skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This sounds exactly like an older palm pilot.

They used ram for persistent storage because the battery life was so long (due to a very slow dragon ball CPU and those dot-matrix displays.)

The palm III was probably one of the best hand-held computers ever made, if there were a way to put a modern modem in it to get texts I would probably use that instead of my phone.
'How good news' stories hide healthcare woes
That's a non-issue for scalable version control systems they use - perforce and now its in-house replacement (piper).

Gamedev companies LOVE perforce because it scales, they keep game assets in it and those can be huge.
>Sigh. The lottery is a tax on stupidity.

This sentiment has been trotted out before but if I get $1 worth of entertainment from a lottery ticket then it's not a tax on anything. Most people don't expect to win the lottery but the thought of "what if" is worth the money they pay. And the money seems to go to good causes in most states so I can't see how anyone could criticize playing the lottery unless you're doing it with money you can't afford to lose. This is all supported by very simple economic principles, as well. You might as well say a $6 Starbucks coffee is a tax on stupidity.
How Apple does M&A: Small and quiet, with no bankers
Yes, at some point you get diminishing ROI :) We were OK with having the pipeline fail due to a change in the live API that our mocks didn't emulate, then we'd go update our mocks (and fix the code).

It happened infrequently enough that it wasn't worth the effort to automate the testing of the mocks against the live APIs.

Though honestly, for internal APIs owned by sister teams, this was usually due to a bug/non-backward-compatible change on their side, and we'd work with them to fix their APIs.
"derogatory" - really? can you point out how?

How would you phrase a feature request?
I wonder if an Airtag can still track if it's been swallowed? Or does a human body block too much RF?

I can practically guarantee these things will be swallowed if the ridiculous people who eat Tide Pods are anything to go on...
I use a pager. AMA
Landlock: Unprivileged access control will be available in Linux 5.13
Wealthy would dodge 90% of Biden's capital gains tax increase, study says
It does not work both ways when the things I'm arguing for are directly impacting my fellow coworkers, and are the results of direct decisions by the higher ups. It's not a question of society at that point, it's a question of what's good for the company.

OP loves his fellowship analogy, but you can't have a fellowship where the halflings are only getting half-rations and Gandalf refuses to let the Dwarves participate in half of their endeavours.
Supreme Court’s Ethics Problems Are Bigger Than Coney Barrett
Note that crime in the US overall has gone wayyyy down since you were likely a kid. We're at Leave It To Beaver levels.
So odd. I watched a preview of Painting with John on HBO and he mentioned Ross. Said Ross was wrong. Everyone can’t actually paint.

Then I wondered if Ross paintings were on the market. Then this thread appears.
So now it is "jokes lead to genocide, AND to all sorts of other bad stuff"? Sorry I don't see a way out of that being a political battle. It's absolutely just a belief system. It seems just as likely that displaying a sense of humour could prevent bad things from happening. The difference is that with the ADL pyramid, people feel entitled to control other people's thoughts and actions, and humour does not bring such entitlement.

Personally I would loath having to have such discussions at work. It's OK to consider some jokes to be in bad taste. Point it out and move on. That should be the extent of it. But not calling on some abstract higher moral framework that let's you control your colleagues.

And I am not saying it should be a general rule for companies, either. I just want companies to be allowed to set their own rules.

For all I care, there could be companies with "no jokes" policies, and people who prefer could go to work there. I would prefer the "jokes allowed" companies. I just want there to be choice. Basecamp is a little ray of hope for me, but if people prefer to have political discussions at work, I don't begrudge them for working at companies that allow them.
Great little New York Times mini documentary (10 minutes) about Bob Ross Inc.:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDs3o1uLEdU
This is just false.

New blocks are created with transactions in them and can’t be verified if they haven’t been mined, because verification works by checking the hash that the miner found.

Transactions that are not yet part of a mined block cannot be verified.
Half true. Historians have written on this quite a bit, but this article gives a solid overview:

https://theundefeated.com/features/white-immigrants-werent-a...

At points in time, some states have had laws on the books that 100% differentiated between "white" people and other European immigrants.
Above should start “PWAs aren’t”, d’oh…
How is "corporate right" defined? I don't know that much about how corporations expressed political positions in the 20th century, but what would we call FAANG today? They're certainly corporate, but don't seem very "right". Or are they "right" by default because they're corporate?

In any case, corporations seeking policy favorable to their cause from big government tends to appear leftist in that it is similar to what the leftist on the street wants - the government engineering the society towards some outcome as a priority over protecting the liberty of the individual.

I'm trying to sort this out in my own head. I know we normally think of business as "right", but it seems that businesses transform in to leftist behavior when the government is of a size and inclination to make winners and losers.
Can someone ELI5 please? My field is low level computer systems, and unfortunately that knowledge does not extend to low level physiological processes!
> Carriers were just not interested in phones from smaller manufacturers, and it's not entirely clear that there is no backflow of cash involved at higher levels.

I really doubt it’s something sinister in enterprise sized logistics. Mainly because the big guys don’t need to be al 90’ies Microsoft about it in the modern world of leaned up Enterprise. The service the big global brands come with do save the carriers a lot of money, but it’s done perfectly legal.

First there is the logistics. As a smaller carrier, you won’t really have to worry about doing BI on sales projections and what not, because Apple, Samsung and so on will simply tell you how many phones you can expect to sell, which is basically how many they’ve already produced for your region. They’ll handle everything from warehousing to shipping to your local stores pretty much without you having to do anything but sign the extremely “take it or leave it” sort of B2B contract, that also includes the big companies not charging you for products that don’t sell. What this translates to is that you can basically run your company without a logistics department or any BI related to the actual phone hardware. This saves you money both on manpower but also on not having too much inventory.

Then there the support side of things. By carrying big well known brands with a very low degree of user freedom for modifications you cut the non-carrier related support you need to offer to almost nothing. You could probably offer good money to get carriers to sell, even a well known brand like the fairphone, and they’d still turn you down because it would cost them too much money to do so.
If that works for you, you should definitely run your business that way. Likewise, if you’re a customer of docker I’m sure they’ll be very happy to hear from you as to what it’ll will take to keep your business.

Yesterday I grabbed a free book off a stoop in Brooklyn. Should I go on Twitter and trash the homeowner because there are pencil marks in it?
Honestly expected it to be way more.
I've still got one like that. Microwaves don't really wear out, so why replace them?
> some genuinely want to participate in missions and want to find others who think similarly.

And some are lucky enough to be in a position to decree that their employees think similarly, or at least shut up about it.
I see you've decided to make up a cartoon version of my views and argue with that. I'll try one more reply, but I'm not optimistic.

I didn't say it was an immutable characteristic. I said it was an endemic problem. I would like it to go away, but we won't get there by pretending it has gone away. We have to make that happen, and that first requires looking honestly at the history and present facts of it.

A positive example here is Germany. They stopped denying they had an antisemitism problem and have worked assiduously to remove it. And plenty of western nations have moved fitfully in the direction of acknowledging previous and current oppression. In the US, both Reconstruction and the Civil Rights movement are positive examples there. But in both cases, society gave up before finishing the job (see first and second Nadirs). My proposal: this time let's not let those trying to conserve oppression win.

As with polio, it's perfectly possible to eliminate something endemic. But also as with polio, some people of a conservative bent will try to conserve even the harmful parts of the status quo. (My part of the US was settled by a bunch of Dutch who thought things like vaccines and insurance were refusing to accept God's will, for example. And in the modern era, the US right has caused at least a couple hundred thousand deaths through various pro-Covid actions.) So yes, conservatives trying to conserve harmful things may end up feeling bad about that.

I'm fine with that. I understand that conservatives are used to being coddled by society, and that this is uncomfortable for them. As they say, when you're used to privilege, equality feels like oppression. But my goal here is minimizing actual oppression, and I think that's more important than preserving the very delicate feelings of those who previously got away with not examining the consequences of their politics.
Hey, I need to fire Tom, can you roll out the balloon privacy wall and blow it up? This is completely dissociated from reality, and shows what the hell they're doing instead of innovating.
That’s a UX issue with your preferred browser.
I appreciate you asking this question, as it wasn't obvious to me either
I suspect that one big, big reason developers don't document is this: most developers work on making relatively small changes something that came before them and is poorly documented. There is no documentation for them to maintain in parallel with maintaining the code.

There are barriers, both psychological and real, against documenting changes that ride on an undocumented ball of mud.

The psychological barriers amount to, "what is the point". Why document some insignificant part of something that is documented, on the whole? For instance, imagine a windowing system that is mostly undocumented, except for the wonderful 15 page treatise on its scrollbars, because a compulsive documenter touched the scroll-bar code. Which was 13 years ago.

The real barriers stem from the problem that the documentation depends on other documentation, much like code depends on other code. If you document a small part of some undocumented whole, that documentation has nothing to refer to. There are no certainties it can rely on, provided by other documentation, no context. This attaches a barrier to the documentation: the first person to document anything at all in that system has to provide the context for that documentation, and start the process.

That barrier brings with it psychological barriers: the fear of the effort (how much time it will take to start the documentation effort) and the perception of futility: that nobody else will come on board, and so that will be the first and last piece of documentation ever written, effectively making it a waste of effort.

For these reasons, even programmers who write excellent, lengthy documentation for their side projects can become reluctant to document something on the job.

Developers working on an undocumented ball of mud might put their documenting effort into detailed summaries of their changes and the reasoning behind them, rather than into building a coherent description of the system: in other words, to write that documentation that is more likely to save them from any predicament caused by their changes, rather than to help someone else navigate the system as such.
Wait, you plugged a wifi power meter in your apartment building's communal washroom? Don't you get pinged everytime anyone finishes a load of laundry?

Also: brilliant hack!
Seems like there is missing context here. Part of doing your job is communicating changes and explaining your reasoning when needed, "Unbuntu is doomed" doesn't really cover the need for communications. From the story I have no idea why there would be a need to switch form Ubuntu to Fedora - seems like a personal preference choice and that might look like change for the sake of change and no meaningful benefit to someone in a another group. Feeling like there is another side to the story here.
Sound to me like inspired in J. L. Borges style taking of crypto
It's not a 10% return on investment, it's 10% profit.
I read their stated reason. I just don't get it.

If you feel that way, then why even place the bets? I mean, you could generate a text file that said "I would have placed the following bets" and then see if you would have won...
>See the link in my original post.

>Over a year ago, I was investigating using Prisma to be the ORM for a GraphQL API of a Postgres database. When doing a proof-of-concept, I discovered that under the hood @prisma/client was spinning up it's own GraphQL server that it would send requests to in order to generate SQL to send to postgres. This extra middleware layer between my frontend code and postgres generated some pretty poor performing queries that took 50% longer to complete than the queries generated by using Hasura as our whole GraphQL API.

Doesn't seem like it's worth writing off Node/JavaScript/NPM just due to this large project making a questionable design decision

>like create-react-app, which feels the right thing to do is to spawn my $EDITOR when it sees exception in the log (which it hides)

Just seems like it's Facebook's problem. I wouldn't be surprised if there's some Python package out there that does something similar. There's nothing inherent about JavaScript that makes this more likely to happen. Maybe there's something inherent about the community, but I'd really need to see a thorough empirical analysis of packages across a lot of languages before I start making judgments about that.

It might be worth making fun of a particular package if they pull in way too many other packages, but it's still all a case-by-case evaluation.

I personally strongly dislike JavaScript and much of its ecosystem, myself; it's just the kneejerk pattern-matching reaction that I thought was unwarranted.
> if only they implemented my brilliant idea would things get fixed.

That is not how "Did it work? Kinda" reads to me.
That's a silly argument. There's absolutely no reason that a built-in loophole would have to let water in (unlike iFixit's drilled hole, which might).
My plumber always tells me never to use drain cleaners, so I wouldn’t say nobody worries about it...
As you say, the issues are orthogonal. I randomise my wordlist so places next to each other don't have words necessarily close to each other in the alphabet. But because it's hierarchical e.g. most places in the uk start 'bishop'. I think this is good because you learn to recognise places,but imagine if loads of places in India started with the word 'colony'... it's a problem you don't have to worry about if you don't use a hierarchical scheme.

https://wherewords.id/
Also if you accidentally close/kill your browser window then launching a fresh one and doing Ctrl + Shift + T will reopen all of the tabs you previously had open!
That's the thing. Linux wasn't made by any one culture or country. Linux is a distributed product of the world no one can claim in good conscience. It's not Finnish, nor American, nor by Intel or by Google. It's not even Linus'. It's made by all of its contributors from all over the world.

In Civ parlance, whoever gets the Linux Kernel technology gets the same benefit as anybody else. No one is richer or better than the other civilization because of it, everybody is.
I got that, I have very little free time and I’m in Ireland so I’ve no idea how time zones would permit this.

My response was meant to be humorous.
The law never had that intent though, and getting it into there will most probably be impossible
.
> "Anglo-Saxon" has lost any meaning beyond fair skinned at this point for the vast majority of people.

Maybe in USA, I don't know anyone who uses it like that.
If your of an older demographic, that may potentially have a wad of cash, pickpocketing is still very much a problem. Especially in tourist spots.
This is a desktop app, so there's no need for engineering to maintain older versions. They can just ask users to upgrade to the latest before opening support inquiries. They can even deprecate old web endpoints if they want, and again ask users to upgrade to continue using.
Nothing hacked about it. They rewrote it completely, keeping just the interface for compatibility. Perforce scales very well but still has a single server at its core - at some point no matter how much money google threw at that machine (it used to be the beefiest single server they had), it just couldn't keep up.
Part of me wonders why nobody tries to make software like we make buildings... After some time, it's all done and nothing else needs to be added.

People will be quick to point out that "the hardware keeps changing so the software has to adapt".
This is true, but why not design the software in such a way that different drivers can easily be substituted (so the drivers can change but the interface doesn't)?

I did this with my open source project. I haven't made any code changes for over a year and it still works perfectly and still relevant.

I don't understand why there is such a fetish in this industry for never finishing any project. I find the whole attitude very frustrating.
What about 1 != 2?
Why? Have you considered replacing it?

Just curious :)
Some good comments from the last time around:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25093704
Spelling is very much an underappreciated problem. Written English is particularly bad, sometimes requiring memorization that's not much unlike Chinese characters, because of the written language not adapting to the vowel shifts and changes in pronunciation, as well as the mess of a history the language has gone through as it developed in the UK.

Children, dyslexics, non-native speakers, all will have a hard time writing down many words even if they're part of the top 1000 list.

With the right word set (avoiding homophones) and the presence of autocorrect (or an input only allowing the limited word list), you could probably create a pretty resilient system if you only take the most common words (top 1k would likely be sufficient). You'll need a longer address, but remembering six words is a lot easier than remembering six letters.

Sadly, the entire concept is flawed and doomed for as long as the goons of What Three Words operate their business like a failed media company, sending out threats, falsifying legal documents to enforce takedown requests, and lawyering up to anyone who even considers applying "their" algorithm on their own. "Their" idea may be patentable in the US, but in areas of the world where there is no such patent, these goons cannot take down the competition without lying and dishonesty and they've shown to do anything to prevent any competitor from entering the market.
You know buildings also require maintenance, right?
And my guess is the reply means: ”there is no time, but I wish...”
> You might as well do it yourself and use a language you are otherwise familiar and happy with.

Nim, Rust, D, Lisp support this already as compiled languages, without sacrificing anything - perhaps also Zig - at the macro level. Jai offers it as a language feature, but I don't think that's a particularly good idea - it's just that Jai tries to stay simple in such a way that doesn't let it be a user-level thing.

> Is it? You can't do what I described in C, for instance.

Not exactly, no, but you can with "X-macros", and I have - in fact - been doing that since 2005 or so, using only features from C89 ; I admit I have not used Java in the last 10 years, and then it was impossible - maybe some of the revisions in the last decade made it possible "inside the language" - what's the name of the feature I need to look up?

> I don't understand what you mean. In the above example, the Ant class exists, so you don't need adapters. The arrays inside the AntColony class exist (once the annotation processor is done with them), so you don't need adapters.

And now, you try to use the standard library "Sort" or "Find", it doesn't work without adapters, even if you have comparators defined for Ant -- and many other things that assume that objects are not part of a colony.

It's hard to explain in a short post. I occasionally use a language called "K" of the APL family, which makes all of this incredibly trivial from the get go. It's not a new language - K itself IIRC predates Java by a couple of years, APL (of which K is often considered a dialect) was first specified in 1958 and implemented in 1962. It basically considers everything an array - one or multiple dimensional - and field access is nothing more than having one of the axes specified by symbols rather than numbers. This makes everything incredibly simple and uniform to an extent that is hard to describe to someone who has not experienced it. (And indeed, in the turing sense it makes no difference .... but if you implement your Java objects as "mapping from field to value" you may get some of the benefits but will not really be using Java or be able to use the ecosystem)
No - this is trivially googled.

Compare phones sold to phones in service.

Tens of millions vs more then a billion.
Great article.
I truly wish that companies that base their business model on environment destroying convenience would just die. But people love their convenience unfortunately.
Development does continue as a community effort, so hopefully it can break through!: https://ubports.com/
Everyone can paint. Not necessarily well.
> Backdoors into iPhones already exist, here's one that was used for a while, before Apple closed it: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/cat-mouse-fight-fix-e...

I presume you know that isn’t an example of someone “tapping the memory bus”, which seems to be still just bullshit.

Yes, security flaws exist.

Generally we close them, not argue for abandoning security altogether as you are doing.

Police generally are helpless against the iPhone.

Nation states may well not be, but it is still going to cost them a lot.

Your argument - that because nation states can compromise the iPhone, we should make it so everyone can, seems very odd.
I disagree. Almost all software I use these days is absurdly slower than it should be and probably a massive drain on collective productivity. I have ssd, fast internet, 64gb ddr4 etc, almost everything I do should be impercetibly instant but instead takes seconds and even minutes.

Yeah of course most of that slowness is not even because of ignorance of the low level stuff but complete disregard of performance aspect of software. If it's even slightly more convenient for a programmer to do something that is very stupid performance wise, they will do it.

Sure developer time costs, but this cannot actually be the reason. Because tooling is also ridiculously slow in exactly same way and wastes countless of hours of that costly developer time.