skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Honestly that's just sampling bias. The current high profile crop are only from Navy pilots. But there's lots of data of unexplained things happening over other areas (Phoenix lights, Belgium wave, Mexico City UFOs). The difference now is that instead of random civilians, or other country militaries, saying they saw it and being ignored by the media mostly, the US armed services are pushing the story out there. None of that means that armed services are the only ones that have encountered this or have evidence of it. But the coordinated narrative, "authority source" and push definitely raises the prominence of these stories in relation to others.
I love the implication that even with the correct math you might still need to tweak it to be accurate. Does anyone know where you would get started on making something like this, especially the conversion from a mathematical formula into a linkage system?
I see there are a lot of go shop companies, basically most of "start-up ey" tech company use go in someway or another.

So I don't see why go is not worth to learn.

However depend on what engineer are you, IMHO go is one of the top mindshare language for backend services.
Laws aren't a black box that only lawyers and judges are allowed to discuss and interpret. The difference you're making doesn't make sense especially when you look at criminal law and the concept of having a jury.

The fact that a significant criminal trial involving Signal, Cellebrite, and the CFAA would call in an expert witness also is worth remembering. The kind of expert witness that would be needed to break down and explain the "hack" and who also would visit this thread to read or comment.

The situation hasn't been tested in court and no helpful precedent exists, otherwise it wouldn't really be something that needs a discussion.
> Java methods kind of let you ignore them through declaring exceptions, with this idea that, well, somebody else will deal with it.

Sure, you can write sloppy code in Java, but I am sure you can write sloppy code in Go too.
Cosmopolitan Libc 1.0
“Designing Intrinsic Layouts” by Jen Simmons–An Event Apart Video
No, they use less energy because their price is lower, but they're more efficient because they scale better than Bitcoin.

(But BSV scales in an unhealthy manner.)
I went and read the paper in more detail. Yeah, my original comment was way off-base, except if you draw a parallel with normalizing flows as iterated refinement (similar to iterated de-noising), and see that the DDPM is a more unconstrained form.

But at a surface level, there isn't a clear connection between DDPM and energy-based models.
I'm curious how many people here graduated from an elite school and are doing well. Does a MIT degree guarantee you a 6 digit salary? I have a fairly elite education too and while I'm not doing badly, I think I'm also underpaid, but that's mostly a problem with being underchallenged. Unfortunately, most of us just end up doing CRUD.
It doesn’t transliterate to the same. That would have been “verschlimmerungverbesserung”

Instead, the “ver-“ prefix and the “-ung” suffix are factored out and basically, a new verb is invented and immediately can be understood by German speakers: “verschlimmbessern”
I think we would be happier if people paid for quality journalism.

I myself bypass paywalls often, but I am very worried of the ultimate effects of not paying for news.

I wish we had more LWN-style "this article has been made public thanks to X".
Bill Gates Left Microsoft Board Amid Probe into Prior Relationship with Staffer
> fair enough, fyi my line of thought is a bit Marxist, you should get paid based on your labour, time, mental energy etc put in the work as much as the result. When you pay people according to only "impacts" you create an incentive to make "viral" things. In software these days even without such incentive taking full effect, over abstraction, one-size-fits-all, github star counting are becoming bigger problems.

Hmnn but doing it that way feels like it would devalue doing things smarter which seems to be more beneficial to society. Single-mindedly incentivizing labor seems like it would skewer efficiency -- I guess like most things the right answer is in the middle.

I'm not sure what you mean by "viral" things but I'm trying to discuss only about work output. If the work output is virality (let's say a social media manager), then it makes sense to measure that way, but usually businesses don't deal in that currency -- they deal in product shipped out or contracts landed, etc. That said, I'm well aware that systems that think themselves to be closest to the capitalist ideal are pretty brutal on the cogs in the machine.

As a side note, it's a red flag for me when I see github projects that are too concerned with stars/going viral, or even when I see presentations about projects that mention stars. Everyone thinks it's silly but everyone keeps doing it -- if only we'd stop then people would start judging projects on things other than adoption. Then again, adoption is the biggest metric for most people, because it generally is a proxy for "availability of free support/feature development", and in that sense I'm guilty of the same.

> The fact that you completely ignore the hardware is very telling. CPU has been improved according to Moore's law in the past few decades, if anything modern software engineering failed to live up to that potential and has been free riding on top of progress in hardware.

> It's insane to make robots move but software is a small part of that, there is also mechanical/electrical engineering, battery techs etc. Software sitting at the top of that stack shouldn't takes all the credit. It's very hard to innovate on the lower layers with all the lab work and physical constrains.

Agreed! There is more than enough value to go around to be shared between all those kinds of engineering -- just because I didn't mention lithography engineers or materials science engineers or people who smelt silicon doesn't mean they don't exist and don't deserve to be paid.
Both of those are equally simple to read as it is a very, very simple example. Simple examples are never the issue. The issue is when there are complex things involving edge cases and fiddly bits where there's a nasty hack in the middle of it that can't be removed easily or cleanly or both.

In theory there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice Go is a lot younger than Haskell, to take that as some kind of comparison, and there seem to be a lot more successful projects written in Go despite that. I like Haskell, I haven't even be bothered to learn Go yet on my own. But lets be sensible about readability. Simplicity almost always wins or at worst ties, as in the simple filter above.

Everyone writing serious Haskell tends to end up writing new additions to the standard library to make it work. Reading Haskell can be challenging on this basis. There absolutely is pyrotechnical showing off. I don't see this kind of issue at all in Go - for good or ill. I'd be astounded if Go is 5% of the fun of writing Haskell. I'd be more likely to choose Go than Haskell if I have a large project than needs to work in short-ish amount of time. (And when isn't the amount of time short-ish?)
Occam's razor principle says it is the first one, honestly it does not belong to HN articles, and should be treated as click bait.
Bitcoin hater as well?
Can you please elaborate how the pattern that you describe doesn't pass the buck to a portion of code that has less context for the cause of the failure?

> You can write code as if every function call is successful

How does writing code as if every function call is successful (when you know that some functions will fail) not lead to some other bit of code further up the call stack having to make a decision about an exception that it doesn't have the context for? A bit of code which probably was written by a different developer who didn't anticipate what you were going to do?
I think we shouldn't point fingers at Java when it comes to Go's verbosity.

I can simply do dict.contains("foo") in Java vs having to go through a verbose hoop:

if val, ok := dict["foo"]; ok {
//do something here
}

Common operations like filtering/transforming a collections are very concise in Java - I'm certain doing so in Go will take atleast 5x as many lines:

collection.stream().filter(...).map(...).collect(...)

Don't get me started on having to go through iota hoops to declare enums.
I wonder if some of this is related to the recent space missions other countries engaged in, though I understand these are usually way smaller than your average "mars/moon" ship/probe.

I doubt the current administration is keen on giving a statement on this, let alone releasing documents/material.
Sciter itself is not an Open Source. HTML-NOTEPAD - open source, yes. As it is part of Sciter SDK that uses BSD license.
We talked a good amount about this [here](https://twitter.com/dan_coff/status/1393599897119592456). We are using Fastlane. We are building iOS on OSX, but Android on more standard EC2 hardware. We ship canaries with every commit to master, fully automated.
It's not really backwards, it's a cycle that reinforces itself.

House expensive -> salaries jump -> people have more money to pay for house -> house becomes more expensive.

This is like arguing about the chicken or the egg. More housing supply would help to a point but it would take an order of magnitude change to make a dent in the current self-reinforcing cycle, and probably would need that level of increased production for a period of time.
Curious, got a link to source?

Using an existing websocket library, that chat client, with multithreading, should be a handful of lines in Java. Even writing the raw socket handling yourself, with multithreading, should only be a few classes and maybe 500 lines...
2011 Travis Kalanick Interview on This Week in Startups
Great interview from 10 years ago, Travis discussing in details the first peer-to-peer app they developed in 1998 to his founding of Uber.
>> the problem I have with it is primarily it feels really outdated for a "modern" language

It's mostly not about the language. An exception is of course when moving from a dynamically typed interpreted language to a statically typed compiled language.

The success of projects depends much more on other things than the programming language. It's about

- Processes and standards, like following a well defined structure, testing, documentation, ...

- Maintainability of code. It must be easy to read, to understand syntactically and to build a mental model of the code

- Long term reliability and stability of the eco system

- Easy and reliable tooling

- Developer efficiency, e.g. compile times

Go shines in many of the aspects. Especially in maturity, stability, amazing standard lib and tooling. As you mention Rust: This is exactly where Rust falls short. Rust is a great language with amazing people behind it. But there are reasons why its adoption in the broad real world is very, very small. The reasons are not the language. So I always feel it's a bit invasive when Rust promoters enter Go or Java threads by telling how much better Rust as a language is.

In this example Go has additional benefits being statically typed and compiled, very fast and with build in concurrency support.
Why do you say impossible? I can take them to my local recycling center which is open 9-5 every day of the year except Christmas, New Years Day and Thanksgiving, and they will gladly pay me back the deposit.
This is definitely me... Is way easier to focus on the fun stuff and try to avoid the hard stuff. Which is how you could spend years working on something without actually finishing it.
All of them were cross-trained to be React Native engineers. Many of them are now working full time in React-land doing product engineering and some of them are working on lower level native infrastructure. We saw very little attrition and have emerged as a stronger, unified client engineering group (across mobile and web).
How did banks come to be?
Why am I not surprised that such low level of passive-aggressive attacks on Go are coming from a Rust enthusiast. I don't understand this stance. It's as if they feel threatened by Go when in reality Go doesn't even try to compete in Rust's niche. They sit distant appart in many spectrums.

It's hardly constructive comparing these two languages due to their different objectives. Yet there's this constant belittling of Go as if it was a menace to Rust somehow.

In professional environments, this kind of emotionally loaded tribalistic judgement has not place. Much less in engineering.

This problem has even been acknowledged by a moderator on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26732757

> Here's a take: Go is a language for engineering managers who occasionally contribute a ten liner. You can learn just enough in between your many meetings to make a simple change. You can feel proud and happy with how easy it was for you to contribute. And you can dump the verbose, repetitive drudgery onto the people below you in the org chart, it's their job to deal with this after all. But in a language that you can easily understand, you'll make sure to push for that.
If you go looking there are "credible" rumours. So-called "whistleblowers" or "SSP insiders" are videotaped on Gaia and other places to share their story. You can certainly find these if you look a bit. I trust the "whistleblowers" and "former insiders" less than thousands of random civilians who see things in the sky or have experiences tho. But your mileage or trust of different sources may vary and that's totally cool. Clearly something is going on.

I definitely agree we didn't simply "invent" this. If these are ours or we know how they work, we had to have help building them. Otherwise it's just too weird to consider an entirely parallel set of physical theories that tens of thousands of people must have learned and put into practice and it's not credibly in the open. There has to be something else stopping that from coming out, which to me implies secret cooperation with a civilization way beyond our own.
The declarative format of systemd unit files is just much easier to maintain, grasp and allows doing things that just cannot be done else, for example, a generic way to parallel starting service at boot, as all dependencies and before/after ordering is known.

And the great things is, that declarative format means that systemd can actually be replaced by something else, as one just needs to be able to parse the ini-style configs and execute the ExecStart and ExecPreStart in order.

One really cannot do that to the other init-systems, AFAICT, they are far too scripted and rely a lot on side effects to do anything like that, besides packager choosing different solutions for the same problem. Some KI-paper could possibly take a shot at parsing out some sensible information reusable for another tool ;-)

I can get the dissentient about systemd incorporating so much stuff, but just from POV of it as init-system it is really nicer to work with, speaking as user and as someone which job includes packaging software for a Debian based distro.
I don't know what you should do about your job, but I'd recommend watching the movie Office Space.
Right, but why do you believe someone who doesn't want power and wants decentralization is the right person for the job? Isn't the whole point that no one person is the right person since, you know, it's all decentralized?
>I find it frustrating that crypto-currencies are judged by their energy usage

Carbon footprint is a totally valid measure for anything we create or maintain, including crypto and fiat currencies.
I am too poor to do anything else in my country.
To earn as much as i do in Software industry, I need to be either a politician or a corrupt contractor or straight up looting banks.
This makes me wish there was a way to tell the browser "Use reader mode to display this site."
Here are the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) figures for these two countries:

Sweden:
https://tradingeconomics.com/sweden/gdp-growth-annual

Finland:
https://tradingeconomics.com/finland/gdp-growth-annual

Looking at those charts they show very similar economic outcomes for the two countries.

Of the last 4 COVID effected quarters Finland won two and Sweden won two.

And Sweden actually felt the highest quarterly contraction at -7.7% compare to the -6.1% for Finland.
There's definitely 怪しい areas in Japan.

> This is all speculation and I don't live in Japan, don't speak Japanese, and have never even been to Japan.

So what did you base this speculation on?
Working from Home for Some Threatens Mass Transit for All
What difference does having access to the inbound parcels make when this clustered mailbox was only installed for the union votes? Amazon should not be using it period.
> You're also describing what Mnesia does in Erlang.

Not quite. Mnesia doesn't have any algorithm for automatic reconciliation; but it does expect reconciliation — in the sense that the idiomatic default thing to do is to have the individual netsplit partitions just halt and wait for a sysop to remsh in and manually reconcile them.

(And this, because Mnesia is originally designed to be deployed in a leader/hot-standby setup, where only one node is ever accepting writes at a time, and there's automatic failover but no automatic failback if the original leader comes back up. The original leader just doesn't come back up, but rather comes up paused, waiting for a sysop to tell it what to do. Multi-master and/or automatic failback is out-of-design-scope for a DB designed for blades-on-a-shared-backplane network-switch control plane hardware.)

Certainly, you can add code that tells the partitioned sub-clusters that "this is your life now", such that each cluster then boots up and continues on separately — but that's an explicit choice you're making, external to Mnesia's design. An empty callback is very different code than no callback. :)

> or you have two systems, neither of which are partitioned (and which from the purposes of CAP are unrelated, since the initial source of seed data for the system is immaterial)

Right, this is what I meant. And, given this viewpoint, the system is never "partitioned": it just becomes new systems. So you have sacrificed partition-tolerance — or rather, you've sacrificed partitionability. Your system can never enter a state where it has nodes that are expecting to ever reconnect to other nodes that might have missed updates, so your system can never be "partitioned" per se (just like a system with a single node can never be "partitioned" per se.)
It’s 6 flipping dollars a year. For an app that relies on a third party API and needs fairly regular updates. While I am not a big fan of subscriptions, feels like a good fit for Tweetbot.
Python has all of those things:

- language regularity; black has been the default for years now, and if you want to enforce a different style, there are other tools

- documentation and online communities; not even a contest, no language comes close to Python in extensive documentation and online support

- libraries; much the same, Python standard libraries are world-class

- versioning & namespacing; Depending what you need from this, Python is again more robust, namespacing in Go is a disaster.

- deployment simplicity; ...alright, you got this one. Python deployment is harder than it should be. Still, I find my Docker images about the same complexity between the two; more complex deployment in Python, but no need for compilation
Whenever I read guides on best practices for smart contracts there is always a line in there that says “consider all possible edge cases when developing…”

That sounds like smart advice but is also incredibly naive. If humans were able to foresee all possible inputs of any function we wouldn’t have spaceships exploding because of human errors.

I’m not sure how the smart contract dev community actually thinks of themselves but I personally don’t think I would ever be able to guarantee that my program works for all possible inputs (I’m a software engineer for more than 12 years).

So I am never surprised when a smart contract goes rogue and burns millions of dollars.
> For example, is it okay to bundle a default web browser with an OS and forbid any other browsers from being installed?

There are hundreds (or depending on how you count them, thousands) of products where exactly this is the case. Try installing an alternative web rendering engine on your LG smart TV, or your Toyota, or your Playstation.

> there might be some strong precedence on that question

This precedent isn't analogous. Microsoft had an initial marketplace monopoly over desktop computer operating systems, which was not ideal, but legally fine. They then illegally buttressed and extended their monopoly by arm-twisting the largest OEMs to lock competitive operating systems out of the open market. Finally they used this illegal monopoly to force their way into an existing competitive market of commercial[0] web browsers. Had alternative operating systems such as OS/2 and Linux not been illegally suppressed, or had the question been asked in the iOS/Android era, Microsoft's actions around Internet Explorer wouldn't have justified the same level of scrutiny.

For the analogy to hold, you'd have to show that Apple has used their market dominance to illegally suppress market access from its competitors.

[0] It's often hard for us to remember in 2021, but web browsers weren't always entirely free. Netscape was commercial software; initially free for evaluation purposes only, then later free for non-commercial purposes only. Netscape was set to be a very successful company through commercial web browser sales.
> It really makes you think about the appropriate response to this specific failure.

I beg to differ. It forces you think about whether but not why the function itself has failed. The "why" is embedded in the type of the error (or exception) itself, but Go does not force you to examine the type of the error; indeed, sheer muscle memory compels you most of the time to just write if err != nil again and again.

> I can decide how to gracefully fall back if a failure occurs before I'm even allowed to use the successful result.

You could wrap every line of Java code in a try/catch if you wanted to (it wouldn't be idiomatic, but it's definitely possible). You're just not forced to.

For what it's worth, you also shouldn't email your ops team directly from production code. It doesn't scale. You should log the error, and your monitoring stack should handle altering the relevant team (full disclosure: I work for such a monitoring stack company). It's very rare that you actually want to recover from errors, as that's typically a pattern that leads to silent failures and difficult to diagnose issues.
You're welcome.

The worst part is trying to read out loud a number. It's fine when you see a number like 1億6432万4871 and you know exactly where the splits are, but most of the time they will just use commas as thousand separators and write numbers as 164,324,871, and then it becomes really difficult to parse numbers, even for them.
> Another matter, one of personal taste and experience, is that as a developer, I am used to working with text files, and editing a bunch of files in an IDE felt like a convenient option compared to having to edit each page in a web interface in the browser.

I'm a big fan of "Jekyll Admin" as a way to get the best of both worlds:

https://github.com/jekyll/jekyll-admin/

https://jekyll.github.io/jekyll-admin/self-hosting
I read it, though. so you're wrong on both of your assumptions.
Given the context, "collapse" would be more fitting for clarity. Cheers.
"Dysfunctional proteins" is a vast understatement. Too much frameshifting leads to cancer.