skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Just to re-enforce this, this article is all about context. It's making it very clear that in this organisations context this method of deployment and production is absolutely fine. And that's the key thing, you can keep things this simple for as long as your risk assessment says so.

The key for me is making sure you are taking the time to reassess those early life decisions so when the time comes you can course-adjust
No less trustworthy than the NYT.
This sounds like UMLs job is to be drawn after project is complete for documentation/refactoring, rather than as a design tool.

I think the proper comparison is then a suite of test code
I wrote "is moving". Nothing has been published yet that has been developed using SysML, the first standard will be the next edition of one of ISO 10303-242 or 239 or the first edition of ISO 10303-243.
Personal Rapid Transit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit
he blocked raw materials for the vaccine that's why india couldn't produce enough vaccines.

Xiden is murderer
That doesn't seem to preclude hardware assistance. For example they have also explored hardware acceleration for the tcmalloc fast path allocation by adding circuits to general purpose CPUs. Arguably, Intel BMI descends from a request that Google made years ago to speed up protobuf decoding (and other workloads) on x86.
It’s not as flexible, doesn’t support self hosting and is way more expensive, I’ll stick with Grafana
> chip production needs A LOT of water

Why is that? I would expect chip production to be a relatively small scale process compared to almost any other industries, simply due to the small amount of material involved.

For example, how many CPU dies can you fit in a shampoo bottle or a pack of printer paper?
This is correct. The format was really nice during the NeXTStep era. It was an simple ASCII plist file called PB.project. It could be edited by a human.

When Apple started "improving" stuff it turned into the SomeProject.pbproj/project.pbxproj file and was not editable by a human. This file would later become SomeProject.xcode/project.pbxproj and then SomeProject.xcodeproj/project.pbxproj all the while getting worse and worse and less editable and less readable/understandable.

Here is the entire project file (PB.project) for IORegistryExplorer from Mac OS X 10.0

{
APPCLASS = NSApplication;
DYNAMIC_CODE_GEN = YES;
English_RESOURCES = {};
FILESTABLE = {
CLASSES = (
RExplorer.m,
"RExplorer-OutlineDelegate.m",
"RExplorer-BrowserDelegate.m",
CustomOutlineView.m,
RSearch.m,
RBool.m
);
English_INTERFACES = (IORegistryExplorer.nib);
FRAMEWORKS = (AppKit.framework, Foundation.framework, IOKit.framework, System.framework);
FRAMEWORKSEARCH = ();
H_FILES = (
RExplorer.h,
CustomOutlineView.h,
"RExplorer-OutlineDelegate.h",
"RExplorer-BrowserDelegate.h",
RSearch.h,
RBool.h
);
IMAGES = (IORE.tiff);
INTERFACES = ();
OTHER_LINKED = (IORegistryExplorer_main.m);
OTHER_RESOURCES = (IORE.icns);
OTHER_SOURCES = (Makefile.preamble, Makefile, Makefile.postamble, CustomInfo.plist);
SUBPROJECTS = ();
};
LANGUAGE = English;
MAKEFILEDIR = "$(MAKEFILEPATH)/pb_makefiles";
NEXTSTEP_APPICON = IORE.tiff;
NEXTSTEP_BUILDTOOL = /bin/gnumake;
NEXTSTEP_DOCUMENTEXTENSIONS = ();
NEXTSTEP_INSTALLDIR = "$(SYSTEM_DEVELOPER_APPS_DIR)";
NEXTSTEP_JAVA_COMPILER = /usr/bin/javac;
NEXTSTEP_MAINNIB = IORegistryExplorer.nib;
NEXTSTEP_OBJCPLUS_COMPILER = /usr/bin/cc;
PDO_UNIX_BUILDTOOL = $NEXT_ROOT/Developer/bin/make;
PDO_UNIX_INSTALLDIR = /Applications;
PDO_UNIX_JAVA_COMPILER = "$(JDKBINDIR)/javac";
PDO_UNIX_OBJCPLUS_COMPILER = "$(NEXTDEV_BIN)/gcc";
PROJECTNAME = IORegistryExplorer;
PROJECTTYPE = Application;
PROJECTVERSION = 2.8;
WINDOWS_BUILDTOOL = $NEXT_ROOT/Developer/Executables/make;
WINDOWS_INSTALLDIR = /Applications;
WINDOWS_JAVA_COMPILER = "$(JDKBINDIR)/javac.exe";
WINDOWS_MAINNIB = "IORegistryExplorer-windows.nib";
WINDOWS_OBJCPLUS_COMPILER = "$(DEVDIR)/gcc";
}

Simple. Elegant. Usable.
> despite being an outspoken atheist, he deeply loved his wife to the extent that he wrote a letter to her after she had passed away.

I honestly don't see how the first part of the sentence factors into the second part.
Yeah, this is like a market where you need to enter the shop, stand in a long line, and only at the cash register you are told how much the items cost. If you think they are too expensive, feel free to try your luck at the next shop, and if the day is long enough you might even try three or four shops. Great for people who have enough vacation days!
>People who are not ready to invest now should be able to save their earnings without having to worry about their savings losing value.

You can. It's called a CD. They currently return about 0.8%, which is the max you're ever going to get for a "risk free" investment right now. Anything beyond that is going to be some form of speculative investment. This is precisely why the stock market has become so inflated.
If you can make your app fit in a single binary and you do not _need_ Docker's features, then yes, I don't see why you'd bother using it. Docker shouldn't be your immediate go-to. It's just another tool that can help with some problems.

Things do become more complicated when your app is a single logical unit that depends on a number of resources / services. Maybe you want an nginx reverse proxy in front of it, a database engine behind it; maybe Go isn't the only language you're going to use. Maybe you want the ability to effortlessly run the exact same setup as your production environment somewhere else without having to run a bunch of Ansible playbooks on the target host, and without worrying about the Linux distribution on it. Docker and docker-compose can help with these use-cases and get you up and running quickly.

I'm not saying Docker is ever a _necessity_. But it can be a great convenience. In the end, use the simplest solution that fits your requirements, and make sure you can extend it later on if those requirements change.
I feel like my ideal workflow would be a middleground between doing the design up front and just jumping into coding. Before you start coding I feel like you don't have much of an idea of what problems you will run into, resulting in diagrams based on the wrong assumptions. But with code it's easy to loose track of the high level structure of what you are writing. Writing code, then diagramming the high level structure, and then going back to fix the code seems like a good way to go.
Since it tends to be used in the same sentence as authentication, and the differeces are both subtle and hugely important, the visual Z vs. N is helpful, and even pronouncing it is helpful to maintain the distinction.

They are so easy to conflate that it can create a lot of confusion whereby a semantic difference quickly becomes a category error.
A lot of modern tooling has come from people using microservices instead of making libraries. If you actually just write libraries it turns out you don't need to solve distributed systems problems, orchestration and configuration management as part of your normal development cycle.
Why Are Northern Countries More Successful Than Southern Ones?
> Maybe the automakers will make their own fabs. Which is what is really needed.

Seems like a massive investment in something that isn't their core competency (at all) for a 6-month disruption that hits ~once a generation+. It'd be a lot cheaper to just pay a foundry for reserved capacity, to stockpile a year supply of chips, or engineer cars to have more options for chips.
> From where I sit, the main improvement over the last 40 years has been the widespread adoption of third party libraries.

I'd say, as a direct corollary, the prevalence of API-driven services have been a welcome change.
Yeah, we should use deploy tools instead.

$ cat deploy.sh

#!/bin/sh
scp app user@host;
ssh user@host "nohup ./app"

At some point you have to use something to get it to the production server. Why not scp?
Not really. It’s mostly Java and Go.
The Canadian perspective is that all engineers are licensed engineers. An unlicensed engineer is illegal
A bus route can do all that and more. A car is even more flexible because you can stop, get out, and become part of the landscape.
Saying it has “mostly never been true” and dismissing this as a “Meme” couldn’t be more off.

A lot of programmer effort in any organization goes towards supporting existing software, which in the Java ecosystem tends to full of all the factory non sense. I’m sure these concepts started off in the J2EE space, but it’s infected a lot of different types of projects because people assumed these patterns were “good” or inherently part of Java. And here we are now dealing with the mess.
Down the road, pulling the binary in a container for deployment is trivial, so I don’t see a downside here. Of course nobody will advocate that scping a binary on each production server for deployment is viable in the long run, but that should not be your primary concern when going through the early phases of a product.

Not focusing on docker from the start forces you to have a clean build and runtime software chain, and reduces the amount of magic required (ironically, going to containers was supposed to be the opposite, but many server-side packages are now docker-only because the build and/or runtime requirements are so messed up, e.g. discourse).
I've said this about Mr Gates before in comments on similar HN posts - it's like the guy can't help himself, he sees a pile of money and his eyes flash dollar signs.
Happy to! Looks like the website broke during updates. The bios used to be there. Hopefully it will be fixed soon.

Soon...
Not from what I read. They mentioned there were multiple commits on stable branch.
I think there’s a very strong argument for trying to have only one language at your company, or at least one backend language. Of course you’re still going to have some scripts, and some config-based programming for infrastructure and whatnot, but otherwise you should basically aim for a single (backend) language IMO.

Assuming you’re doing reasonably high level work (like building a typical SaaS product, not a database), I also think you’re probably best off choosing a language with the following properties:

- statically typed

- garbage collected

- reasonably performant

- reasonably easy to hire for, or at least pretty quick to learn

- compiles pretty fast

- has a strong ecosystem, great libraries/frameworks/tooling

Java fits, but so do Go, C# and TypeScript. This article says Go is too new, C# not cross platform enough - both true in 2014, but not 2021. And it doesn’t mention TypeScript, but it was VERY new in 2014, so understandable. It’s performance isn’t as good as the other 3, but has the major advantage of letting you have a single FE and BE language for a lot of projects. My current company is full stack TS (RESTful services with TS/React on the web, TS/React Native on mobile), and it’s very convenient/productive most of the time.

Scala is my personal favourite language, but I’ll agree it’s too hard to hire/train for to be a practical choice. But Java has plenty of competition from Go, C# and TypeScript.
> we did get a little more complicated and create a SystemD script to launch it at startup

If only there was a tool to:

- bundle, distribute and deploy applications

- ...and configuration files

- ...and systemd unit files

- ...even directories containing a Python virtualenv

- keep track of what is installed and in what version

- roll forward or roll back

I would call it Advanced Packaging Tool.
The main reason I push for Docker containers is that it's a universally-understood encapsulation of an app or service amongst technical and non-technical people alike. "I'll have John write a Docker service that handles the integration" is an easy goal for both management and John to understand. Behind the scenes, we can use some fancy deployment or just run it on a single machine like the author describes.

I would definitely not be okay with an engineer in my organization telling me their plan is to ignore CI/CD, especially in the present age where GitHub Actions is trivially easy to set up, and rather set up some custom procedure over SSH. Technical choices aside, it fails the "hit by a bus" test - if you disappear for some reason, or even just your laptop gets stolen, does the company grind to a halt?
So still 8 months left. Wonder what they mean by "basic functionality"

The current FSD beta test is the best that's available on a car you can buy. However the instructions say "be ready to take over at any time", so it's obviously level 2 currently
why colonial theguardian proapganda is a dire problem for the world?
And I assure you they are very happy to educate me.
The Things They Won’t Believe
It's not all software though. There must be an office somewhere where any actual real world assets are somehow linked to tokens.
This is what puzzles me. When you add that one office, you loose the decentralization aspect and then what's the point of it all?
> how much the train shakes

Roadbeds are maintained to freight train standards, e.g., the difference in height of the two rails.

Amtrak depends on the "host railroads" who are not very hospitable to passenger traffic.
I have read about the original case for JIT. Toyota and others, for example, do not hold the parts but bully their suppliers into holding them. They implicitly recognise the need for maintaining inventory but have forced someone else to bear the costs of maintaining it.

HN is not usually biased against taxes which is the subtext I see in your original post. There are bad policies and unintended consequences to some taxes.
It's not that software engineers are not capable of doing the same when required (e.g. in the firmware for NASAs mars rovers, etc.) but that usually software engineers don't do that because there is a better alternative.

If architects could build a house multiple times a day while slightly rearranging the layout every time they'd do that in a heartbeat.
> But we have software we need to ship in order to get users in order to drive subscriptions. Anything that doesn’t directly serve that goal is a complication.

I think you're only seeing Docker as a packaging format and missing the distribution aspect. There's a lot of value in telling users "My app is accessible with a single `docker run` command", that doesn't involve them downloading a standalone binary manually, placing it in their PATH, etc., and also works across platforms and operating systems. Or worse, having to setup the Go toolchain and compile it themselves, no matter how easy it is for a developer (and ignoring what can go wrong with Go modules).

Of course, then you open yourself up to all sorts of support questions related to Docker, but I still think it's a missed opportunity to not use it to make your software as widely and most easily accessible as possible.
by your criterion clang was not "compatible with the existing C code base" for many years, and therefore a "non-starter". History would have proven you wrong.
I'm aware of that. I don't think amtrak is a good alternative to the interstate (I agree with the comnent I'm replying to), so we should stop trying to make it one. A single cross-country route that runs during waking hours and has fewer stops would be cool though.
> "I like the stonk" hype with Maker's muscle.

Some of the tech in the web3 space is so genuinely interesting [0]. And defi's evolution has been nothing short of rapid. It is kind of sad that crypto-currency related topics don't invite as much positive attention and technical discussion on HN.

[0] Especially, XaaS apps on top of Ethereum v2, Cosmos, and Polkadot.
I had a similar issue with my Apple Watch.

One day the screen went black and stayed that way. Hard reset did nothing. The screen didn't turn on when charging, but the watch got warm. Apple tech support said it was a hardware problem and I would need them to service the watch.

This is a 1st generation watch though, and their nearly $200 service fee seemed excessive. So I just let the watch sit around for a week or so. Then I tried charging it again and it worked!

What must have happened was that it was either a really bad software issue of some kind or an intermittent hardware issue that prevented the watch from working or rebooting, but when the power gave completely out and it was recharged, everything was set back into a functioning state.

The watch has worked perfectly (or as well as it ever did) for weeks now.
Now I want to buy an Occulus Quest and get banned by Facebook just so that I can file that suit.
I think in general your point is correct.

However, this is not a fair comparison. In astrophotography, a primary consideration for the price point of a mount is its instrument weight capacity. The EQ6-R has a weight capacity of 44 lbs. This astrotracker has a capacity of 5.5lbs. The difference is, well, massive.

The EQ6-R also has other features, like a built-in polar scope and a periodic error correction. Mounts are also a lot like cars, in that some consumers purchase them for the level of support offered by the manufacturer, and perception of reliability.

With that said, I know I'm burying the lead and focusing on the wrong subject. $200 is very reasonable to get something that will probably provide very good initial results, and get that astrophotography addiction started. And I'm really happy this exists, at this price point.

I don't want to suggest the parent poster is really reinforcing this attitude, but in this hobby (and let me stress, it's a hobby), there is an occasional subtext that expensive gear is the only way to get great results. I don't think that's the case. You can spend as much as you want, of course, and money will let you do more things, but at the end of the day, we're just making sciencey art.
Communism is basically orthogonal to the whole free market thing, though. Capitalism is defined as a system in which you can pay somebody a wage that's less than what you get from selling the products of their labour. Other than some basically technocratic stuff (how do you make sure workers are properly compensated) there's no specific communist problem with free markets I can think of. There's also no shortage of capitalist nations that were extremely anti free markets.

It's at least somewhat coincidence that communists have typically gone for high state involvement - Russia was, before it was communist, basically an entirely non-free market, and most industry happened at the behest of the Tsarist bureacracy, which was massive. So the USSR was big on state planning kind of as a continuation of that.
I'm pro-crypto-currency but I don't understand this, explanation follows:

> A list of tokens by locked in value is full of systems that are revolutionizing finance: https://defipulse.com/ Defi protocols are providing useful services and are making money. I doubt I could overstate their enormity.

The top ones are all lending and exchanges.

Lending money to someone isn't revolutionary, it's been possible for centuries - and given how easy crypto is to steal and never return, I wouldn't WANT to lend it to anyone anyway!

And decentralized exchanges are cool for sure, but they are self-serving in terms of only needing to exist because cryptocurrencies exist. So they can't really be used as a pro-crypto argument like you're doing because then the solution you're arguing for would only need to exist to solve a problem which it has created itself.

So what is so revolutionary about these?
Taxpayer money goes to fund the Airline industry in a wide number of ways, just a few would be that fact that most airports are government run, many operating at net loss when proper accounting is used. We also subsidize security (tsa), traffic control (faa), and do not get me started on the billions and billions in bailouts the airlines get with every economic down turn.

So to say the economic part is not obvious one has to be willfully ignorant of government spending, just listing the obvious source of government subsidy there are many other less obvious one including special tax exemptions, and many other programs that have indirect benefits to the industry
I'd go for web table / db integration, but that seems to be out. Any specific reason? it should be easy peasy.
Are there cases where a compiler reasonably would internally use a different calling convention that supports fewer arguments passed via register passing?

Yours is still a valid point (no reason doesn't imply a guarantee) even if there's none, to be clear. Just curious because I can't really see any reason for a compiler to do so.

I can imagine some theoretical cases where compiler optimizations lead to additional arguments to be passed to a function [version].
The internet has not done anything. We've always been this way.

"digging, deducing, hunting for clues about other people’s lives" is just easier to do with the internet.
There are four main regions that have viable HSR outside of the NEC. These are:

* The CA region (SF/Bay Area/Sacramento/LA/Las Vegas/Phoenix).

* Texas triangle

* France TGV-like lines in the Midwest, centered on Chicago, connecting to Minneapolis (via Milwaukee), St. Louis, Detroit, Cleveland, maybe Indianapolis, Columbus, Cincinnati

* New England/New York outside of the NEC--that is, Toronto-Boston and Montreal-New York with timed transfers at Albany.
I would almost be compelled to use and develop for Apple products if Xcode wasn't so comedically bad.
I try to do mind maps sometimes, but on day to day basis when reading articles to save for later, Google keep with relevant tags.
But before that, always define whether the information you capture is useful or volatile. If useful, is it today, next week or someday? Someday is probably never ;-)
Some people see past tries at something as proof that something will never work. Others see past tries at someone having the right idea, but wrong implementation.

Imagine how many tried flying before we "invented flight", and how many said "oh how they won't learn from the past".
I find that I mostly use diagrams for "explanation documentation". This is by far the best description: https://documentation.divio.com/explanation/

> Explanation should do things that the other parts of the documentation do not. It’s not the place of an explanation to instruct the user in how to do something. Nor should it provide technical description. These functions of documentation are already taken care of in other sections.

Where UML goes wrong is that it tries to be a very detailed technical description. Usually, you just want a reference guide for that sort of thing. And reference docs are rarely maintained manually, at least not with any accuracy. I've yet to find a good system that can generate diagrams for technical reference that's usable.

It's hard to say what fits and what does not in a diagram, because it depends on the point you're trying to make. But I usually find that "explanations" are really tricky to get right. UML's a handy place to start thinking, but you're almost always going to cut out a lot of detail to make an explanation easy to understand.
I see bits and pieces of things that can be considered UML -- sequence diagrams, data models, the odd class diagrams and the like
Companies price discriminate.
Dumb question: automakers do relatively simple things with their chips. Is there room on wafers with more advanced chips to squeeze in automotive chips?
Take a break from it completely and for as long as you can. Find something else to do with your time, boring things. Not watching movies. And when you feel you need to code something, don't do it. Just think of what would you build, and how, but don't do it. Think of the most awesome and complex project you can, that would require 10 times the knowledge you have right now in order to complete or even get started with. When you will eventually get back to your keyboard it it will feel fascinating again.
> Amtrak leases all tracks they use with the highest priority.

Since when? Source? They were always getting preempted when I used it.
How to use Apple Shortcuts to run scripts on a remote server from an iPhone
Let me know if you have used this before to run any
interesting shell scripts.
What is the crypto equivalent of the SEC?