skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I agree with your point, but, tangentially, I do find it amusing that "where to put the bike shed" is actually _more_ impactful than what I thought "bike-shedding" referred to (arguing about what _colour_ to paint the bike shed for a nuclear reactor). At least the location of the bike shed actually has some (small) effect on people's commute!
Those kind of movements don't happen when the people who live there are more focused on TC and rent payments.
Hey, so this POV comes up a lot, and I have to say that I think it mistakes how git commits should work, but I’ll add that you can sort of have both.

First, in a production branch, git commits should be thought of as functions. Like “Apply commit X, get feature Y, unapply it and you get the reverse”. So the problem with preserving full git history in master is that it breaks that invariant. You have to sort of do like a range of commits, but then that doesn’t really always work because often times other commits can be interleaved into yours.

To understand how I mean, just look at Linux or open source software projects, where the technical experts are more or less gatekeepers and aren’t accountable to any other influence. You’ll find that commits work this way, and their history is squashed. (Maintainers will also force you to rebase before merging and basically put all the work on you to get the PR in ship shape, which is a lot different from a corporate environment)

Ok, but then to your point about preserving valuable, more granular commits, well, the solution is you just leave that remote branch up, either in your fork or elsewhere (but probably in your fork). These branches should have formal names identifying a ticket (at work) or an RFC or whatever, so it should be easy for people to discover what happened. They can see this remote issued a PR to this remote to implement RFC-123 or whatever, and they can go to that remote and see the granular commits if you preserved.

Sorry, this is like a never ending debate and there are very strong opinions, but I sincerely think that in this situation there is actually a right answer. People who already know how to do this or are super familiar with open source, maintainers or team leads or whatever, I think don’t see the point in fighting over it, since they can just enforce whatever they want in their gatekeeper role. However, the truth is that there’s sort of a fundamental misunderstanding that the majority of the population has around git and I think it’s better to engage and explain when you get the chance.
Margrethe Vestager (the european commissioner for competition since 2014) is not that kind of fool, if you look at her history since she got that job. And since 2019 she's also been named "President of the European Commission for A Europe Fit for the Digital Age" so I think this matter is not something she will ignore easily.

She's one of the absolute best thing to happen to the EU, and has proven to be willing to do what it takes to protect competitivity on the market.

On HN she's often seen in tech news and thus could appear to be "against US companies only" but far from it, eg in 2019 she blocked the giant merger of Alstom and Siemens trains divisions against the will of both the German and French government.
Designing Event-Driven Systems
It would be nice if GitHub allowed comments on commit messages and not only the changes so that they could be discussed for the benefit of learning and improvement.

Squash merge commit messages are currently not reviewable at all since they are not entered until just before the merge.

I'd prefer for nothing at all to be able to enter the main branch without review, if not for anything else to protect myself against my own mistakes.

Guess I should give Gerrit a shot.
> When you squash merge a feature branch that has thousands of lines of code, and 6 months later you have a bug introduced by this feature branch, it becomes extremely hard to find which line introduced the bug.

So, the only way that I can think that having the squash commit broken into individual commits would help to find the one broken line is because it would enable git bisect to find the failing commit.

However, that implies that each individual commit inside that feature branch worked on its own. If that is the case, a better suggestion would be to break up the giant feature branch into smaller sub features that can be merged as they are completed
There really is no doubt about.

Only paralleled, in excellence, by it's namesake dist ;)
https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2018/ag-underwood-announces-...

And this was the result: substantial compensation to existing customers and promises to build more infrastructure.
I have an M1 Macbook Air and this thing gets a bit hot for an iPad. I don't think the iPad Pro will be able to hold the same clock speed as long as the other machines over the long haul.
Telephony Without Phone Numbers
> Could it be because it's not financially feasible? If you present the idea of a repairable alternative to an iPad, are any investors going to take you up on it? (...) it's simply not economically worth it to sacrifice the resiliency and cost effectiveness of making it completely integrated (...) The cost to launch a new product and manufacturing line is also very high (...)

I believe all of that is true.

Which is why this needs to be corrected by regulation. If making a more user-respecting and environmentally-friendly products isn't economical enough for the market to do it on its own, the economical landscape needs to be altered so that it is.

> as a seller, you get to keep costs low when you have to spend less on dealing with people tinkering with it and then sending it in for warranty

This must be solvable, because somehow it isn't a problem on the PC market, or on the car market.

> Efficiency is frequently a trade off for a word that I can't think of, but maybe can be described as "security" or "local security".

"Distribution" and "decentralization" are the words you're thinking of. Despite the common propaganda to the contrary, centralization is usually increasing efficiency. That's why the market loves it so much (and why every country ends up with laws to limit it). The cost to that efficiency is usually resilience (failure of any single actor becomes a large-scale issue) and slower innovation (bigger actors take less risks, smaller actors tend to cover more of the possibility space, by virtue of numbers).

> It's similar to not needing a butcher, produce market, shoe store once a Walmart Supercenter rolls into town.

And it is a contentious issue. On the one hand, the food gets cheaper. On the other, the jobs get worse, the local community suffers, and money gets siphoned off the local economy. On an international scale, the same thing is called "globalization", which is both widely praised and criticized. In particular, the current pandemic has revealed the resilience problem of our globalized economy, which is why so many countries are now making moves towards reversing it a bit.
It has nothing to do with me thinking I'm smarter than all those guys. The market is irrational.

I'm counting on being luckier than those guys more than anything.
Scotland Could Become the World’s First ‘Rewilding Nation’
When you ask a founder how they're doing
By my count from the status page[0], the FB JS SDK has had issues for 30 of the past 90 days. That's not even one 9.

[0] https://developers.facebook.com/status/dashboard/
> like 5,000 people

Says you. Piracy and sanctions alone will make millions use these, not to mention any other uses.
> A complete and utter waste of time. You spend more time messing about with rebase than solving problems.

I'm also one of those "micro committers".

Because of this attitude, many hundreds pedantic commit rebases after, I'm now a better programmer (and I also spend next to no time with that type of rebases).

This is because I have now a much higher capacity (and speed) of breaking down problems into smaller, self-contained, steps.

There is a common understanding that VCs are just storages. VCs actually map the mental model of the developer. Having a precise, clear, granular VC history has a bidirectional relationship with being a precise, granular, clear developer.
It took me a while to get a workflow that actually works with Gerrit, and I occasionally think of trying to do some kind of autosquash so I can have successive commits locally. In practice I just use --amend all the time.

Careful use of setting upstream and of course pull=rebase makes keeping up with trunk manageable.
> You spend more time messing about with rebase than solving problems

Rebase should be quick and straightforward. If it's not, you've got bigger problems.

By rebasing, you're taking responsibility for changing the codebase as it exists now, rather than how it used to be.
It would be interesting to also see what the lowest possible latency between the regions would be so you can see how much overhead the interchanges are adding.

For example, the distance between us-east-1 and us-west-1 is approximately 2,500 miles. Light travels at 186,000 miles/second, so that's 13 milliseconds one-way. So the fastest possible TCP SYN/ACK/SYNACK is 39 milliseconds between the two DCs just to establish a connection.
Linus Tech Tips did an excellent rundown of the topic last week and advocates for Rossmann's fundraiser as well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvVafMi0l68
I'm reading this book atm.

It gives such a nice explanation on how to not only build REST-oriented systems.
Every time App/Play store fees are discussed, it devolves into unproductive hair-splitting over the word monopoly. The proper term is captive market.

> Captive markets are markets where the potential consumers face a severely limited number of competitive suppliers; their only choices are to purchase what is available or to make no purchase at all
Nope.

If the shots happened to take 8 doses to be completely delivered, by tracking shots instead of complete treatments as your denominator, you've just artificially deflated any concern level by 8 times.

100 deaths / 8,000,000 doses = 0.0000125 (in 80,000 people, one is killed - not too worrying, or so it would seem)

100 reactions / 1,000,000 treatments = 0.0001 (in 10,000 people, one is killed - uh oh)

The issue you are tracking is how many humans are impacted by the treatment. In the case of COVID-19 treatments (which are two-dose in the UK) - if you choose to track shots versus reports, you lose accuracy by a factor of 2, and this accuracy is skewed against safety. By tracking treatments, you get slower feedback, but it is accurate and supports the correct interpretation of safety levels.

Tracking shots may be partially useful as an early warning signal. Other than that though, it's not just not useful, it's completely wrong.

The "sobering" references the massive disconnect between what is typically reported by media, and what is reported in the system by doctors and nurses on behalf of, or in limited cases directly by, harmed people. If you read the entire report, and bear in mind these are under-reporting figures, you may - if you're lucky, perhaps - experience a moment of sobriety when it comes to the actual experienced level of safety of what's being assured as "safe".
My old team’s git workflow required us to rebase our feature branches to develop before merging, and our branch could only contain a single commit. The commit needed a special formatting (short title, description, and story number) so it would get picked up by Jira scripts.

Although the history was super clean, the extra upkeep was a small annoyance. I felt like tearing my hair out when there were 10 other merge requests pending and never knew which would be the next to merge with develop. An auto-rebase feature (assuming no merge conflicts) would have saved me countless pointless minutes.
I specifically bought a new Roku Ultra 2020 for 4k AV1 decode support as I knew AV1 would be big, especially if I move to an area with poor broadband. As far as I know that is the first device that supports that. I love it-plugging in my headphones for private listening works very well.

https://www.engadget.com/roku-ultra-dolby-vision-streaming-p...

From what I am reading between the lines: Youtube wants to dump H.265 because of patent royalties. Roku has a lot of 4K streaming sticks with H.265 support but no AV1 support. Roku picked a fight over it because maybe those customers would leave for Google devices? I no longer will get YT updates for my AV1 device.

Is this correct?
Advertise.

* Tap your network. Post on social, bug old coworkers, ask friends and family. Know what skills you are selling and at what price.

* Build your brand. Create a website, LinkedIn, and social media accounts. Start blogging or posting regularly somewhere. Even if you don't get clients this way, it will increase your credibility.

* Reach out. Look through job postings and hiring sites. Cold email companies that you're interested in working with. Refine your elevator pitch. Join networking communities.
I very much recommend this interactive piece from NYT (potential paywall) on another of Hokusai's prints: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/08/07/arts/design/h...

It gives an appreciation of the detail in some of these pieces as well as the medium's history and western consumption.
The link the op used is to specific issue complaint thread. At the present time 3:37 EST the only communication from an official facebook responder is:

Hi John,

Thanks for reaching out. We are aware of this issue and are currently working on fixing it. I'll update this thread when I have more information from the team.

Thank you for your patience.

Regards,
Fatma

The rest is a bunch of people complaining of the same issue.
Here’s a general how to site called Linuxize: https://linuxize.com/

I mention it because a large number of my recent “how to x on Linux” search queries took me to this site, and it typically answered the question at hand. It also has a really pleasant design, IMO, and is updated frequently.
> As trust is spread across the network to an increasing number of people running nodes, the trust assigned to any individual participant approaches zero.

If only we knew this was true.

An increase in the number of people running nodes does not guarantee that the maximum trust assigned to any individual participant approaches zero. What is the size of the largest Bitcoin whale? What is the size of the largest Bitcoin cartel? How do you know that the share of the largest Bitcoin whale or cartel isn’t increasing? What prevents China from deciding to eliminate the Bitcoin threat to its control by taking over the Chinese miners and launching a 51% attack?

Even if you are willing to believe that trust is well distributed across many independent entities, you still need to have greater trust in your own security and IT skills. When your wallet is hacked or you lose your credentials, there’s no number to call to recover your Bitcoin.

Bitcoin still requires significant trust, which is often overlooked.
My wife and I live in the East Bay but we're probably here for the long-haul. But, it's tough to stay. Most of our friends are not software people and it's challenging for folks to find good living situations here, so a lot of our friendships have become increasingly long distance. There's also this nagging sense I've got that kids raised here might end up being priced out of their home, unless they also happen to wind up in a high-paying career. Which, that's not bad if you want it necessarily but to grow up _knowing_ you have to end up in a high-income bracket or else you'll really struggle does weird things to people.

Still, it is very pretty here.
There is currently a fundraiser for direct ballot initiative in the US.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/lets-get-right-to-repair-passed?u...

It was created by Louis Rossmann who has a Mac repair shop in NY.

He talks a lot about it on his YT channel:
https://www.youtube.com/user/rossmanngroup

Linus Tech Tips did a video about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvVafMi0l68&t=5s
Isn’t that only 20 people?

Edit: as in, this is misleadingly phrased as if it’s a large collective action
It's his class which defines him, not his competency. The captain can't stand a man who breaks social class barriers, the question of his "rank" goes to the socialised meaning, not the naval one. Pronunciation was a class thing.
Youtube will happily stream this in H.264 if WebM isn't available.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2853702?hl=en

> HTML5 streaming: Many browsers support HTML5 and either the H.264 video codec or WebM format.

As others pointed out, this could be about AV1. Which still is bull crap because YouTube hapily delivers video in H.* or VP9 when needed.

And it looks like the only reason Google stopped encoding in H.* to everyone's hand whether it's good or bad. This definitely has nothing to do with "opensource codecs".
the friction of using vpn is too high and the challenge is coming up with a solution that has a lower barrier to entry.

if youtube, google, twitter, facebook etc. can directly access the chinese market, their local counterparts will not survive and that's a massive opportunity.
Manufacturers want planned obsolesce more than anyone. The problem in my view is that we take limited resources and combine it with slave labor to create landfill. Those few years of usage are not even that relevant. Recycling should be the first goal then repair ability. I think we can do this without the manufacturers drawing the proverbial short straw. Maybe we should get a partial refund when returning expired devices. Maybe we should rent them rather than buy them.
I think I'm missing something here. How valuable is to have 20 commits of "fix this error" , "fix the fix of the error", "revert all fixes", "real fix".... etc?
I'd argue a PR with many commits such as these, conveys little no no useful information, when the actual change is 1-3 LOC.

what about cleaning and filtering out useless commits, by soft reseting the branch and commiting just the actual changes to merge. Sure, it can take a lot of time, but it's done once, by you, after all you're supplying the changes. And if it takes a really long time, you're doing it wrong in the first place by submitting PRs with many LOC.

Have you tried rebasing branches with dozens of short useless commits? That's a real waste of time, and everyone needs to do this if you want to update your main branch. So you've now multiplied the amount of wasted time for everyone.
The helpfulness of the ArchWiki for people who don't use Arch can't be stated enough. As a user of several distros, this is my go-to documentation regardless of which distro I'm working with.
I don't mind this. I want my reviewers to look at the state of the new code - not the diff, and not the diff of the diff.

Address PR comments using the PR comments.
> Yes, but if you have a VISA card you can still withdraw the money and pay in cash right? That's an alternative that doesn't involve switching over to another ecosystem.

Isn't VISA somewhat similar to an ecosystem? It's not perfect (you can not switch over all apps when switching from/to Android), but you still need to change something on your side. Yes, exchanging a plastic card is easier than switching a phone, but it's not fundamentally a different paradigm.

> Also, the EU regulations cap the fees and set up identical rules for everyone

I agree that this is a good idea, but it's not a fundamental problem with Apple's payment structure.
Could someone please explain about how this product works? I cant see online what technical breakthrough they are claiming to have?
>Now "right to repair" includes not only designing devices to be easier to repair but also includes legacy software support? Where do we draw this line? If your M1 dies, you can't fab one yourself or run older software on it indefinitely.

You're argument is with the author, and his interpretation, not with "right to repair". What "right to repair" is or isn't , is not decided by the author of this article. There are various organizations that are loosely related with a few shared ideals.

>We must very carefully define our terms here, because requiring someone else to provide on one's behalf presumes a right to the product of their labor.

Not really. Anyone can propose anything in an article, and they must be free to do so. Its upto us as a collective to think over ideas and proposals and then push for policy proposals that align.

Ultimately the terms will be defined in legislation, not on bbc.com
> TSMC pays very well

Many big companies indeed pay relatively well in comparison to other professions, but workers are heavily underpaid. You can't justify the fact that companies have multi-billion profits and they pay "market rate" salaries at the same time. This is exploitation of workers, but because the amount they are being paid seems to be big, nobody seems to be protesting.
Most tech workers should be earning in seven digits.
"It is granting a singular owner the privilege over say the concept of ham and cheese on white bread and demanding that people not make each other sandwiches that are identical in construction to the "owner" of that recipe"

Nothing is being constructed by the end user. A music album is a finished product, encoded into bits from an original creation by the author. This is a side-effect of how computers innately function, and doesn't change the fact that authors are -not- selling recipes to build products, they are selling finished products. There is no difference ideologically between selling an LP or a CD or a zipped download; the encoding and distribution mechanisms are different, but the customer still purchased the same thing: a complete product that can be played by equipment that understands how to decode and play it.

If someone singularly came up with a song, then of course they are the singular owner. Making art and music is a complex process, and specifically with music production one ends up with things that have never been constructed in that particular musical and instrumental arrangement, that key, with those musical ideas, those rhythms and note placements, etc. To say that ownership is just impossible ignores essentially -all- of the work that goes into making things like music. It's not like someone just pushes a button and calls it a day...

"Pretending its the same leads to many logically nonsensical things"

No, companies will always make absolutely ridiculous claims for copyright. Whether it's digital or not. This is separate to the idea of ownership of something whether digital or not.

"All of art is derivative thus endless copyright would cede all of the creative universe"

No one is arguing that people can claim copyright ownership on any and all works that may have been inspired from it. This is a strawman argument and also has nothing to do with digital vs physical copyright. It also completely ignores that songs, etc, are much more than mere constructions of notes.

The current implementations of copyright protection are pretty bad.. But that doesn't mean the idea in general is bad. Artists, just like anyone else, need to get paid for their work. You and I do not automatically deserve things just because they are distributed electronically now. Artists still deserve to have ownership of the things they create, even if they distribute them electronically.

No one is forcing anyone to go out and buy music or other art, it is an elective choice because one specifically desires that exact sound, which can be distributed as bits now. However, people aren't going out and "buying bits", they are buying specific products. The fact that things can be represented as bits is entirely irrelevant to both parties aside from not needing to lug around physical items.
Seems a bit risky attacking other criminals - you never know if they might have contacts in the hard to extradite countries they work in.
All the people you listed besides Linus are people i don't really respect all that much. Being famous does not equal being respected.
Yeah, I feel like any of "fascinated", "intrigued", or "captivated" would have been better.