skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Censorship resistance, plausible neutrality, decentralization, antifragility, uptime, and security are features of layer 1 blockchain systems like Bitcoin and Ethereum.

I completely agree, all the the above must come before throughput in an L1 blockchain. So many of the so called ETH killers sacrifice on some or all of the items you listed. Do you think anything else ticks all the boxes and can stand alongside BTC and ETH as a legitimate L1?
That is defamatory and categorically false
Look at the ai that hit the person with the bike crossing the road
It’s a crime?
Japan lashes out against alleged Chinese military cyberattacks
For me sounds scary to disable a mechanism in all our cells that is "rarely used".

Negative knowledge covers what we don't know and what we don't know that we don't know, and that rarely could be less rare than we thought, doing maybe not do frequent but anyway essential things, for all or some cells.
Last year I made Kondo, to clean up all the dependencies files from software projects you're not actively working on (eg node_modules). Awesome if you about to Zip up a bunch of old projects for archiving, or just want to reclaim disk space without deleting anything of value.

It was an experiment in Rust, and I even made a little GUI too!

https://github.com/tbillington/kondo
You mean cases started to drop after everyone stopped traveling for Christmas and vaccines started to hit meaningful numbers?
Another upvote for this. borrowed a copy and ... have never given it back (ed z - if you're reading this, that's who has it!)

It may only appeal to a certain niche audience, but it's so full of great details. It's a good balance between describing the technical challenges and then the hacks/tricks/wizardry that got around the sometimes insane limitations!
100% code coverage isn't even close to a guarantee of correctness.
"Will it scale" is an odd question to ask about a $2.3 billion company.
You can forbid companies from canceling orders - which discourages it.
Some LLC pays my property taxes, not sure who ;)
New evidence ultrasound pulses can treat high blood pressure
I've also been mostly using Go over the last 6-8 years. Before that it's mostly been C++, pretty "modern" towards the end.

Go would definitely be my preferred pick for distributed/server applications even though the previous large (mixed C and C++) project I was on was a large distributed application and we did just fine. In fact I'd say our productivity and quality in C++ in that other team was just as good as any I've seen (which is not a random/double blind sort of thing, who knows if that project started in Go from day 1).

I would say that in a large project the language choice has some impact but there are many other variables. A well managed C++ project with competent developers can work well. A less than well managed with so-so developers in Go can be disaster zone. There are lots of other moving pieces, testing, build automation, CI/CD etc.

There are certain areas where I would prefer not to use Go. Basically areas where you spend a lot of time up or down the abstractions. I would prefer not to implement a video codec or a signal processing system in Go. Firmware, motion control etc. would also probably not be a good fit. Going the other direction there are things I can do really quickly in Python (lessay grab some data from some services, do some manipulation, draw some graphs), generally smaller utility like pieces where I want to use data with various random types, use third party libraries. I wouldn't want to write a large project in Python because it's slow and is dynamically typed.

I would also beg to differ wrt/ 10%-20% performance difference. You tend to rely a lot more on GC and produce more "garbage" in Go and the optimizer isn't as good vs. the best C/C++ compilers, I'd say it's more like 50%-150%. But for a lot of stuff it doesn't matter. If you're just making database queries then most of your CPU is sitting there anyways and the delta on the caller side isn't a factor.

Go is pretty nice in it's zone. It's got rough edges but all in all it's fun to use. There are occasional annoyances (like those times where you implement another cache for the 10th time because you can't build a good generic cache or those times where you need a priority queue and interact with those clunky library implementations, so yeah, I'm in the generics fan club). But that hasn't stopped me from using and loving Go. I don't miss those C++ core dumps ;) or dealing with memory management (even with smart pointers and containers it can be a pain). Go's more dynamic aspects (reflection etc.) also make some things easier vs. C++. People can learn Go really quickly which is another bonus, learning C or C++ can take years.
I'd stick to the common ones, you don't need to learn them all.
The first two seem consistent as tentative responses to a statement that might contain hyperbole, joke, play on words, double entendre, etc., by maintaining some distance with the statement of supercar-as-fact. In contrast, the third seems to accept the fact outright, and lets the accuracy of the responder assume the uncertainty.
for the desktop it helps to switch to ... osx. I think Apple has to thank systemd/redhat for its commercial success; I mean that a tightly coupled management system works fine, if every detail of the system is run by a single company. In this case a showstopper in any part of the system will have to be solved by that single vendor.

Actually Apple has its own launchd service management system, and that one doesn't try to handle stuff like logging or dns.
Apple changed the licensing of launchd to Apache license 2.0, but no linux distribution has adopted it. Ubuntu checked it out, but didn't use it because launchd used a more restrictive license at the time. Interesting that the license change didn't trigger a wider adoption of launchd. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launchd#History
Or just better compilers.
You say that's not how laws work and then you basically say he's rihght.

You say you "just need to... collect fines". And that is the OP's point.

Without enforcement you do not get relevant levels of compliance. Just upping the fines seems easy but if your enforcement percentage is 0 (or close enough to 0 as felt by citizens) you will not get compliance.

Theres a balance if you ask me. If it costs $5000 to be caught after curfew but police go home when curfew hits too instead of patrolling the streets, you will likely have no compliance. If you get caught at least 50% of the time then $5000 probably isn't even necessary and say $1000 will be 'enough' for most people.
Bill’s done a lot of stuff that I think is pretty horrible, but could be kinda justified from a business perspective, like embrace, extend, extinguish. But for me, the thing that has always branded him as an irredeemable asshole on a personal level was when he tried to reduce Paul Allen’s share in Microsoft upon learning that he had cancer. I just literally cannot conceive of a “good person” even being able to take that kind of action.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/fredericka...
Maybe this goes to show the Germans have a sense of humor after all.

Thanks for the link change.
>Apple's desire to keep people using their payment system is just as much about maintaining a great user experience for users.

Steve Jobs Apple, Yes. Modern Apple that is no longer the case.

It is very clear from 2016 when they announced their focus on services revenue. Every little changes, being implemented and enforced YoY was all to push for that double services revenue target.

If you have followed Apple long enough you start seeing all these changes. From Apple Retail focusing on AppleCare+ Target, retail staff having their KPI to include Apple Services Revenue Push, as well as enforcing rules where it wasn't previously enforced on App Store.
Last year I built a go lib call DDT (Dynamic decision tree)
DDT allows building custom decision trees based in a set of defined rules, programmatically or from json.

When making a decision, it allows adding a pre-processing stage to the input before comparing it with the following possible branches of the tree.

https://github.com/sgrodriguez/ddt
> Why isn't there a mainstream hook-up app where it isn't taboo to be forward about sexual intent?

I think it's ok to be forward about sexual intent on Tinder. I think there's a big difference between "Hi - I like your pics. Are you DTF?" and some possible messages that are "explicitly mentioning sexual intercourse and iniviting for a meeting" (to quote the message you are responding to).
Will the same group at Apple start going over everything Dr. Dre has published about women and end his relationship with Apple?

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/08/dr-dre-straight...
Are you lacking time and energy or time and motivation? Do you feel like you’re on the cusp of a burnout?

If you could afford, take some time away from work and from your computer and do nothing. Also make sure you pass a health check, have no major lack of nutrients and vitamins, have some phisical exercise, it could even be walking but more of it. You’d know if you’re sedentary anyway..

And try to spend time doing your hobbies outside of a computer workflow. Learning a new language? Use a real notebook, pen and paper. I actually got into painting and sketching and found a lot of satisfaction in it. After a while of doing that I started getting the programming flame re-ignited with learning Scheme and Racket and doing hobby projects.
How to stop a ransomware attack? Texas engineers believe they’ve got a solution
http://len.falken.ink/
Dupgrade?
The recipient surely has to pay a % exchange fee as they can't really buy anything with the crypto directly. If they do buy with crypto, they pay a transaction fee.
The Source of the Nile River: A Mystery That Spanned Three Millennia
There was no bull market in Japan.
If the EU and Epic cases go anywhere, I want them to guarantee user consumer rights, like the right to downgrade both apps and firmware.
Total energy costs from PoW mining won’t rise to exceed PoW mining revenues unless miners are willing to mine at a loss. In an efficient market, one where PoW mining profits have been driven down to zero, total energy use should remain constant if market price is held constant. PoW mining energy efficiency may increase, though.

The rest of your post could be read as a criticism against incomplete application of hypothetical carbon taxation regimes. It seems weird to single out PoW cryptocurrency as the one and only benefactor to a patchwork carbon taxation regime globally.
I studied linguistics in college and I remember a class on this. But that was 25 years ago. I think it had something to do with how much a part of the object the adjective is, or how easy it would be to change. Red concrete wall instead of concrete red wall because it is fairly easy to change the color of the wall from red to blue, but much harder to change the wall from concrete to wood. So we put concrete closer to the object and red farther away.
>Apple is if the user's initial sign-up came through their platform

Which is an admission that Apple is rent seeking.
I know this is only anecdata, but I graduated from a state school (absolutely nothing fancy) with a biochemistry degree and switched to a programming job a couple of years later. I worked in Perl, Python, and JavaScript mostly for years, while picking up whatever interested me on the side, which included Rust.

The company I joined didn’t expect people to already be rust programmers, and I think about half of our engineers are from non-CS backgrounds. Experience counts for way way more than your degree once you’re a few years into the field.

So, keep an eye out! There’s plenty of stuff out there for whatever interests you, and most programming (even in a language like rust) is not super heavy on meatier CS concepts most of the time.
Not all transactions are created equal. Some transactions are more valuable than others, and there is also value in just maintaining a steady state (holding wealth).

Something that also seems to get lost in the mix frequently is the fact that bitcoin owners themselves are the ones paying for the electricity. The security benefit comes at a cost - manifested as inflation (not just transaction fees) - and that cost is borne by all of the owners of Bitcoin. To that extent, the participants in Bitcoin are actually incentivized to use more efficient systems, because it means the inflation cost of being a participant is lower.

That they don't use cheaper systems indicates (though there are plenty of confounding factors) that they see value in paying the larger cost of holding Bitcoin.
The OP is correct in theory, but not in practice.

If you have a lot of money and are willing and able to build a private network with enough redundancy, you can have both C and A in practice, and P will be low enough not to practically affect the service.

See

https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/databases/inside-clou...

Notice who the author is: Eric Brewer
> But in relative terms, the earliest investors are mopping the floor with the later investors, because the earliest investors can stake orders of magnitude more coins.

PoS networks are typically not going to be minting coins in perpetuity. Most PoS networks aim to reach a "zero issuance" state where the network can sustain itself on TX fees alone. It's also typically in a networks interest to decentralise TX verification as much as possible (in contrast to banking, which tends lean towards the opposite).

Ideally a PoS network will reach a steady-state where TX verification is profitable enough that people will be willing do it for TX fees alone, but efficient enough that you can be market competitive regardless of how you choose to run your validator nodes (ie. costs should not be prohibitively high as to prevent geographical distribution).

There will always be rich and poor people - PoS networks don't aim to solve that - but the question will be is a rich person able to participate in the network more efficiently than a poor person.
It wasn’t relevant in the course we took. But had we locked down until there were 0 cases-like AZ or NZ—then new cases would walk across our borders.
That's small beans.

I know of a politician (a POLITICIAN!) who invented the internet. So there.
That wasn't just the USA, and it turned into a boondoggle which embarrassed the perpetrators and gave the appearance that targeted cyberattacks were high-cost/low-impact.

I suppose that it is a diplomat's job to appear stupid until they have stolen your shoes, but I'm not sure anybody can act that well. My confidence in the West's ability to perpetuate an offensive cyber war is pretty low. Our main advantage is the quantity of servers/data that reside in/flow through our borders, but that's not too hard to dodge. Cryptocurrencies also erase the hammer of losing access to US financing.
There are also use cases for dynamically generating code, or having higher kinded types that Go just can't touch. Anything that resembles data engineering is unnecessarily tedious.

One of my favourite tools for teams these days is Hasura, which is written in Haskell. I could not imagine a product like this being written in Go.
As a non-native speaker, I'd say it depends on their background and how they learned. To me it feels completely normal and the non-contracted form took longer for me to parse, I think because the contraction is more common in colloquial communication with native speakers, but I'm also sure that if you tried this on me at a point in life where I had mostly school english to go on, the contraction would be more difficult.
Why do you feel the need to shorehorn your furry avatar into things?
I'd like to question the premise. How confidently can you associate cause and effect here?

Based on what can he guarantee that raises in salary caused the company to grow?

If the formula is so simple couldn't other companies copy that and grow 5500%?
> I find your characterization of critica of Go, highly uncharitable, but unfortunately all too common with Go apologetics.

I might suggest that if you're the type to use the phrase "Go apologetics", you misinterpreted my post and also emit uncharitable feedback quite often :)

> If we look outside of Go, I see a lot of criticism of C++, Java, PHP and Node.js, but I rarely see the critics being attacked with "You just didn't write enough C++ code" to qualify for a critic license. I find this approach hypocritical.

If you scroll up, you'll find my request was simply to include the level of involvement a programmer has with a given language as part of their critique. Critique away! But as with all things, when novices critique things they don't understand, they're mostly just being negative for negativity's sake.

Go into a C++ space and include "I've never written C++", followed by any criticism and let me know how serious your criticisms are taken. I can wait :)

> Due to lack of genrics and other limitations of the language, Go essentially forces you to use empty intrrfaces, stringly-typed data, weak enums and runtime type checks all over the place. This leads to fragile code, and makes it very hard to have the same safety guarantees you could have in Java - let alone in a more FP-oriented language like Rust or Haskell.

We can disagree - the purpose of my post was not to prove Go was a "good" language or not. These bits of feedback sound like you're following antipatterns, but you're welcome to program in Go however you'd like.
Exactly, hn is stuck on fossil fuel cryptocurrencies and doesn’t seem to understand that all new tech in the last 5 years hasn’t used proof of work.
>... a jar file doesn't define the program that's going to run. It's the union of a jar and the JVM it runs on. With Go, the binary is the whole story.

I was saying the same thing - albeit poorly perhaps. I'm no Java expert either, but once had to download 'jad' off sourceforge to decompile a buggy 3rd party lib :-).
But it is 0.1%. That's a fact. You keep saying things like "misunderstand", and straw manning people who think 0.1% is a relatively small proportion of the population as people who are claiming the virus is a hoax.

It's true that fewer lives were lost to wars in the past 150 years and terrorist attacks. But that's also a somewhat misleading data comparison. Terrorism is basically nothing for Americans but is implied to be relevant. The 150 years mark is carefully chosen to avoid including the civil war, which comes close to matching covid numbers on its own, nominally, and is hugely higher on a percentage level (it was ~2%).

Context matters. Normalized to population size, you would need 20 COVID 19 pandemics to match the scale of the civil war. The proportional rates for other countries besides the US which tended to do quite well in WWII were obviously much more slanted towards the effects of war. Some light googling suggests Germany lost about 10% of its population during wwII. The overall world lost about 3% of its population (~80 million people).

Covid was not a hoax, but you're pushing a fair heaping of bias while implying to take any other view would be misunderstanding or spreading misinformation
> We need to drum up interest for a solution.

There is already massive interest in finding more efficient ways to solve the problem. It's a difficult problem to solve (as Elon Musk will likely learn in the coming year).

The cost of proof of work is paid in two forms. The first is in the form of inflation. Merely holding onto Bitcoin means eating dilution as new Bitcoins are printed to fund the mining ecosystem. And the second cost is in terms of transaction fees. At times, it can cost $20+ to send a transaction over the Bitcoin network, and a more efficient / higher throughput system could significantly reduce these fees.

The users of Bitcoin are already themselves naturally incentivized to look for better solutions, even completely absent any care about the environment.
Predicting Football Results Using Machine Learning Techniques (2018) [pdf]
Rather, they are all bad. Proof of stake cryptocurrencies is the state of the art in consensus protocols today, not proof of work. This is mostly a ranking of who’s the worst among the worse technologies.
Yes, graduation/drop out is just one metric. There are other studies that look at SAT scores and grades, and they only correlate for the first year.

I would argue that elite schools mostly want students who will become wealthy leaders. The people who achieve this are either already wealthy and connected, or think creatively and can design/implement a unique solution. I don't think the SAT/ACT can give much of a signal on the latter.

The main purpose the SAT has served is making it easier for admissions staff to make and justify decisions.

I think subject-based exams are a better use of students' time, and give a clearer signal to both the student and the school whether they will be successful in their chosen major. (i.e. A declared history major performing well on the AP US History and AP World History exams. A declared physics major performing well on an AP physics, AP statistics, and/or AP calculus exam.)
This explains the most common order, but not why that is the order. What are the underlying rules that determine that is the best order?
"I don't like it" != "It is bad"
The population of humans in schools includes many adults.
The saddest or the most idiotic part of this whole story is the "bitcoin to the moon" crowd. Bitcoin price almost directly increases the effort spent on mining - if you're going into bitcoin now hoping it will 2x this literally means you're hoping it will 2x the hardware and energy consumption.
Taking ML to production with Rust: a 25x speedup (2019)
I guess it would depend on how underpaid the groups where profits are created are. Absent any other catalyst a random event of paying people more followed by a marked increase in productivity would be enough correlation to say "hey, I think this is probably the cause"
Of all the subdomains of serverside apps, I think "CRUD microservices" are one of the worst fits you get for Go. Fine, CRUD monoliths are even worse.

Go can get you good performance on a CRUD app, but that's probably the only advantage you'll get. On the other hand, Go doesn't have the facilities to build the frameworks that make CRUD apps so easy on languages like Java, Ruby or Python.

Go is a much better domain fit for microservices that don't do CRUD, for server and network control plane (k8s, istio, docker), configuration systems,CI/CD tools. So many things that are definitely not CRUD.

As a side note: People love to vilify CRUD apps, but they also require skill to do right. I've seen way too many botched attempts that ended up expensive to maintain and an absolute performance disaster.
Show HN: Free open-source isolated browser for security
In the US, my understanding is that english grammar is no longer taught in public schools.
yep agreed, there has definitely been a big shift in priorities. When iPhones had dramatic hardware improvements every year (remember the S phones, 4s/5s etc, thats how fast things were moving) revenue was ticking up from genuine innovation. Now people are mostly happy with their phones are keeping them longer, how do they maintain the growth? squeezing more out of what they've got, which is services revenue, which is naturally exploiting their monopoly more and more until someone stops them.
I recently spearheaded the creation of a new Go service at my company. If it was Node or Python I could easily imagine a team getting sucked into weeks of bikeshedding the API framework, the test framework, linting tools, formatting tools, the TLS stack, research spikes on packaging and distribution, etc.

With Go, all of these problems were basically solved by the strength of the standard library. We could not be happier.
>The users of Bitcoin are already themselves naturally incentivized to look for better solutions

This would imply the users of Bitcoin use it for anything more than speculative investment.