skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There were a bunch of academics in a certain rich EU country that dumped a lot of research dollars into UML (via their own research and their control of funding agencies and committees). That they’ve mostly retired by now probably has a lot to do with rapidly declining interest in UML.
Android is pseudo-Java and there are a couple of AOT compilers for iOS, Java definitely cuts it.
There can be a stage between "I have kind of an idea of what this is supposed to be" and "I'm ready to code this", where you think carefully about what this thing is actually supposed to be, and how it's supposed to behave and interact. It's not amiss to think for a bit before creating the code.

I'd rather spend some time making sure I'm building the right thing, rather than testing that what I built correctly does the wrong thing.

On the other hand, if you want to argue that UML is not the optimal way to do that, you could make a case. It makes you think through some questions, but those may not be the only questions, and there may be other ways of thinking through those areas than drawing diagrams.

And if you want to iterate your designs, UML is a painful way to do so. You'd want to design in some other medium that is easier to change. (Maybe something text based?) But if you're thinking through all the design issues in another medium, and iterating the design in that other medium, then why produce the UML at the end? To communicate the design to other people - that's the point of UML. But if you can communicate the design better using something else (like maybe the medium you actually design in), then why produce the UML?
+1 for the term "graphical IPC." It is a huge pet peeve of mine that native apps choose to push new views onto navigation controllers instead of just opening a new window. They're looking to invent browsing history when there shouldn't be any (and if you need browsing history - use a browser!).
You can do this with chains of vulnerabilities, including but not limited to insecure redirects, CSP bypasses, insecure cookies. Another useful technique is session fixation - you give your victims sessions you've started and often their SSO experience will connect _their_ credentials to _your_ session.

Also to distinguish between #3 and, XSS in #2 was intended to mean "persistent stored XSS" as opposed to "reflected XSS". In the case of reflected XSS, this can be chained with CSP bypasses and insecure cookies to grab out e.g. bearer tokens.

My overall point is that heap fung shui 0day not required for 1-click ownage. In practice, I've not had to burn browser 0day to compromise organizations or their customers.
How would a candidate feel about an offer that was at the bottom of the range? How would an employer view a candidate who accepted an offer at the bottom of the range? I’m not sure this would serve either party well, in what could otherwise be a successful hire.
The C++ parser has been completely rewritten in the last few years to push the current code generation design to its limits. The biggest obstacle in the way of optimizing it further is legacy APIs, especially std::string for string fields, which forces tons of small heap allocations and frees and defeats the benefits of arena allocation.

Changing very widely used APIs is not easy, these things take time.
sequence diagram is a great way to understand events between components/systems more so than diving into the code base.
The cost would actually make sense if it were all tunnels. Japan's newest Shinkansen route will be 90% tunnels, and it's estimated at $90bn for 180 miles. Tunneling is expensive as hell.
It's possible to tell the four being cheated without telling them the fifths salary.
There was no rich/poor distinction in my example.

The only variant is local vs federal funding.

And comments to 'who does the park value more', is irrelevant as well. The park could be substituted with anything with any moral (or immoral) value.

If it cost 10$ in resources to cure cancer for everyone in the world forever, the federal government would be able to do it for 10$, while for the local government it would cost 12$, 10$ to cure cancer and 2$ in taxes paid to the federal government by it's constituency.
Yeah that's what I was referring to by "not anymore".
How does FMC compare to SysML?
> PlantUML is great but suffers from having ... ugly default style ...

I quite enjoy the C4 diagram stylings: https://github.com/plantuml-stdlib/C4-PlantUML
It's interesting that you chose VSCode + Go plugin rather than IntelliJ Community + Go plugin?
On my job we used custom Xcode file parser / editor, and serialisation part is trivial. The file paths are not modified manually in any way. The complex part is the model, PBXProj object.
As a F# dev, grain is ocaml-ish.
Not OP but my layman's understanding is that it would just be two GUI windows communicating over standard IPC. The current trend is for the entire application to be represented as a singular window, using navigation or tab controllers to switch between views rather than popping them out into their own windows.
PlantUML & other tools exists for quite a long time
Proximity detection using wi-fi
I makes me think about how I approach really difficult problems. I use a strategy that I call: "obsess and let go" that has worked wonders for me.

Essentially it has two parts:

- obsession: look at the problem intently, poke it, prod it, think about experiments, talk to other people until you're completely blocked and making absolutely no progress.

- letting go: forget about it, go do something else, exercise, take a vacation, paint, attack a different problem, go to a bar, whatever makes you let go (truly let go).

Eventually, as if by magic, at some unknowable time later (could be days or years), while doing something else the beginning of solution pops into consciousness, like a thread that needs to be pulled and as if by magic the whole problem untangles.

I have no clue why this works (I assume the subconscious part of the brain never really lets go after a good obsessive phase), but it does work more often than not.

The hard part is dealing with outside expectations.
> President Biden's plan would revolutionize the way Americans travel, finally launching U.S. passengers into the 21st century

How sad that our trains suck so badly.
Thoughts on reducing the cyclical nature of this industry?
If you want a paid one, bedrock saas by max stoiber?

If free blitz.js? Not so many things builtin though
More precise would be to say "graphical IPC control" or "graphical IPC initiation." I'm trying to point to the ability for users in a graphical environment to coordinate intricate communication between processes. Copy/paste and drag-n-drop are canonical examples, but I'd say that macOS tools like Alfred should also count.
I see some arguments for static typed languages as well. And some notes on performance, but mainly static types.
I recently read that China is expanding their rail network extra-fast now because the labour costs are still low; they expect them to rise soon. The other things are a factor as well, of course, and their expertise must definitely be growing by leaps and bounds as well.
NSA isn’t likely to tacitly compromise whatever unknown capabilities they have in order to participate in domestic law enforcement. I’m much more worried about ATF-proofing and FBI-proofing the system than NSA-proofing it.

Also, to be blunt, 1,000 compute-years is no barrier to the NSA anyway.
As I said to a different poster: this is a shameless strawman. Instead of arguing with me about what I actually want or the features of the car I actually purchased, you're inventing a fictitious consumer of a car that isn't actually for sale and trying to tell me why I didn't buy the car I did for the reasons I think I did and/or why it doesn't actually do what I know damn well it does.

All because you apparently can't handle the fact that Tesla's $10k FSD package actually provides value to consumers?

I mean, be real: I almost certainly know more about this vehicle's capabilities than you do, and I assure you that I am more expert on my own purchasing logic.
The devil is really in the details. Pixar and Disney throw scenes at Renderman for overnight rendering jobs where each node loads up to terabytes of data per frame (geometry, textures, volumes...). So the renderer contains tons of tricky optimizations under the hood to support that crazy amount of data. Other renderers like Cycles use pretty much comparable physical models for everything and create almost identical output for simple scenes. But most of them would crash and burn spectacularly of they had to deal with scenes at the size these studios produce.

[Even though you could theoretically generate a lot of detail, especially textures, algorithmically on the fly, nobody goes for that: the only known good way to band limit textures for level of detail reduction without aliasing artifacts is to sample and filter them - generating the whole texture anyway.]
Only in spirit. NeXTStep's ProjectBuilder was GNU Make based, and IIRC it directly edited Makefiles (restricted subset of make - and you weren't supposed to touch them by hand) and also had a PB.project file that contained some limited metadata.

What became Xcode started out life as "Project Builder" (with a space), which was where the pbxproj file format was introduced. This debuted with Mac OS X (possibly circa DP4?) and was a ground-up rewrite - new UI, new project format, new build system (originally it used Jam, a little-known build system created by Perforce, before switching to something custom... IIRC it would generate an ephemeral Jamfile at build time).

For a while both could be installed on the same system - you needed ye olde NeXT ProjectBuilder for WebObjects 4.5 projects, and it was known as ProjectBuilderWO on Mac OS X for a while as a result.
In strategic terms it also "inverts the information asymmetry" they like to exploit; "We're a company and you're just one person with an idea of how much you should make" becomes "You're just a little company, this is what the largest employer anywhere thinks I'm worth".
Almost Killed Me
We need large scale green energy build out projects like we did for fossil fuels.

That is more of a grind rather than a big bang quick reward.

Think of it like leveling up to make ones character super robust as opposed to a few high power weapons.

Risks go way down, agency improves and future people thank us rather than regret us.
> although the tsc says it works, I always have a suspicion it could not work. Whereas with Java if it compiles it definitely works unless you have some R build issue

That's not true, right? AFAIK, the Java type system is broken and any type might silently be another type which doesn't support any of the methods the static type would indicate. It's basically as type safe as C in my eyes.
I dunno I disagree—the fact is a lot of people just dive into coding and don’t spend much time with design.

There’s a ton of value in the idea of diagramming code and then generating sources. UML is a starting point but the journey is far from over.

The more appropriate idea is that you create documentation in the form of diagrams for free. Just like in TDD you get unit-tests for free.

Folks always talk about self-documenting code—and that’s great. But what about conveying a complex system to a new team of engineers? Diagrams are frankly priceless if done well.

Also, looking at something like Kubernetes where a declarative YAML file generates magic underneath is somewhat similar. A step beyond what we have would be nice diagramming capabilities over the YAML to auto generate the plumbing underneath.

Personally, I think future advances in development _will_ be done as higher level ideas—pictures worth a thousand lines of code—AI will do the rest.
It used to be a lot more expensive! IIRC, they had a per thread-ish licensing scheme for a while (maybe blocks of 4 or 8 threads?). Lots of software did in the late 2000s.

Then a few years ago, to stem the tide from Arnold (which was 1000 euros per node), they lowered their price to this current $600 price point and free for academic/non-commercial. They kept MPC/Technicolor and ILM as well as many smaller shops, but the other major studios either have their own renderer (including Disney Animation!) or use Arnold.
Yup many migrated from node js
تحميل برنامج Smart Game Booster تحسين النظام لتشغيل الالعاب مع التفعيل
The 100% return creates a liability to return the revenue to the buyer.
Everything the author writes about is VASTLY different nowadays, but lots were false in 2014 too.
That's why this needs to be a law - to create an incentive where one would otherwise not exist.
That's fair. The problem is that Blender is very much a 'jack-of-all-trades' application. It tries to do everything from modeling to sculpting to texture painting to particle systems to rendering... that's something like 3-4 different commercial applications.

If someone is doing hard surface modelling in Blender, I would be shocked if they didn't have Hardops and Boxcutter (and MACHIN3Tools, but that's free). If they're doing environments or characters, maybe not (although auto-rig pro for character work is magic).
Nah, I never used any of these addons although I know what they do, so they are far from essential. I use "Sverchock" for procedural modelling and "Animation Nodes" for procedural animation on the other hand both are free. Furthermore, the basic Blender distribution ships with a tons of free addons at first place.

Now should Blender improve their topology tools? Of course and I have no doubt with all the grants Blender foundation got that they will.
This comment is so hilarious to me. I was a Java programmer for 8+ years. Go throws all the boilerplate away. The multiple layers of abstraction. The AbstractFactorySingletonProxyFactoryBeans. All the singleton static classes, and builder patterns, and the stuff that just makes me shudder these days. Instead what you get is a balance between needed features and beautiful simplicity. The code is almost always understandable in Go. It's right there in front of you! Yes! Everything is a loop or a "for range"! It's the most beautiful part. It means I can read a page or two of code and understand 100% exactly whats going on. Contrast that with Java, where you often had to dig, on average, 8 layers deep to get to the root functionality, it's a breath of fresh air. The best part about Go arguably is it's a get shit done language, and it detracts the type of architecture astronaut types that love to overcomplicate and overengineer everything, if not sheerly by the lack of ability to do so (which is why so many who love Go today fear the incoming generics)

Anyways, just my two cents as a almost decade long "enterprise" java developer, who has used his fair share of netflix packages as well.
The entire thing is on GitHub, so if you think you can build it for less then go ahead!
Swift on the Server (2020)
I learned Java long time ago and have worked on a number of large projects. I agree that it is easier to maintain code in Java. The downside, as the author described, is the verbosity of the language.

Python is a wonderful language and exemplifies the "essence" of programming in that it nearly looks like pseudocode on a whiteboard. The syntactic overhead is minimal. I liken it to solving an algebra problem with pencil and paper - you would never write "int x = 5" on paper, just "x = 5."

It's this simplification that makes Python a joy to use...but also difficult to maintain. Programmers have to get in the habit of following code style guidelines, rather than being (somewhat) coerced into them by strong typing.

A simple example of this is the question: Where does a Python program start? If I provide a Python script, the reader would have to scan from top to bottom to see the first non-definitional line of code. With Java, there is no ambiguity; it is the main function. A company may declare a style guidline that requires Python programs define a main-check function such as:

if __name__ == "__main__":
main()

but the developer needs to learn this policy.
Exactly this. The critically acclaimed and profitable films are in a sense just adverts for the tool. They're proof that you could not only have an Oscar-winning movie that used this tool for effects, you can make the entire movie with this tool.

See also: Disneyland. People really like Disneyland, and it's profitable for Disney, but it's also one enormous advertisement for their products.
You seem to want to have a general car vs. train debate. You picked the wrong comment to reply to.
The idea was if you found that the model was lacking in some way, you would update the model and regenerate your code. In practice that just didn't work, or at least it didn't result in saving any time or in producing better software.
Just started reading these books aloud to my children. IIRC, a particularly vivid passage involves the Mallock children playing with some tubercular lungs, their rosy cheeks aglow
My teacher in Software Engineering that "taught us" that UML is used everywhere in CS and business. Looking up their CV, they only had two years of experience outside academia, and that was 20 years ago.
Because the more mathematically rigorous and pure a description is, the more likely that your programmers won't carefully read the spec, or won't fully understand the exactly meaning of the UML arrows.

It doesn't help that every UML diagram I've ever seen is ugly. There are always way too many jagged lines, and seemingly random attachment points. (Example: https://tallyfy.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Class-Diagram...). In the little triangle, one line goes straight down, and one goes to the side. Is going to the side special? Or just a random artifact of the diagram? Without being an expert, it's hard to know.

With written-language descriptions, it's easier to be rigorous enough for all programmers.
Most of the delays and lack of consistency come from the rail lines being controlled by other interests. Amtrak is always lowest on the priority totem pole, and is routinely forced to yield to freight lines for hours at a time arbitrarily and without notice.

Lack of high speed rail is an orthogonal issue, and is constantly conflated with fixing the current state of affairs. we don't even have standard passenger rail yet! We need to build more cheap track to connect areas first.

Rail travel is far more efficient than flying, both environmentally and economically. Flying is heavily subsidized in ways that rail is not, and that tends to hide the externalities.

Rail has also been set up to fail with metrics like direct profitability, which is entirely not the point of public transportation. It's like claiming the entire value of a road is the toll money it generates.
About 2 decades ago, the micro-controller world was extremely closed. If you needed an IDE, compiler or debug tool there was no choice besides ugly proprietary options. Then arduino happened.

Boards that support Symbiflow are the arduinos of FPGA.
Post-Colonial Bad Jokes
The US highway system did pay for itself out of gas taxes. The highway trust fund was set up for this purpose. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_Trust_Fund . In recent years the highway trust fund has not been adequate, for two reasons: one, Congress diverted money from the highway trust fund to fund things that were not highways, and two, the value of the tax didn't keep pace with inflation and it hasn't been increased recently.
Any idea what a "character glove" is? A web search just turns up halloween costumes. Does he mean glyph?
Interesting, thanks for the clarification, however why do libraries depend on what should be implementation details of generated code to start with?

Something that by good CI/CD practices shouldn't even be part of checked in code.
NYC to Montreal (~370mi) takes ~8 hours by bus and 11 hours by train, though granted, times at Customs is more variable for the bus than for the train. I'm often surprised at how much the train shakes side to side on the occasions it's going "fast".

Contrast that to the TGV in France, which zooms around at 200mph and covered one of my trips between Paris and Avignon (~430mi) in ~2.75hrs about a decade ago. US train infrastructure feels extremely behind in comparison. Perhaps it's because of a greater emphasis on highway travel.
A downside to an employer is it limits their options before they have all the information. They might be able to get a bargain on an employee who would have taken the job for less than the minimum.

It can also be a bad starting point for a hire who takes a job for pay at the very low end, that their value has been pegged at the bare minimum. The new hire may be fine with it when the position is clearly an advancement for them but for others they may resent the assessment of their worth even though it's more likely based on market realities and/or the organization's finances.
hmm, I even use VS Code for Java
You can always apply for those remote jobs and ask for the same salary.

As someone who has always been on fully remote teams, I've found that ease of communication and time zones are a big deal.

If someone is harder to communicate with (English is a second language) or doesn't overlap with the rest of the team's work day and costs the same as a dev in the US, I may end up going with the dev in the US.

People who says pay should be about value provided are ignoring several things, including: 1) I have no idea how valuable someone is before I hire them, and 2) it's much easier to trust employees who are in the same legal jurisdiction as me (which has a value).

For example, I have two devs in South Asia who cost half of a US dev each, but they're also not very independent and they have very limited skills. They make a lot of money for their country and the price for the value is exactly right for me.
You could argue that, but the data disagrees.
You can write TF in Java. Most don't, for a good reason. Python is the first class citizen, everyone uses it, you can find help most easily for it, its data science ecosystem dwarves Java's, you'll have a hard time convincing scientists to port their Python notebooks into Java, etc.

As for web frontends, we've also already had GWT. In most cases you're better off going with the grain and using JS/TS, for obvious reasons.

I can continue for a while with examples where Java is inappropriate. Another one would be system daemons that need to use minimal memory. There is Graal but it has so many caveats that I can't really take it seriously yet (and I've tried, multiple times). In this same vein, serverless applications are generally more painless with languages whose ecosystems emphasize fast startup, which Java historically has been terrible at. And on top of that you'll pay for the memory the JVM hogs.
I think folks are missing the forest for the trees: he's saying pick a language to really focus on and own it. That's your big tool now. Of course there will be other tools for more specific contexts. But having one big popular language in your tool belt (regardless of what it is) is better than skimming the surface of the tool-de-jour, especially as that tool is likely de jour because it satisfies an en-vogue concept.
I did not single out Amtrak. The topic of the article is Amtrak. It is a dysfunctional organization, and that does become less true if it's Nixon's fault.
And useful!

"Though the first five terms match the geometric progression 2n − 1, it diverges at n = 6, showing the risk of generalising from only a few observations."

I will use it when training others.