mine!" and the courts will order you to give it to them.

I don't believe that's true, though this is based on just stuff I've heard, not on any data I can present. In general I hear that if someone steals something, and then sells it to you, and you don't know (and have no reason to believe) it was stolen, not only are you not legally liable, but you cannot be forced to return the property to the original owner.

If this wasn't the case, the act of buying anything through a private sale would in general be pretty risky.

This goes pretty far sometimes: I remember a somewhat bizarre case where someone sold some land to someone, and lied to the buyer about where the property line was. The new owner built on what was technically someone else's land, but later the "true" owner lost in court, and the owner who built on it was given ownership rights, and I don't believe was required to compensate the "true" owner. (I imagine the "true" owner had a strong case against the lying seller, though.)
The British (well, everywhere really) have a lot of accents and dialects! Most of them never come to your awareness.
Narcissists love a system of no downvotes, and other forms of passive aggressive, group think.
You don't need to know whether a specific advocacy effort will work, only to estimate whether the overall expected value is high enough. And we know that when advocacy succeeds it can have upsides many many times the cost put in (and there aren't that many advocacy movements) so there is at least some hint that the expected value is large.

It feels kind of like a cop-out to say that you shouldn't pursue political change because you can't quantify how much good you'll do.
I suppose I was misinformed about how Plaid worked. I was under the impression that Plaid was similar to OAuth, where they didn't actually have the username & passwords.
I think severe regulation is more likely than Coinbase becoming the next NYSE, but the valuation suggests investors think the opposite.
Looking at my browser's memory reporting, strings take up about ~2-3% of total memory usage, most of which is probably ASCII. If it were UCS-2, that would make it ~5% of total memory usage, and UCS-4 ~10%. That's small numbers, but as a whole-program impact, it's significant enough to motivate performance engineers to actually try to compress those strings down a bit.
Enso – Hybrid visual and textual functional programming
Afaik, it's the custodian who requires KYC. The trading happens without. This might become a problem for custodians who now have a bunch of illegal coins. It'll be interesting to see how this will unfold.
all it takes is for one president in 2030s to create a new branch of gov that pays Google style salaries. would attract the best and brightest to write some powerful tools for all that, no?
It’s pretty much exactly as intuitive as “state of the art”—a term of art I didn’t understand as anything beyond a superlative until I had heard it for 20 years and decided to give it a think. Which is to say, not very intuitive at all, until you just pick it apart and think about how it might relate in context, and then it’s just reflexive.
If compromising the permissionlessness of Bitcoin is the only way for Bitcoin to come to a certain market, then perhaps it would be better for companies like Coinbase not to exist, and people who want to use Bitcoin should have to take the steps involved in self-custody.

To me, it's a shame to see. Now that Gmail and Coinbase have captured so much of their markets, they (or anyone who can coerce them) are now free to start censoring what goes in or out, turning a federated, permissionless system into effectively a dictatorship.

https://cryptobriefing.com/bitstamp-begins-track-off-exchang...

I really hope that's not what ends up happening. It's a bummer that financial services in the global west engage in such legally-mandated gatekeeping, locking billions out of the most lucrative payments markets. The internet and cryptocurrencies present a new opportunity there, and re-using the same decades old regulation to segregate the technology into the haves and have-nots is, to me, a tragedy.
I do not like terraform and I believe it's a terrible tool.

Here is the error you get when it fails:

Terraform does not automatically rollback in the face of errors.
Instead, your Terraform state file has been partially updated with
any resources that successfully completed. Please address the error
above and apply again to incrementally change your infrastructure.

If that error does not give you pause, I don't know what will.
It's basically YOLO-ing it and in case it does not work you're on your own.
It's also leaving you in whatever state and now you need to figure out what it managed to do, what didn't work and figure out how to 1) make it work 2) make terraform understand that it worked. Usually this happens at the worst time when you are deploying to production.

Do we want to talk about when plan "works" but it craps out on "apply"?
Or about when it just loses tracks of resources.

HCL? A disaster. Why would you need to invent your own language? Why oh why? Hashicorp also knows better. Remember Vagrant? Vagrant got it right with the DSL + you could always drop down to Ruby if you did something not covered by the DSL.

My advice to you: use whatever the cloud you are using has built it (cloudformation, deployment manager, etc).
To be fair, it is not (never mind the HN post title) “The Latino Programming Language”, it is “Latino, Lenguaje de programación“.
Google's FeedBurner getting modern infrastructure and shuts email subscription
you dont need to choose a container everytime. i have rules that certain sites always open on specific containers..

work stuff open on a specific work container..

facebook, twiter, youtube and fastmail each have their individual container.

there are even addons that allow you to have a individual container to be created for each site you visit..
And the record of not having a proper record.
> This article illustrates a big issue with people opposed to EA - they severely underestimate the risks associated with political change.

I think there is very little risk associated with political change, but the risk associated increases with the magnitude of political change. The fact that this even comes up makes me feel like most folks haven't actually tried to organize for a political cause. Yes, there are hot-button issues of our time, such as housing, healthcare, and UBI. But the vast majority of issues, from Celiac's sufferers to folks with nut allergies, are often a case of lack of awareness and resources rather than anything else.

There's also ways to derisk political participation, but that's a separate conversation.
Wrapping and KYC are orthogonal, although maybe most of the current implementations require KYC, no idea.

Cross chain atomic swaps are something else entirely. Typically they involve using timelocked multisig transactions that reveal a new part of a secret in each output, allowing both parties to redeem or both deposits to be refunded.
The problem is that you will want to query all persons with (say) a particular name regardless of the zing, and maybe join it with some related table (say, Address), but still want (as the client application) to receive the zing values. To represent the result with a single relation, you need (in the result) nullable fields for left zing and right zing, and then it makes more sense to have those in Person in the first place (plus a constraint that they are exclusive). The only alternative would be that the client receives several on-the-fly created relations as the result (i.e. LeftPersonsWithAddress and RightPersonsWithAddress), but then what about a sorted result? E.g. the client may want all resulting PersonsWithAddress sorted by ZIP code.
> nevertheless reflects the corpus of training data

I don't think "reflects the corpus of training data" gets entails "is therefore an objectively true fact". In fact, I think a lot of people that complain about AI gender stereotyping for jobs or personal traits would _exactly describe the problem_ as AI is "reflecting the corpus of training data".

I don't think anyone disagrees that the AI/ML learns things reflected in the corpus of training data.

My request for an example is one where the AI/ML is reflecting an "objective truth" about reality and people then object to that output. But "the AI/ML is reflecting an objective truth about the training data" fails to satisfy my request for an example, because it falls short of demonstrating that the training data was an accurate and objective reflection of reality.
I think there is a big ideological element to this. As a Rust outsider, I feel like it's the computer science embodiment of the current political discourse. There is something about the "one true cause" mentality, and the need to co-opt projects with other goals and steer them towards the cause.

Honestly, it is a really weird experience to have around a programming language, and to me is offputting for something that otherwise could have some very interesting merits.

I expect people wont agree with me, and I'm not arguing against the technical merits of the language, I'm just saying that it stands out because of the ideological following it has, and that is cause for concern if ideology is a big reason people try and push to integrate it in something as important as linux.
I would buy a crypto ETF before I would buy $COIN... what do you think DANG
Anything over $10k must be reported. Or anything that "looks suspicious". Or anything that "looks like it is trying to subvert the $10k rule"
I like this statement:

> The first law of queues is: Every queue should have a maximum size. Queues must not grow unbounded.

Unfortunately, unbounded resource is often used as a hammer to try preventing other smaller issues, with https://github.com/grpc/grpc/issues/8603 being a perfect example.
yep, he's there https://samuelzechin.bandcamp.com/album/whispers-of-the-soul

Thank you for the great suggestion!
Because the stock market is not the economy. Much of the gain in the s&p 500 has been from companies that benefitted from the quarantines—Apple, Amazon, etc.
I have come to see this "fading" as highlighting. Here as well as in the world at large. To be fair, most of the time the downvoted comment here is trash in one way or another, but sometimes it's gold. Often times it's neither and should be left alone.

See also ; https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/
Yeah, the quip about many people preferring to write SQL keywords in all caps as if that were somehow a defect of SQL struck me as being astonishingly asinine.
I want this to run my own shell scripts. I have a bunch of scripts that are halfway between "documentation" and "automation"; mostly the record of the last time I did X. Add a prompt to eval a command or two or change variables that are hard coded, and it's ipython for shell.
I read a bit online after this, and saw various recommendations for people with CDPs to keep more like 300% collateral.

If it dips below 150% the contract is automatically liquidated. Should give ample time for the creditor to get their money back.
Coinbase is directly and indirectly threatened by regulations. The direct threat is that the SEC, China, European regulators, etc. impose much stricter regulations on cryptocurrency exchanges like Coinbase, raising compliance costs until the business fails; indirectly, if the regulations are applied "downstream" to payment processors dealing in cryptocurrencies or to businesses accepting cryptocurrency payments. Another indirect threat is in the form of environmental regulations being more strictly applied to mining operations, which could be fatal for Bitcoin or any other PoW based system (yeah, sure, PoS, PoWhatever, but Bitcoin is half the market for cryptocurrency).

There is also an "inverse" regulatory risk for Coinbase. In the best case (where cryptocurrencies are actually being used as payment systems at any significant scale) cryptocurrencies fill a need that is not being filled by existing banks as a result of regulations on the financial industry. Instead of more stringent regulations being imposed on cryptocurrencies, less stringent regulations could be imposed on the mainstream financial system that would allow banks to create more convenient electronic payment systems. The need for a cryptocurrency exchange could implode if the relevant technologies (e.g. offline ecash) were deployed; you would "withdraw" or "deposit" money in the bank just like paper notes. There is even a case for such a system if banking regulations became stricter e.g. if banks were forced to deploy a less fraud-prone and more privacy-preserving system than the credit/debit card system in use today.
I heard about EA from a person I respect, and so that really colored my perception of it because I think he, specifically, wouldn't do such a bad job. But having some time to think about it, that's really the problem with it: we have a need for altruism to begin with largely due to the concentration of resources (=> power) in the hands of a few to wield for everyone else. It's a cute example and certainly no substitute for a more comprehensive argument, but: we have enough food for everyone on Earth - it is purely a property rights issue that we can't connect more hungry mouths with more uneaten food. There's no R&D to be done, there's no unsolved problem with a bounty on it: the commodification of food has guaranteed a huge amount of waste we can do nothing about because the market over-produces for big brained logistics reasons; and a bizarre web of property and tort law means it's even illegal to go diving into a dumpster for some of this wasted food, even if you're starving, because that's trespassing. And we wouldn't want a _lawless society_, would we? /s

The problem is is ultimately the concentration of power (in whatever form it takes, money or otherwise) in the hands of a few. EA claims that doing more of the thing that causes these huge problems like hunger and homelessness will actually somehow cause less of it. And if you think I'm being reductive, fine, but I would ask that you point out what I'm reducing and why it shouldn't have been.
No. At the height airplanes fly, any debris would just be falling almost straight down, if it even makes it that far (I think most would just burn up in the atmosphere anyway).

The reason debris in LEO is dangerous is because it's going really, really fast and continually orbiting for years so if there's enough of it eventually you'll run into something.
> If you can't use the software because you're a cloud provider, that's rules 1, 5 and 6 easy.

I may be mistaken but I thought cloud-providers can use it and offer it for others to use as well, they just can't charge for that. But I may be wrong.
> we cannot manually fix some minor mistakes of ours when creating resources because that'll mess up terraform

I find this to be the best advantage to Terraform. These small changes make your infrastructure harder to re-produce in the future; and unless you have strong documentation rules, you lost what is there in your infrastructure.
Aging society is another factor.
What are the more modern technologies you are referring to?
I really like this, my one concern is I really hate when projects have so many coming soon features. It feels like a very good way to over-promise.

Also I would love to see this used for mobile apps as well, I have many non-technical friends who if given a quality no code app builder could probably build great things. Keep up the good work, I'm looking forward to seeing this project progress
Are you in the least bit surprised?
A couple other sightings of my own:

Nine Inch Nails live rig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMXEvNUjgCg

Zola Jesus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx6hFRW3Lyg

Dan Deacon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEwpOKhLT7E

(The Teenage Engineering page includes, amongst many others, Depeche Mode, Ariane Grande, Timbaland, Animal Collective, Deadmau5, Usher, Bon Iver, Childish Gambino...)
I like Scott Berkun's book "Confessions of a Public Speaker". Berkun emphasizes practice. His focus is on talks, as distinct from meetings, which is what I interpret to be your interest.

In meetings, I would continue to listen hard, and make note of critical points - and then after the meeting, have a quick chat with someone else from the meeting and share an observation or two. You can build confidence and reputation that way. In the meeting proper, if you get flustered, slow down. You belong there and people want to hear what you have to say. One approach is to focus first on the thing that you think people really need to hear, and then explain it.
“At the same time, developers still see value in writing type annotations as they serve as documentation.”

Also useful for autocomplete.

For me, most of the value of typing is at the function level: what does this function accept as input and what does it produce as output?

Also mypy gets in the way of using loop constructs, as the iterating variables have to be predeclared with typing before the loop, breaking encapsulation.
The Walmart gift card will only get you so far.

You can't: buy a fancy boat, car, or house. You can't pay for your kids school supplies (or school tuition), or treat your wife to a fancy hair do.

The money laundering laws try to stop people dealing in tens of thousands of dollars, who LIVE off of the money.
I live in Adjuntas and no amount of cats would eat this many frogs - fortunately!

They tend to quiet down during dry spells, so our rain last week has made things sound much nicer.
> Code that treats UCS-2 as "wide ASCII" can be subtly wrong even for western european languages.

It can be. But critically for this conversation, fixing your code to support emoji and other non-BMP characters doesn't necessarily fix those problems.