skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Ask HN: Simple(st) Static Site Generator?
There are innumerable static site generators out there which mainly differentiate themselves by being written in the hip new language of today, being written in the hip new language of yesterday, or having all kinds of bells and whistles that I don't need.

What's a very simple (but still usable) static site generator that's fit for a no frills little personal blog? I'm half-tempted to just write one myself but the last thing the world needs is more of these...

EDIT: I'll clarify a bit: I'm hoping to get a site out of it that's about HN levels of "sophistication" (both functionally and and visually), so I do mean simple in that sense, not necessarily in the sense of "easiest to get started with", though I feel the former should imply the latter.
$1-10b
I do get that this isn't trying to compete with the closed-hardware market; no-one is cross-shopping the MNT Reform 2 with a MacBook Air (which does also have a milled, anodized aluminum case).

It's mostly just a note of despair about how large the gap is; you really have to care about the open hardware aspect to make the choice.
>status-seeking behavior

not nature

>current economic realities

not nature

>the changing marketplace of dating

again, not nature
Oh, Reddit's back!
That survey describes personal satisfaction. So it doesn't mean that they have more sex, or better sex, simply that to their own standards and expectations they are satisfied with their sex life.

With this in mind, I'm not surprised that religious couple feel more satisfied.

Having said that, maybe society does set unrealistic expectations when it comes to sex, and it's possible that skews people's perspective and make them all feel like everyone else is having more and better sex, which in turn renders them disatisfied.

So I'm not putting judgement either way, but this seem like a good explanation to me.

Another aspect is knowing better. If you've ever only had Nescafé, you'll still enjoy it and be satisfied with it as your daily coffee driver. But if you've had top notch espresso from world class baristas, you might no longer be able to enjoy Nescafé the same way you used too. Does this apply to sex, I don't know fully, but I think it could be, and religious couple would tend to have less points of comparison, so that could similarly drive them to be able to continuously enjoy and be satisfied with what they have.

Don't take my coffee comparison too literal, "better" with sex doesn't mean like better partner or anything like that, I think just means memories of better times you've had having sex, of more excitement, choice, and all that. I know some people who have an ex-girlfriend, or a one night stand where they still remember that as their best sex. It might often be more because they were simply younger and it was more new to them, then anything to do with the person in itself. And clearly those would have been terrible partners for them. But that memory kind of hunts them with being satisfied in their current relationship sexually, as they can't help but compare one with the other.

This is just all hypothetical, don't take it as ground truth, I'm only exploring the phenomenon.
This doesn't seem very effective to me. 99% of people who see an ad like that will not care. It's already common knowledge that Zuck's gonna take your data.

"Facebook knows I'm a single teacher in Moscow who likes soccer? ... So what?

And that's before taking into account that the labels FB/etc. put on you are often incorrect, further diluting the perceived seriousness of this privacy leak.
A lot of this stuff is just fact to you, isn't it?

It's hard to engage when some of the things you talk about here seem immutable to you but are not even reasonable points of contention to me.

"Pornography leads to hell" <- how can we really have a conversation about any of this if you're making blanket statements about some of the content, especially when the statement is so negative? Obviously if hell were real and if pornography certainly led to eternal condemnation in hell, pornography would be bad, but neither of those "if" statements really lead for much discussion.

What was the goal of your comment?
It's baffling to see a majority of the tech industry adopt the job title that a giant advertising company invented as some sort of panacea, because they wrote a book.

SRE has some good ideas in principal. But in practice, unless you are Google, it often leads to over-engineering.
> I would love to program my fleet of ESP8266s with anything but C.

Have you looked into Embeddable Common-Lisp? (https://gitlab.com/embeddable-common-lisp/ecl)
>How do you propose measuring it if not using the 50/50 metric?

If I had that answer, I honestly think I would be a billionaire. Really though, I have no practical ideas, because it isn't something I work with regularly. It seems like a sociologist could come up with something, some way to measure sentiment among youth, or something to that effect, but that's beyond me.

>Are we already at the point of equal opportunity? If not, why?

I don't believe so. Even the often touted Gender-equity paradox can be boiled down to gender stereotypes manifesting in individuals' decisions (https://www.pnas.org/content/117/49/31063).

All I know is that I see nearly no women enter STEM majors at the institutions I have worked with, whereas education and social work is almost 100% female. That is lopsided enough to tell me that something is at play here. I just simply am not educated enough to know what, how to measure it, or how to attempt to fix it.
There absolutely are programs for men into nursing.

Using Scandinavia as a barometer for equity in engineering for men and women is cherry-picking. Where I live, these measures were very successful and in the leading engineering-only university the rate of women graduating is now 30%. Seems successful to me.

As for this:
>Perhaps you don't, but for progressives it remains a core part of their ideology and one that can't be no-true-scotsman-ed away, now that the belief has become publicly embarrassing to have supported.

The only way to get out of this conundrum is for you to find evidence that at the ideological level progressivism is based on equality of outcome. I can't prove the negative. I can give examples however of specific far-left ideologies from anarchism to communism to mutualism to intersectional liberalism do not, at the ideological level, aim for equality of outcome.
Look-- my life would be crap without my wife. She's awesome and I am much happier in partnered life. I'd survive and have some enjoyment alone, but most of us end up partnered up because it's a serious buff to life fulfillment.

That doesn't make us codependent, to know that I'd spend lots of time miserable if unpartnered and without my wife in particular.
>Lonely? Make strong friendships! Spend your time with other men who like you and enjoy your company and validate you.

Men can feel lonely and unhappy and unfulfilled when they are involuntarily celibate even after having strong relationships with other men and with their families.

This has been my experience talking to hundreds of men in India. India has a strong family culture and a strong culture of strong friendships between men (sometimes even involving completely platonic hand-holding which is perceived as weird by the West) but not much of a culture of dating before marriage. The dating pool has a huge under-supply of women, so most men that do want to date would never find a girlfriend. In my experience, many of these men really struggle with loneliness and self-esteem. Eventually, they give in to the family pressure and just agree to an arranged marriage.
And what does it mean to 'live as if one does not have free will'?
Even Julia, nice !

https://discourse.julialang.org/t/texmacs-plugin-for-julia/5...
Watch amateur documentaries about obscure topics on YouTube.
Me three. I appreciate knowing the way they operate.

Loved the service so far, too. Have had a few times over the years where I needed to recover data from the backup, and it worked perfectly every time.
For personalized ads, Google bans [1] ads that "Imply knowledge of personally identifiable or sensitive information".

Facebook has something similar [2] but much narrower. "Gender Identity" is among the categories though ("LGBTQ adoption" in the first ad), as are medical conditions ("pregnancy exercises" in the second ad).

[1] https://support.google.com/adspolicy/answer/143465
[2] https://www.facebook.com/policies/ads/prohibited_content/per...
And memory usage.
I don't think that the body being inherently sinful is actually a part of evangelical Christianity. I'm sure there will be some within the evangelical category that teach that, but I think the core evangelical position is this: Sex is for marriage. Outside of marriage, sex is sinful/evil. But within marriage, it is good and to be enjoyed.

Now, you can still think of that as "misguided purity culture", but it's not "the body is inherently sinful".
Again, this (and my other text generation projects) are optimizing more for humor/chaos than accuracy, and there is a bolded important notice before the text emphasizing that the results may not be legal. Per the other comments on that Reddit thread, that appears to be the correct approach as the crazier-but-barely-legal cards are what resonate the best (the "bad" RoboRosewater cards were the most popular, not the good ones).

Curating only cards which are grammatically good is in itself misleading. Part of the reason I work on text generation in the first place is to illustrate its limitations.

I encourage you to run the notebook itself instead of arguing a No True Scotsman about something I never tried to assert. This notebook is not a thesis paper, just a side project about a ML model that took more time to train than to write the code for.
Is there a way I can see this for myself? Ie who facebook thinks I am? Is there something similar for google or other ad networks?
The title is a little sensational, and that is a good thing. Sensational titles usually do one of two things: clickbait, or playfully intrigue the target and deliver something in its vein.

This actually made me think about somewhere I might be wrong. I just got the book the article references and I'm going to read it. I've always been about efficiency, and still am where things can be automated. But the idea that you're less effective if you cram your life with tasks is intriguing, and maybe a little enticing. I'd like to explore the concept further.
> My apologies for the poor-quality clip; the wife has since scrubbed the post and all her comments. For better or worse, this is what remains of this particular piece of internet history.

What kind of asshole takes a deeply personal thing like this, which has been deleted by the original poster, keeps a screenshot of it lying around, and then reposts it as completely unnecessary flair on their blog? Maybe take the hint that she regretted posting it or didn't want it public anymore. Just because technology has all but destroyed privacy doesn't mean that it's ok to take advantage of it and be indecent.
Sadly not. Black-box testing an SSD for these kind of features takes months and hundreds of drives, and manufacturers will never talk about the inner workings of their firmware. Many big SSD users develop their own SSD hardware and firmware partly for this reason.

SSD firmware is also a spectrum between "correct" and "performance", and I know of no SSD's that for example maintain all of the acknowledged data on a power failure. Sure many SSD's may typically do that, but that isn't a guarantee when the power fails in worst-case conditions.

Old Apple SSD's for example have a special extra wire on the connector specifically for "impending power failure" to help them do that. PC SSD's don't even have a standard message to mean "power failure expected in 250 milliseconds".
On May 4, 1976, NASA launched LAGEOS
It is one thing to nominally 'support' friends through depression and another help them see it through to an under-defined end.

Supporting a depressed person will inevitably take a huge toll on your own mental health. That's aside from the time and physical effort it would take up. I am assuming that the friend has some understanding of depression to begin with, which from my personal experience is rarely the case.

I have supported a couple of friends through depression, and it is exhausting. In most cases I was only around them for weeks, and it drained happiness from my life. At time I felt like cutting contact, because depressed people are insufferable. The only reason I stayed to help was because I had personally gone through a similar situation recently, and didn't want to wish it on my worst enemy, let alone a friend.

It's like having a special needs child or being the carer for dependent parent. It is easy to say that you'd gladly do it, but the sad reality is you'll find yourself wishing for a better situation (with all the guilt in the world) once you are knee deep in it.
Another way to put this is: where would you rather make a long-term investment?
Human Scalability of DevOps
Solo, one-on-one conversations all.

One friend, recently married, much younger than I. Never brought up sex once in all the time I knew him, just casually drops at a party while the two of us are alone in a hallway that the cliche was real.

My longest friendship, married a woman who talked a good game, was very out and proud about her kinky background, and so on. Another dead bedroom, this usually mentioned during long car rides while we go out. She keeps saying that she'll try to do better but does nothing, meanwhile everything she has on the table is a crisis.

And so on and so forth.
And even cute staged pictures of the Cellebrite in the road. Nobody other than the CEO even would think of doing something so provocative in a space with national security interests and regulators involved.
Just realized the same. Wonder which underlying provider went down.
Nuzzel is going away for now
Yes, tech firms incinerate capital on these deals (generally, Google particularly). It is confusing cause and effect: these firms are large (with little to no shareholder oversight), and so can spend large amounts of money on useless acquisitions.

The effect on innovation is the opposite: ppl start up companies knowing they will get bought (I wouldn't call this innovation but others would).

And your point about dividend stocks is wrong. Dividend stocks are usually cash-generative businesses that have high ROI but are capital constrained. For various behavioural reasons, people underpay for these stocks...although you have to factor in that dividend stocks will generate taxable income, so the returns tend to be overstated. Either way, it is neither here nor there...the question is about what you pay and what you get. You pay a certain price for marginal ROIC, the question is whether the price you are paying allows a decent return (generally speaking, I don't like dividend stocks, they are slow-growth, I will have to pay tons of taxes, and I will have to work out how to recycle the capital...I would much rather own a stock that can retain my capital and invest it for me at a high rate).

Btw, the reason why M&A happens and destroys capital is because it is a very easy route to growth, investors aren't sophisticated about value-destroying deals (if they result in growth in EPS), and comp is usually based on growth. It is a pretty toxic combination (you can't push on a string, most businesses can't grow fast, paying execs doesn't change that so the execs walk away with a big sack of your money and you end up with nothing).
I was always a fan of cocktail sauce (ketchup with horseradish).
I followed the chain to that comment and then asked the questions I asked. Please answer them, I would appreciate it.

You seem to be building an odd little strawman to knock down based on some bogeyman theoretical progressive you have imagined. I'm trying to point that out to you.
Would you like to own Exist? (March)
Slightly off this topic. What amazes me is that our phones are surely capable of knowing when we are driving but they still allow texting. Seems like an easy win for safety yet crickets is all we get here.
I agree with most of this (though "Toxic Masculinity", like "Triggers," "Privilege," and so many others, is a phrase that used to be useful and has now been utterly destroyed by the socially fashionable).

The general "response" to the incel phenomenon seems to be to diagnose (and dismiss) them as the sexual version of anorexics: people who have an unrealistically negative view of their sexual appeal and potential and end up harming themselves as a result. If they could just stop being so hard on themselves and relax, they'd be fine!

This is a problem for two reasons. First, a lot of people genuinely are seriously, perhaps even hopelessly impaired in terms of finding a sexual partner. Appearance, money, and the ability to navigate a host of social and psychological interactions are vital to the process, and some people lack enough of these that their ability to find a partner is slim to none, and will not be improved by a few personal tweaks. The situation is similar to depression: everyone has felt down at some point and gotten over it with simple coping strategies, so they inevitably suggest these strategies to depressed people, not realizing they're dealing with a much deeper problem.

But second, the real issue, as demonstrated in the discussion here, is that a large portion of the population has an unhealthy obsession with having a sexual partner. They view it both as an unqualified good and as a necessity, and are thus terrified of going without it for any significant period of time. For these people, you are not complete as a person unless you're in a relationship. This is a profoundly unhealthy and destructive way to live life, even for ordinary people.

Relationships CAN be good. They can also be bad. On the whole, they generally end up creating almost as many problems as they solve (and sometimes more!). Having a partner is optional. It isn't like air or water or good nutrition. You have to find peace within yourself, with yourself, before anything else. Trying to fix that with any outside thing, including sexual or romantic partners, is a recipe for disaster.

This thread is full of people continuing this warped line of thinking. Relationships aren't evil, they can be good and they can have positive effects on people. But they aren't necessary, and they won't fix you. Only you can fix you.

In short, our culture very clearly has an addiction to sex and romance. Not in the dopamine sense, but because we believe the answer to our problems lies in someone else. In people with the ability to feed this addiction you get mild to moderate problems. In people without that ability, you get incels. Incels are just the most extreme symptom of a deeper disease.
Nothing about what I said means that values are static over time or that the balance can't shift. It's true that today's crazies at the edge might be tomorrows center - although I find that thought troubling!

But make no mistake, the extremes at both ends harbor dangerous crazies. In politics, while the evils of the right are obvious and dangerous, the evils of the left are much more seductive but have been just as dangerous this past century (think fascists vs communists).

On gender issues, the incels are clearly unhinged. But so are the extreme feminists.
Don’t ya love inbound marketing?
Thanks for the digg tip, haven't visited in years, looks good. Reddit still has great subreddits but it's so much harder to sift through the garbage these days.

Does anyone else thing there is space in the market for a place between hand curated content / aggregators?

For me it seems like people are really wanting more curation, especially because of the ever increasing torrent of low quality content.

Some kind of curation platform? It's like we went too far on the spectrum away from flow-TV towards "too much clicking and choosing", not sure if this is the case for younger demographics though.
It's probably the personal data clause. Something like you may not call out personal characteristics of an individual in your ad.
That new interface sucking resources..
May be also comment on price of HDD? Doesn't seems to move at all.
Facebook already has a way in-app for you to see why you were targeted with an ad (on any ad click the 3-dot menu -> "Why am I seeing this ad?"). The tool will tell you things like whether you were retargeted vs targeted using lookalike audiences, targeted based off of your age, gender, location, interests, etc.

I don't think this is the "slam dunk" the author intends it to be, but I'm sure it will resonate with the Woke™ hackernews crowd regardless.
I think there's low-key some of that, as a sort of way to "pass the buck", i.e. somebody who owns some outcome thinks, I don't like how the output of this system, let me go upstream and talk to this team to see if they can take on some new process to improve the output I care about.

A lot of this is also just "good intentions". Somebody encounters a problem and thinks "I want to prevent this problem, so I am going to propose this process to avoid it". It works if you have a small number of these processes, but once it gets to a large number, now you're frozen by bureaucracy. Every time you do something, you need to look up the exact process to get it done.
Absolutely, and thank you.
https://github.com/adsharma/py2many/issues/168

Please add details if any
Andy for Backblaze here: I looked at that 3-4 years ago. It looks like power cycling increased failure rates, but we don't power cycle our systems very often, maybe 1-2 a year, so not the best use case. This is on my list for a relook one of these days, if we find anything interesting we'll let folks know.
Good for who? I'd add Effective at what?
I don't think it's helpful to think of "feminism" as a singular movement, the way it's often portrayed in conservative editorial writing and cable news. We're talking about 50+ years of academic scholarship and grassroots activism here, and all the complications and inconsistencies that implies.

If you're looking for something in particular to make this case for you, I recommend reading the short book Feminism is for Everybody, by bell hooks, which does specifically talk about mens issues and how what she calls the patriarchal organization of society negatively affects men in different and unique ways (compared to women).

But again, editorials - especially on the right - typically pick out the most extreme or indefensible positions and try to make them appear to be normalized and widely accepted. You're doing yourself an intellectual diservice not to really deeply interrogate the motivations and biases of any piece of media that leaves you feeling like an enormous group of people (those who consider themselves feminists) is in fact wildly irrational and extreme. It should set off alarm bells when you draw such stark lines in the sand as "any claim that feminism is for anything in regards to men, might need to be backed up with some strong cases" that you're missing some nuance or complexity.