skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's kind of ironic because I only learned the "correct" pronunciation when I got a boring office job at an American tech company. When I used the n00b pronunciation I was in college, and way more of a 1337 h4x0r.

So as a shibboleth it mostly functions to distinguish those who discuss tech in English with their colleagues from those who do not. The latter group is quite diverse; it includes self-taught people, people communicating mostly in writing, and people who speak other languages than English with their colleagues.

> For example nginx is engine-ex not en-jinks. They often seem intentionally hard or ambiguous to pronounce.

I think it's a side-effect of the desire to create a name for your project that is both short and unique.
Not sure. There's GNU after all. Wikipedia's "arbitrary" standard is actually pretty common in my experience. But I'm not sure I could come up with a coherent explanation as to why.
We're hardly at a post-scarcity economy. At most we can say that (poor quality) food isn't scarce. Education, housing, transportation, medical care etc. are scarce. Self-inflicted? At least to some extent. But artificial scarcity is still scarcity when you're on the receiving side.
> I do not find trees looking similar at all.

What trees are you talking about ? or you mean in general ?
Service Workers Aren’t Lazy, They Just Don’t Want to Risk Dying for Minimum Wage
Long regex's are not the root of all evil but they're certainly a tendril of bad-practice.

I would say that the OP's usage, a home-made concoction to find all opening tags in an xhtml doc, crosses the line into bad practice. Get a room and use a parser, people!
Doesn't that still have the problem of categorizing the reader, being wildly off-topic from the technical content of the article and distracting the reader by making them wonder, at least a bit, if the technical content of the article is going to be different for them depending on who they are?

The joke barely makes sense in context. Is the physical size of the memory relevant to the point about memory-mapped views of disk - and is it a problem that the physical size of memory is smaller? Should one program an MP3 player the way described in this article, or not? What about USB flash drives (which one is likely to have in one's pocket, and which are roughly the same form factor as the other object alluded to here) - they're much slower than main disk and more likely to fail. Is this an intended reference to such memory devices, and in either case, how does the advice from the article apply to such devices?

The article would be better (more effective at communicating its point) without it.
Look, this is silly. Not removing the users number on request is asking for a huge scandal if it ever was leaked or compromised. Pulling this crap isn’t worth it. The value of collecting a few phone numbers from people who don’t want to give it out is nothing.
>the article nurtures an old misconception .. that there are some traits that distinctly separates humans from other animal

There are a number of traits that make humans a unique animal, it's not a misconception.

Humans:

- Are aware of the existence of good and evil and have the capacity for moral reasoning

- Have language

- Are aware of the existence of the distant future, and can plan for it beyond the instinctual cycle of a single season like a hibernating squirrel

- Are aware of their own mortality and vulnerability

- Have art

There might be more but that's a good start. We are animals, of course, nothing "separates us from the animals," in a clean way, but boy we're weird animals.

> Immediately downvoted

WTF HN, is this not polite, curious discourse? Why do I even try here? Never mind, I hate this website. Bye
I wonder what the split is between “O-S-Ten” and “O-S-X”.

I suspect -X is more common.
It should read (partially) empowered by Sci-Hub, since they host an archive of Sci-Hub.
Adding my voice to this. I know that the article was written in 2006, but still. If one wants to be taken seriously as a writer, one shouldn't insert puerile jokes for 12 year olds into their prose. It made me wince when when I read it, and I was ready to comment here about it, but GP got here first.
They'd ask: "What is 78000?"
Elon Musk SNL Monologue
Unicode is not a text encoding. UTF8, UTF16, UTF32, etc. are text encodings.

> a single character can be made up of multiple code points.

It's really the other way round...
"The lack of built-in HTTPS seems killer to me."

I agree. I think varnish remained popular for 2 reasons:

- It was, at one time, higher performing than an nginx proxy cache. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore.

- VCL is very rich and flexible with primitives for reading/writing cookie contents, cache metadata, cache flushing, client and server state, and so on.

So probably the only reason left if that you're doing something really complicated with your cache in VCL.

Otherwise, as you say, the built in HTTPS of nginx, haproxy, nuster, or something else is a big advantage.
Was this because license revenue dropped? They want to do the same in Ireland
That's a rather naive take that you're attacking all of "biology" with. The article doesn't even state what you criticize it for - it doesn't say that there is no such thing as a tree, it says there is no such thing phylogenetically.

All of these systems of categorization are necessarily arbitrary in a way, since all of life is a big messy tangle of related organisms, and there is nothing to clearly tell you where to draw lines to separate them. That's the source of your confusion right there. Turns out, groupings that seem obvious to someone who hasn't looked closely can be really difficult to delineate clearly.

So, biologists try to define rules by which to do that, which they can apply unambiguously. One of the possible rules to apply is that groups should be paraphyletic, i.e. only contain (some of the) organisms with a shared common ancestor, or monophyletic, i.e. contain all of the organisms with a shared common ancestor.

Other groupings do not fulfill those criteria, those are called polyphyletic. Grouping organisms that way has somewhat gone out of fashion, now that evolution is well understood. What this article is saying is that trees form a polyphyletic group. In addition to that, even just defining a group (for example, based on structural or functional properties of the plant) that neatly maps to what people usually consider to be a "tree" is harder than it sounds. Since all of that might be surprising, you see it here on HN.
gnuplot is not GNU
I find the term "RPG" to be a much too ambiguous term.

My fiction is for most people (but not me), RPG = a character in a fantasy setting (were fantasy = swords, knights, wizards). The end. By this they categorize both every console Zelda game and every Final Fantasy game as "RPG". But the 2 series are not remotely similar to each other. The Zelda console series are skill based action games with puzzle solving. The Final Fantasy series is a menu based choice game with possibly some strategy in which choices you make and what upgrades you choose.

You could probably also argue that The Witcher does not fit in the same category as Wizardry or the original Bard's Tale for similar reasons.

And, almost like trying to define "sandwich", if you pick some criterion then you can find examples of games that fit that criterion that most people wouldn't consider an RPG. Consider if you claim "Zelda" is an RPG because you move a character around a large fantasy world and have inventory then by that definition "Ratchet and Clank" is an RPG.

Further, even the term "Role Playing Game", in a racing simulation I'm playing the role of a race car driver. So technically PRG fits. Same for a skiing game or skateboarding game or many other games were you "play a role".

I'd argue game genres should be defined by how they're played, not how they look. As such, Wizardry, Diablo, and The Witcher do not belong in the same genre.
No, Wikipedia does not make the judgement call on whether to "reject" corporate case styling on its own, it follows what is "in widespread use":

> Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official", as long as this is a style already in widespread use, rather than inventing a new one: (But see exception below under § Trademarks that begin with a lowercase letter.)

> use: Time, Kiss, Asus, Sony Mobile. (Capitalize IKEA, IBM, as acronyms/initialisms.)

> avoid: TIME, KISS, ASUS, SONY Mobile

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trad...
GNU is an acronym, that's fine. But if they insist on Nvidia, they should also insist on Xkcd (it's not an acronym, just an unpronounceable artificial word).
In terms of folding, you can imagine a protein as balls on a string, where each ball has some extra stuff on its surface. One may have a bit of velcro hooks here and a small magnet there (N outwards). Another one may have some surface adhesive and a S-outwards magnet. Another one, velcro loops and a blob of adhesive. Etc. You put such a string of balls in a box and shake it for a while. After you're done, you'll have a somewhat stable structure made of various balls connected by their relevant attachment mechanisms. If you were clever at designing the original string of balls, you could make it highly probable that any such string would reach the same connected structure after being tumbled a bit.

Proteins are like that. The connections are chemical bonds; velcro, magnets and glue represent different structures on protein pieces that allow some kids of bonds to form with given strengths, and disallow others. The tumbling/shaking part is matter and temperature - in a living organism, everything mostly keeps bumping into everything else at random, and in particular, there's plenty of water molecules to push things around randomly. Pieces of protein thus keep connecting and disconnecting with other pieces, until the whole molecule reaches a stable state where the constant bumping isn't enough to break any of the bonds. That's how proteins fold.

Somehow, it turns out that any given protein tends to almost always fold into a very specific shape (which is currently impossible for us to compute a-priori, given just an ordered list of amino acid residues). But there are other possible shapes that a protein can sometimes reach, which are also stable but do not let it perform the functions the body needs it to. That's bad - such a protein is at best useless, at worst disruptive, and stability makes it hard for the body to get rid of it. Then there sometimes are stable shapes whose presence cause other similar proteins to fold to that same shape, instead of the one they'd ordinarily do - that's prions. That's very bad news. They reproduce through catalyzing creation of more of them, and their stability means they can just linger around after the host organism has died, and it's not easy to destroy them through boiling or denaturing agents.
Oh noes. I'm one of those people who keep calling it that. What is the correct pronunciation?
Welcome to Hacker News, please enjoy your stay. /s
DOS is in there too. I wonder what else lies among the depths?

Quite the achievement to have written software that is still in use and discussed 36 years later.
If it is well managed and a safe withdrawal rate is maintained, it very well could go to all descendants.
Killing people to achieve a technology is unacceptable and unethical ... maybe in nazi germany you could pull that off, but I think you'd eventually be charged with crimes against humanity.
1. Strong but unsubstantiated implication of causal relation. Both in the title as in the article itself. (FYI Other cryptocurrencies also entered a downtred at roughly the same time.)

2. Pure hinting, guessing, and speculation throughout:

- "Tesla futures weren't trading Saturday night during the show." (. almost as in ...)

- "Perhaps investors wanted Musk to say something more supportive of the cryptocurrency."

- "But more likely, there was some "buy the rumor / sell the news" strategy.""

3. Article based on a time sensitive crossing of popular and sensational topics cryptocurrency and Elon Musk. Actually, the article consists mostly of popular search keywords with some other words in between to make it (barely) legible.

Was this article written by a human or by a program? If it was done by a human, CNN is a lost cause. If by a program, then that program definitely needs some work.
That is not true.

> Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official", as long as this is a style already in widespread use, rather than inventing a new one: (But see exception below under § Trademarks that begin with a lowercase letter.)

> use: Time, Kiss, Asus, Sony Mobile. (Capitalize IKEA, IBM, as acronyms/initialisms.)

> avoid: TIME, KISS, ASUS, SONY Mobile

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trad...
Easy Ways to Banish Visible Panty Lines in Tight Dresses
I think of it like a dynamic programming type situation. You have notes to be assigned fingers to and the metric is minimizing uncomfortable/awkward hand movements. So the specifics can vary from person to person (and hand to hand), but there are generally agreed upon fingerings for things like scales or chromatic runs.
The article goes as far as to say that a parser is not the right tool.

> Not only can the task be solved with a regular expression - regular expressions are basically the only practical way to solve the problem. Which is why none of the clever answers actually suggest another way to solve the problem.

So no, the author is not missing the point at all.
I have never ever heard this word used spoken, or read it organically in a published work. I have only ever seen it on reddit, and now here.

Which doesn't mean it's invalid or not a "real" word or whatever. But I'm a descriptivist and there doesn't seem to be much real use of this one to describe.

I have no idea where it came from and I think it's kind of fascinating. I've been seeing it for almost 20 years online, but it's almost like a few people just like it and want it to catch on.

I think at this point it's at the "stop trying to make sonder happen" stage.
Learning curve aside, most of the gameplay loop in this and most roguelikes is movement / auto-explore, ramming into enemies and healing as necessary. Far less of the "strategic" game people make it out to be, though you can spend time tinkering if you want. Brogue tries to rectify this with more tactical play on smaller maps at the outset - it's nicer but fundamentally you end up doing the same thing.

For my part if I'm going to spend a good deal of time grinding, it's generally more fun to slash and shoot something in the face in real time. But those actions games tend to miss out on some golden moments of random chance, tense decision making or interesting possibilities.

I think this is why roguelites have gotten so popular as they try to bridge the gap. Also the likes of Rimworld and DF that let you pause and unpause, advance time at high speed.
> But iAd launched before their "protection of user privacy' stance. Not after it.

That's a disingenuous claim. While iAd did predate Apple pushing privacy as a mainstream marketing angle, it certainly did not predate Apple taking a strong position on consumer privacy. This had been a theme in Apple's corporate decisions for at least the past fifteen years, likely longer.

Furthermore your own quoted paragraph belies your own assertion. iAd failed in part because of Apple's "prickly attitude to sharing customer data".

Quotes from a contemporary article:

But advertisers became increasingly perturbed that Apple refused to give them access to the wealth of data iAd had on its consumers from Apple’s hundreds of millions of iTunes accounts.

Stefan Bardega, media agency ZenithOptimedia’s chief digital officer, told us: “iAd has long been a story of unfulfilled potential. Apple has unique customer level data that is hugely interesting to advertisers but has struggled to access that data in a way that doesn’t conflict with the core business.”

Another media agency ... said: “For me, they never understood that they needed to behave like a media owner, rather they could go it alone charging what they wanted, not sharing data, no third-party tracking...”

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-apple-is-pulling-dire...
> One is the development of modified tools and fire. Yes I know that’s two things, but they’re both very ancient and probably were enabled by the adaptation that gave us language. It’s possible there were several adaptations there but I suspect they all came from one fundamental advance in cognition. This drove a series of major evolutionary changes that adapted us to a tool and fire using mode of living.

There was a bit going around a number of years ago (not sure where it stands in current scientific thought)... https://www.wired.com/2004/03/docs-drop-jaws-over-gene-mutat...

The theory is that there is a mutation which caused the jaw muscle of the line of hominids that gave rise to humans. If you look at chimpanzees, gorillas, and other hominids you'll find a skull with a crest with the anchor point for the muscle that enables a very powerful jaw. However, that muscle also constricts the size of the cranium which likewise constricts the size of the brain.

The theory goes that by weakening this muscle it allowed for other mutations to increases the size of the cranium and at the same time necessitated the use of fire and tools to help overcome the "we can't kill it by biting it."

That mutation traces back to about 2.4 Mya. Earliest hints of control of fire was about 2.0 Mya. The Oldowan tools date to 2.6 - 1.7 Mya.
Sorry I meant SM-18 (released in 2019, hence the confusion). But for completeness the only information available on SM-17 is one of two incredibly long articles written by Piotr Wozniak[1,2]. SM-18 is only a minor improvement over SM-17, with some changes to how difficulty is calculated[3].

[1]: https://supermemo.guru/wiki/Algorithm_SM-17
[2]: https://www.supermemo.com/en/articles/history
[3]: https://supermemo.guru/wiki/Item_difficulty_in_Algorithm_SM-...
You might not consider it worth it, but some marketroid? Was anyone actually surprised when facebook sent spam texts to 2FA numbers back in 2018? They just floated that balloon and went "whoop sorry bug in the system" and that was that.
This is why I played Brogue, and even then the gameplay loop is mostly repetitive in nature.
Stopped taking tor seriously when i read one of these attackers controlled something like 30% of exit nodes around 1-2 years ago. Just makes you wonder whether the rest are govt hosted given there are no incentives for anybody to host a node. Another reason i don't trust TOR is that on the TOR subreddit they always tell you not to use a VPN before TOR, which just seems very suspect given there is only upside to doing this (VPN only sees what your ISP would've seen unless the vpn client is malware).
So much this! As someone that regularly deals with data platforms and data engineering issues this nails it.

Today’s desire to make everything event driven and “real-time” boggles the mind. Solutions are contorted to fit the Kafka operating model.

The inevitable result is blog posts about how “we solved our self inflicted problems that would have never existed if we chose a sane design for our real problem. “

Oh and never forget that no senior stake holder ever really checks their info/dashboards in real time. Never mind actually making decisions in real time based on it.
That it might not be a fair comparison.
Just you alone? Do others in the company know Rust?

I really like the idea of Rust I just worry about how things shake out In The Real World(tm).

I have no doubt Rust is here to stay for a while so I think it’s pretty solid play when appropriate.
> If you have to keep correcting people about your product's name

What product? It was created by two people in a lab that didn't know whether it would ever have more than a dozen users. Gnuplot as a name is fine imho, barely anyone cares whether it's a GNU project or not. JavaScript still has Java in the name and all you see about it are jokes.
Physicists have argued for decades for A (Dark Matter) or B (Modified Gravity). B was a fringe theory with no support; you sacrified your career by advocating for it. The academic mainstream are A proponents and have tried to kill off B, but failed. Sabine has a played a part in it's poularisation.

Just A doesn't work. Just B doesn't work. So Sabine suggests A and B.

Who dares to question Lambda-CDM? As a prior for A and B isn't that where the answer lies? If you aim to screw up your chances of an academic career in physics go and pursue that. Let me know how you get on.
5-star reviews are almost useless (“It does what it says on the tin”). I’d rather go by in-depth reviews elsewhere, or negative reviews.
That is a part of the equation, but it’s undoubtedly true that descendats of wealth are weaker wealth makers since they have it on a plate. Some of them greatly benefit from the wealth inherited from their descendants but the majority of them squander it away, there are too many temptations out there..
Are you saying you rewrote not just the Spring application but all of the micro services as well?
Well, if you allow an arbitrary depth of capture-group nesting, then that may be so, but it seems beside the point here. It is not clear to me that this article makes any point about extraction that is relevant to this discussion.
Seems unsurprising. An ecosystem where you can volunteer to be a MITM ends up having malicious MITM.
Weird article that basically says people are wrong then prove they are right.
That’s true for stocks too.

As people sell, value plummets

That doesn’t make it a Ponzi scheme
Commodore’s Assemblers: Overview
Not really true. You can definitely falsify someone else's hypothesis without positing one of your own.

This is more of how it should be done in business/politics – not very helpful to say "this is the wrong way to do it" but not propose a better solution. In science, however, falsify things is always useful.
It's a pretty regular parallel / idea e.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/comments/a6w2ee/ancient_tre...

Depending what the final goal of the worldbuilding is, the difficulty might be making it into something useful / relevant.
So, this is a really cool concept and I look forward to the determination if it is true or testable.

I find the "double copy of other forces" verbiage to be difficult to follow. Walking through a formula example would be helpful, and formaluae exist to communicate exactly this kind of clumpy-wumpy-lumpy-timey-wimey awkwardness language clods through in its quest to communicate mathematical structures.
La(like law)-tech
Start conversations with strangers in WhatsApp without adding a contact
Physical cash isn't replaced by CBDCs so it can not removed anything from physical cash.

>It also allows for a true negative inflation rate.

Already possible and has nothing to do with CBDCs

>Digital currency enables this. And _does_ massively shift power away from the individual.

No, you are completely misinformed what these CBDCs actually are and do.
It simply a central bank "dollar" that isn't tied to an account at the central bank.
So 2 banks can transact them between each-other without the need to change balances of their central bank account (balance sheet).
Its p2p fiat. Issued by a central bank but does not need the central bank in between every transaction.

It reduces fiction in the technical system. Its purely technical it has zero effect on how people use money or whos in power. (the issuer has the controller/power which is still the central bank)

CBDCs Explained: https://cinnamon.video/embed?v=557927432749843622
a lot of supergms have coaches and they are not as strong as them over the board.
"there are no incentives to host a node."

Agreed. There are even pretty strong disincentives from a legal standpoint.