skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
So when does the cruft and craziness build up to the point that you have to start all over again again?
It used to be a joke. It still is. But it used to too.
Interesting that you are claiming both that people making hiring decisions are not biased along class lines and that any such bias would be rational and based on ability.
> Did you try the recipes as presented? I can understand that an introductory cookbook shortcuts recipes for the sake of simplicity.

Unfortunately, in the case of the cinnamon bun one, I would argue that is not a shortcut that should not be taken. The reason you have a first rise is to allow for the yeast to "multiply", so when you proof it, you get a light, ariy dough. If you skip that step, the cinnamin buns would come out dense and unevenly proofed since there is simply not enough yeast evenly distributed to make a proper rise.

I recall making a different dish out of it and following their recipe, and it was just okay.

In the end, I simply think there are better introductory cookbooks out there. One that I would recommend oddly enough is Blue Apron's cookbook. I found it used and decided to get it, and they have a lot of pretty good recipes, and they have a lot of "lessons" on how to improve your cooking technique. Maybe it was because I had low expectations for it, but I was impressed with how well it was put together. I have a few of their recipes that I have bookmarked that I rotate into my schedule.
The descent into criminality by the RCMP chief is shocking.

Obviously, opportunities were there since the article points out poor controls and personnel reviews, but still, being that there are no clear motives established, its hard to fathom a chief going out of his way to make this breach happen for financial gains on the side.

The article remarked that his stint as a mole started 8 years into thr job (2015) - but there is no analysis on whether money mattered a bit more then than it did in 2019.
However, whenever the breach started, I assume it became difficult to unwind without compromising himself in the process.

Deeper analysis of his motives would make for a interesting read.
No that isn't one of the reasons given.

The bigger reasons are:
a) US unwillingness to learn best practices from other countries about how to keep costs of construction down, especially for public transit infrastructure.
b) US builds much bigger + fancier stations for the trains compared to other countries, which drives up cost
c) US procurement is done based on cost alone, which leads to frequent cost overruns and delays.
d) a lack of internal managerial competence and instead relying frequently on costly external consultants
e) bad political incentives
As another poster said, assuming paintings are treated like stock, as long as you've held it for more than one year, donating an aprechiated asset is magic.

In this example, you get a $20M deduction and you don't have to realize the $19M gain.

Depending on how the shill purchase in the hypothetical is arranged, you might have realized a gain there... but then again, maybe you just pay the auction fees.
The difference is that the rich have the lawyers to deal with that. You shouldn't worry about them. An audit for a rich person is just another annoyance that they pay to go away, it is not gonna change their behavior.
To play devil's advocate here, this can go both ways; clients may well take the piss unless the contract is quite strict about agreed scope etc. For big contracts that can make the difference between coming in under or over budget, although something of this kind of rigour is prudent at all scales, as https://clientsfromhell.net regularly attests.
> nearly all phone subsidies from carriers have stopped.

I find this great. The ability to differentiate on "free" phones was a barrier to competition on the service costs that allowed telecoms to avoid competitive pricing for decades.

My concern with the Spanish law is that it seems to ensure a functional, repairable phone physically but there is not a realistic way to ensure essential security updates across all the software involved.
I did the browser port of BasiliskII which this wraps (https://jamesfriend.com.au/projects/basiliskii) as well as the port of PCE (another Macintosh emulator) used on archive.org.

I see a lot of people asking why someone would distribute an Electron-wrapped version of a program you could run natively, and I see it as an extension of the the same reason why I ported these emulators to the browser in the first place: accessibility. While you can install BasiliskII natively, it's a bit of a pain, especially if you are not super technical. If you find a binary floating around online it may not work for your OS version. Wrapping it in Electron is one way to ameliorate the OS compatibility issue; Chromium has been battle-tested across many OS versions. Ideally BasiliskII would have a better OS compatibility story (as well as being more portably distributable with data files) but, like many open source projects, it doesn't have a lot of maintainer-time to make this happen.
Signal seems secure from the outside, but is it? A judge won't simply take their word for it that they don't have the data, they'll make the order and see if anything turns up.

What if there's a misconfigured logging server that has information that can be used to identify users? Well then that's now going to be given to the government and if Signal tries to turn it off they'll be liable for destruction of evidence.

The actual employees of Signal know internal details of if something is poorly implemented and leaks useful information or not. If the government rattles the cage hard enough, they think they might find someone within it that will give up that information.
My understanding is that a panel of judges outperform grand juries, and petit juries in nearly every scenario. Sorry I don't have references on hand to support this.

I currently think the main benefit of juries is to educate the public on how screwed up the whole process is. It was a waste of time in terms of protecting anyone involved, but brought my trust in the criminal judicial system to an all time low.
> It was seen as a resume starter before going back to MBA or other graduate programs.

This was exactly my experience as an undergrad, and later graduate software dev.

I'd venture that my skills were completely unsuited for the first couple of projects that I was placed on. I was utterly underqualified and not guided properly at all, though it remains to be seen how much this was Accenture's fault and how much it was the client's. I was definitely not worth the (rumoured) exorbitant hourly rates that our clients were charged for our expertise and work.
When incentives are not aligned it's effectively moloch [0].

The choice I want won't exist in that world and I don't have the leverage to require it to exist.

Apple does and that's why I choose their products.

[0]: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
Slightly different but I work in defense as a contractor and I usually summarize it as "being paid for work".

The incentive is to do the most work because being done early and under budget doesn't maximize $. Usually the market keeps these entities honest. Do shit work that's over budget and you lose business. But there is no market at play here, thus the govt needs to play the part of the market and penalize for this behavior but they do not. /Endrant
If you're going to post a low-effort tweet, can you at least use spellcheck first?
> If you claim they're worth $20M then transferring them is a realization event and you owe capital gains on $19M. Then you get a $20M deduction which cancels out the capital gains and leaves you with just the original $1M deduction for what you actually paid, right?

Nope. Think of it this way:

- you lobby government to make charitable donations tax deductible, meaning you can reduce your income by the stated value of the donation

- you use the auction house hack to inflate the value of the painting from $1_000_000 USD to $20_000_000 USD buy buying it from yourself

- No one will buy your painting for $20_000_000 USD, so it's not really worth that in the open market, but the art museum (in your backyard & founded by you) will give you a receipt stating the art is worth $20_000_000 USD

- Unless you reduce your income, your tax rate is 50%, so you donate the inflated art piece (to your art museum in your backyard), give yourself a receipt for the donation

- You attach that receipt to your tax return, lowering your taxable income from $A_LOT to $A_LOT minus $20_000_000, which at a 50% tax rate saves you $10_000_000 in taxes
Love the idea, I toyed with the idea of building something like this.

When talking to friends, I realised that even smart and relatively wealthy people have zero planning skills and freak out about the idea of "planning your life in the next decades".

I suspect your market is going to be small.
Yes, the most important thing you should know here is that corporate "education" makes otherwise intelligent people misguided.

FLoC is an AMAZING piece of technology, specially for privacy. It doesn't need any central collection of data and yet it can help companies serve ads like its done today. Everybody wins... except some big companies which rely on central collection of private data... or don't at all and just want to hurt the advertisement industry so that they can retain more users (more on this later).

Google just wants to serve ads so they don't care about tying private data to YOU, they just want to know if you vaguely match a category, hence they want to promote the use of FLoC.

You read mostly negative sentiments against FLoC but not any detailed critique of it, because if you understood it, you wouldn't be against it... or at least not as much.

A big loss here is EFF, which has largely been the sane voice, but in this regard, they have been very shallow. Having said that, you can understand a lot about what FLoC is by reading their detailed articles on it :
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/googles-floc-terrible-...
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/08/dont-play-googles-priv...

What they don't tell you is that if there is no accessible advertisement industry, we will have less free people... like the Apple users.

Apple doesn't like any other competitors advertising to their audience because they know that they are not competitive and their entire business model relies on over-charging customers and vendor locking customers into their eco-system... making it more and more difficult for them to get out of it. Microsoft has a similar foothold on the B2B market. A free market needs easy means of advertisement so that competent products can reach the masses without having to spend a lot. Long-term, FLoC is not necessarily great for Google because the profiling can be accessed by any advertiser, big or small... it democratizes ad-targeting, which is great for the free market in general, not so much for anti-free market players like Apple and Microsoft.

If the cheap ad-market is no longer viable because of companies like Apple and Microsoft suppressing it, we will have more of these vendor-locked-in users... and everyone having to rely on mass market advertising (think Super Bowl ads) which is only accessible to the already established players. So, the internet will change from a rich vibrant ecosystem into the days of newspapers and TV, like we had before, only served differently.
What makes cable companies different from, say, a duopoly in mobile phone operating systems?
Which makes them one of relatively few companies in this space that would publicly expose CIA ops.

It's definitely reasonable to be sceptical here, but that goes both ways.
> One shudders to think what Comcast Water and Sewage would be like.

It's funny, caps on Comcast Water and Sewage would be illegal in many states!
Changing your policy to be more friendly to all users moving forward isn't selective enforcement.

To reiterate, "policy" is just explicitly specifying "that's just the way we do things around here"
An implementation also exists for GNOME.

https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/1319/gsconnect/
You're not being realistic by demanding clarity in a murky area. So yeah, it's gonna be a personal judgement call. Founders aren't necessarily gonna have a clear idea either, so you just need to expect leeway, _especially_ in small companies.
KDE would be more popular today if it wasn't for KDE 4.

I think KDE 4 was a big regression from KDE 3 in many ways.

After KDE 4 it got better and right now it's good again. Unfortunately, I've already made the switch to other desktop environments.

The initial releases of Gnome 3 were also a big regression from Gnome 2. Now Gnome 3 has gotten much better.
Vercel has a library for state management that's similar to React Query. https://swr.vercel.app/.
i worked there and other companies. They give you stock units every month and you can sell them when you get them. (except for short amount of time around earnings report) Its not a scam. its as good as cash if you sell them right when you get them.

youre talking about startups not google which give options not RSUs
> Apparently you seek some sort of regulation to stop people writing mean things.

Apparently questioning why people are being negative = seeking regulation to stop them? Come on man.
And in some states prior to that.
This is really nice to use and well-designed!

One feature request: spouses / joint incomes. Obviously my financial picture looks very different if I include my partner's income and assets than if I just include my own, but my partner is a different age than me, so if I just add it up and act like I'm one person who makes our combined household income, it's not going to be quite accurate.
Interesting article.
A lot of negative things here said about such consultancy firms. Some positive things must also be said:

- Outsourcing IT problems is hard. It requires knowledge/skill. Outsourcing to a big firm is a relatively safe bet.

- The consultancy firm then again outsourcing it to cheaper contractors again is not per definition bad. It actually improves the mechanics of capitalism. Also nothing stops the customer from outsourcing their project to a cheaper contractor themselves and cutting out the middleman (Accenture). But they don't want to carry that risk. Accenture can carry that risk.

- Big consultancy firms build up a load of experience, connections and assets for dealing with specific problems. They can re-use solutions in a way that your typical middle-sized software team can never do.

I have worked myself at a much smaller consultancy company more or less copycatting accenture (founders were ex-accenture employees). I moved on because I no longer liked the job and am now working in a more regular software dev company. What I noticed is that:

- The ex-accenture managers knew better what had priority and were sharper challenging time estimates or refactoring initiated by dev-teams. Not always good for the dev-team, but often good for the project actually. (Bummer: dev-teams can be wrong often). Management often challenged dev-teams to whiteboard their solution. The manager put in the extra effort to understand this and if he still didnot understand the benefit then a refactoring was not done. (Yes this can be both good and bad depending on the technical level of your manager, see also my next bullet)

- Anything more complex they would often simplify too much. Projects that exceeded expectations in complexity often failed. I expect this also to be the reason for all these failed projects for Accenture. If a problem doesnot fit in one of their standard slideshows then they lack the expertise to overcome this.

-Sale-teams usually over-promise (often under pressure or flawed reward systems) and are totally not focusing on if the developers actually have the expertise to pull it off.

- They also used more corporate flavored powertools (like Salesforce or ServiceNow). The average dev stays far away from those and prefers open source. Anyway, they would implement in weeks what takes several months to build in Django + React (or any other open-source combo).

- They could leverage very average engineers to deliver quality work. As long as it was a commodity job.
Promising! Worth to check...
What a completely self inflicted wound.

Leaving aside the efficacy of the new policy changes, would any of us have cared if they’d just done it internally? Would we know about this list of customer names if they’d not drawn attention to themselves?

I’m honestly having a really hard time understanding why they thought that first post was a good idea, especially given the internal context. The only explanation I can come up with is that they’re just addicted to the attention of being industry “thought leaders” and thought that this would let them get public kudos for going in a brave new direction. Instead all they got was an eminently predictable PR fiasco and a glowing write up in ... Breitbart. Whoops.
Um... ok?
Ask HN: Iterators in a Pure-Functional Context?
I'm designing a small statically-typed language that has a pure-functional subset. I wanted to have first-class iterator support, which intuitively feels like it dovetails nicely with functions/transformations, but it's occurred to me that iterators are not immutable; they get consumed, which means they can only be used once, which seems like it might still work as long as you can't make intermediate declarations and pass them to multiple other places... right?

I'm a bit new to this stuff, so I'm wondering: how do other pure-functional languages handle iterators? Are they some weird exception? Are they not allowed in pure contexts at all (done using IO monads or something, perhaps)? Do you need full-on move semantics to work with them properly? Is there a strategy for automatically "cloning" an iterator? What are the different approaches here?

I'd prefer to keep my language as simple as possible, so I'd rather avoid going down too deep of a rabbit-hole, even if it means bending the definition of "pure" a little bit.
'Weights and Biases' sending spam to users that starred spaCy Python repo
Who needs to mine Eth or Bitcoin when I can go mine some real ROCKS!!!!!!

LIKE A REAL MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!
No, it's mismgmt., nimbyism, enviro review, non-arms length bids, unions, sloth and political fantasies.

It's instructive to look at good projects: SF MacArthur Maze rebuild and San Jose Terminal B, both with aggressive project leadership.

http://www.amazingmaze.org/

https://airportimprovement.com/article/13-billion-modernizat...

And awful projects, like the failed Calif. High Speed Rail, and brutally overbudget WTC subway rebuild, with aimless leadership.
I've been trying to explain this to my friends but they keep insisting that Dogecoin has real value.
> employers necessarily pay you less than the value of your labor.

That’s not true “necessarily” unless you assume all employers are sustainable, in idealized competitive markets, and that all of their inputs are also purchased in idealized competitive markets such that they don’t have monopsony savings they can spend on surplus wages without impacting sustainability.

Obviously, even with idealized market assumptions, one reason an firms fail is paying more total for inputs than the value they produce, and lots of firms fail.
Sort of Next related, but I was looking into these frameworks today and it seems all of the easy hosting services jump from free to $20 for what seems to be elaborate static hosting. Is there a middle ground for hobbyists that are running commercial software without spinning up your own VPS (Vercel doesn't look kindly on commercial on their free plan).
> The question however is: can animism be deployed as an agent of creative disruption? In practice this would mean
to use animism as trigger to rethink our role and agency of humans in a world of objects that are getting smarter and
smarter. The ontological and philosophical implications of this approach ... [and so on]

I love the idea here, but it's extremely academic. This is something you could try out with a product and see if it works. My guess is that if he's been working in this area for 10 years, and the idea hasn't been put into practice, there's not a ton of practical value to it. It sounds crass to judge it in terms of whether or not you can make money off the theory, but remember that the context of this is consumer products, so it seems like a fair question to ask.
Check out this post by Rand Fishkin of SEOMoz fame on the topic, where he advocates for hiring consultancies https://sparktoro.com/blog/why-you-should-hire-agencies-cons...

To be fair, I think your point about "except for very boutique consultancies" may apply to his recommendation. I can't imagine him advocating for an Accenture or similar, instead the message is bring on expertise for specific initiatives as needed.
We use the exchange of money to approximate value. You won't pay me $1,000 dollars for my mousepad, because you don't value it at that. Someone around here used a bad example of rigging art prices, but the reality is, that painting is now valued at whatever 10's of millions of dollars it is regardless of personal feelings of mediocrity.

Money is of course not value, and I'm sorry, but that is a completely basic statement that I'm surprised to see so many people it's just dawning on them now, but it is the tool we use to approximate actual value in our transactions, whether that be for labor purchase, value passed on to share holders etc. Of course it's an approximation with issues, someone define value for me? You can't because value is different to everyone but we use money to express the value we perceive something to have in matters of business.

The writer here doesn't seem to understand basic economics and money as a proxy for value, again in business, which seems likely and they should probably stay in their lane just like we tell other people who write things they know nothing about.

This standard proxy of value is true in every purchase you make, your salary, his stock value etc. and it's the standard we use, and is it perfect, hell no, but it's worked since the concept of exchanging coins in place of cows and barrels of spice came around and we haven't seen anything supplant it yet. The fact the author is quibbling over semantics to me means there is not much of an actual argument being made and everyone here just ate it up.
Amusing that the original letter from Jeff Bezos doesn't list taxes paid as counting towards value provided to others. For a more 'normal' company that would be high on the list of ways they're contributing to society. But of course that doesn't work nearly as well when you're not actually paying much in taxes...
>there’s no such thing as “$0 phone on 3 year term” in Canada anymore.

Why is that a bad thing?

When carriers subsidize phones the price is inevitably higher overall. It's little different to those $1100 now or "$100 per month for 12 months" ads.
honestly, when I approach programming, a primary concern is to spend effort to help make the program easier to modify. I'm not the original proponent of that as a goal, its just something I read somewhere but it really helped me in my career.
Well, you see, if you get the work done earlier and under budget, then the next time you'll be given stricter deadlines and less budget.
The only real measure is days.

Everything else is just a way to approach this as effectively as possible.

So the more experienced a team the less they use whistles and the more actual time estimations.
Can you please share how you got the 2^40 number? I've been trying to think of how to figure out the odds of these.

Odds of 4 hex 8's in a row given a 4 digit string is (1/16)^4.

Odds of 4 hex 8's in a row given a 5 digit string is
number of ways to arrange 8s in the first 4 digits (1) times 16 possible 5th digits plus number of ways to arrange 8s in the last 4 digits (1) times 16 possible 1st digits, all divided by the number of possible arrangements (16^5)

So 8888X or X8888 is (2 * 16) / (16^5)?

And then 8888XX or X8888X or XX8888 is...

(16^2 + 16^2 + 16^2) / (16^6) ???