skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This seems like a pretty flawed strategy to me. Lots of improbable products turned into multi-billion dollar companies. Tiny videos set to music, watching other people play video games, liking pictures of food, and so on. It seems to me that it's less about the product and more about the execution. There are lots of Google products that could have taken off if they had been iterated instead of abandoned. Take Apple as one example. They develop a product vision, then spend several versions refining the thing till it goes from a curiosity to a must have. Or look at Facebook with Oculus, they had a vision and released headset after headset, till they found a feature set that had the user engagement metrics they were looking for. They didn't just give up once the Gear VR proved to be a dead-end, which is exactly what Google did with their VR efforts and then cleanly missed the boat Oculus is on now with the Quest.
I love this concept! Especially that you are crowdsourcing completions, so some of the more niche ones can still get built.

Thank you for putting so many examples on your landing page. This seems obvious but so many landing pages don’t show me actual examples.
In the celebratory Facebook post right after the shooting they claimed it was a military transport. In the intercepted cell phone call by a militant to a commander from the crash site they find out it's a civilian plane because they find the bodies and luggage.

https://www.cnn.com/2014/07/18/world/europe/ukraine-mh17-int...
Common Lisp was designed to be interactive and have a REPL. You can redefine functions, classes, etc. on the fly with strictly-defined semantics. (You don’t have to guess what happens if you, say, re-name a field of your class.) This is insanely useful during development, where you absolutely want to avoid doing full recompiles every time you make a little change you want to test. Some people call this “interactive and incremental development”. (Of course, you always have the option to just re-compile everything from scratch if you so please.)

Common Lisp was also designed to be compiled. Most implementations these days compile to machine code. Compilation is incremental, but ahead-of-time. That means you can start running your program without having yet compiled all the features or libraries you want. You can—while you’re in the REPL or even while your program is running—compile and load extra libraries later. Compilation is cached across sessions, so you won’t ever have to recompile something that doesn’t change.

Despite Lisp being mega-interactive, incremental, and dynamic, just about every implementation of Lisp allows you to just write out a compiled binary. In the implementation called “Steel Bank Common Lisp” (SBCL), from the REPL, you just write:

(sb-ext:save-lisp-and-die "mycoolprog" :executable t :entry-point 'main)

which will produce a statically linked executable binary called “mycoolprog” using the function called “main” as the entry point.

Unless you’ve specifically programmed it in, there will be no JIT lag, no runtime compilation, etc. It will all just be compiled machine code running at the speed of your processor. (It’s possible and even easy to invoke the compiler at run-time, even in your static binary, which people rarely do, and when they do, they know exactly what they’re doing and why.)

All of this is a complete non-issue in Lisp, and hasn’t been for about 35 years (or more).
I'm in Mexico right now and the gif/video animation was in Spanish. A+ for polish.
> aka that the state you see is in fact the latest one.

This is an impossible guarantee.
Suppose the state that is sent to you from the server needs some time to get to you. meanwhile the state on the server could have changed. You don't even need a remote server to have this issue. Your thread (where you see the latest state) is put to sleep for a while (sheduler, os, ...) It wakes up. Is the state it observes still the latest? That's impossible to know. The only thing you can do is to refuse future updates if the state they were built upon is not the current state of the database.
Having to be stuck on an OS-version of a language should be an old-fashioned issue. Rust, PHP, NodeJS, are a few of the languages I never use from the OS repos, exactly because they are always behind.
Because of the limitation of language there's only a countable number of mathematical truths that can be proven or written down. So for all practical purposes there's countably many.
Shopify is aggressively and successfully expanding their e-commerce product offering... if you're running a business that sells physical goods, the checkout is one of the simplest parts of the whole thing, and I don't think this will matter either way to them.
Someone has to write the kernel drivers that your abstraction layers and business logic runs on... https://www.usenix.org/system/files/1311_05-08_mickens.pdf
I'm not sure if it is what you want, but Intuitionism [1] is one area that challenges modern fashions in Mathematical thinking. It suffered greatly under the formalist approach lead by David Hilbert and still has little main-stream support despite Gödel and his incompleteness proofs. Veritasium's latest video on Gödel's incompleteness [2] gives a pretty fair account of how we settled on the current fashionable foundations of Math (including nods to Cantor and Hilbert). For a more formal history there is a book "The Philosophy of Set Theory" [3] that sketches out how we got to where we are.

I have always been unsatisfied with the current foundations of math and their obtuse basis in Set Theory. Although I must admit, Category Theory has alleviated that quite a lot, especially with the relaxing of equivalence compared to equality.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionism

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeQX2HjkcNo

3. https://www.maa.org/press/maa-reviews/the-philosophy-of-set-...
Newpipe's "skip silence" feature is absolutely incredible with lectures and public meetings too. It's just an all around better experience.
I think it's telling that they are 'launching' this with a product that barely matters in their product portfolio. That indicates to me that they don't see this as an Android killer just yet. A bold move would have been to put this on the next Pixel. Clearly, that's not happening. If that was at all feasible, they would have waited for that and that would have been the grand launch. So, clearly it's nowhere near ready for such a launch.

Their main issue with this is that OEMs like Samsung probably are not in any hurry whatsoever to jump on board and be even more dependent on Google. Without OEMs, app developers will drag their heels as well and Google is forced to maintain Android and not do a half-assed job of it. At this point Google has Android in cars, tvs, on phones, etc. Killing that would be suicidal; Google needs users interacting with their ads.

If they botch the Fuchsia launch somehow, they'd have more OEMs taking things in their own hands and cutting loose from Google and forking Android (like Amazon and Huawei already did). They clearly are not ready to pull the plug on Fuchsia just yet but at this point it's a more than likely outcome. IMHO, they should just rip off the band-aid and move on. Most of what is wrong with Android is fixable.
If this can possibly replace Android, WearOS (or recently announced WearOS/Tizen mashup), and ChromeOS, it’s quite possible that Fucshia is here to stay.

Android apps and Chrome can easily run on a different OS, the only problem are device drivers, but I’m sure Google is in a position to persuade manufacturers to provide drivers for their OS.
> This is also why 99% of rust documentation starts with telling you to install rust-up from out of repo third party sources: your local repository rust, no matter how new, is already out of date.

I don't see the problem. This seems like further evidence that distro package managers aren't the way forward. They can't keep up, they rarely have a sufficiently broad or up-to-date collection of packages, and when you integrate third party channels it can break other software ("run 'apt-get -f' to fix your dependencies" has never ever worked for me). Generally language-specific package managers work just fine.
>> I feel really sorry for you if...

I never said that this is what I believe. I said it's what a lot of people in the corporate sphere believe. It's the opposite of what I believe.

OOP solves complex problems in a simple way.

Functional Programming solves simple problems in a complex way.

Some concepts from FP are useful when applied within OOP, but pure FP is simply not practical. It doesn't scale in terms of code size, it's inefficient, it's inflexible, it takes longer to develop and maintain, it's less readable because it encourages devs to write long chains of logic spread out across many files. FP's lack of emphasis on important concepts such as blackboxing, high cohesion and loose coupling encourages developers to produce poor abstractions whose names sound highly technical but whose responsibilities are vague and impossible to explain without a long list of contrived statements which have little in common with one another.

Abstractions in FP tend to be all over the place. It seems to encourage vague, unstructured thinking. Decoupling state from logic makes it impossible to produce abstractions which are high cohesion and loosely coupled. It forces every component to mind every other component's business.

This is madness. If you don't care about structure, why not just write the entire system as a single file and define thousands of functions which call each other all over the place? You would get the same spaghetti, but you would save yourself the effort of having to jump around all these files which don't add any meaningful structure anyway.
Talk to directly linked objects and tell them what you need done, and let them deal with their linked objects. Don't assume that you know what is and always will be involved in doing something on dependent objects of the one you're interacting with.

IMHO, this is one of those ideas you have to consider on its merits for each project.

My own starting point is usually that I probably don’t want to drill into the internals of an entity that are implementation details at a lower level of abstraction than the entity’s own interface. That’s breaking through the abstraction and defeating the point of having a defined interface.

However, there can also be relationships between entities on the same level, for example if we’re dealing with domain concepts that have some sort of hierarchical relationship, and then each entity might expose a link to parent or child entities as part of its interface. In that case, I find it clearer to write things like

if (entity.parent.interesting_property !== REQUIRED_VALUE) {
abort_invalid_operation();
}

instead of

let parent_entity = entities.find(entity.parent_id);
if (parent_entity.interesting_property !== REQUIRED_VALUE) {
abort_invalid_operation();
}

and this kind of pattern might arise often when we’re navigating the entity relationships, perhaps finding something that needs to be changed and then checking several different constraints on the overall system before allowing that change.

The “downside” of this is that we can no longer test the original entity’s interface in isolation with unit tests. However, if the logic requires navigating the relationships like this, the reality is that individual entities aren’t independent in that sense anyway, so have we really lost anything of value here?

I find that writing a test suite at the level of the overall set of entities and their relationships — which is evidently the smallest semantically meaningful data set if we need logic like the example above — works fine as an alternative to dogmatically trying to test the interface for a single entity entirely in isolation. The code for each test just sets up the store of entities and adds the specific instances and relationships I want for each test, which makes each test scenario nicely transparent. This style also ensures the tests only depend on real code, not stand-ins like mocks or stubs.
The only competition for the giants are the other giants.

Who can divert from Google's massive ad income funnel?

Apple.

Facebook.

(Also maybe several foreign governments' antitrust cases.)

An engineer on your payroll is an engineer not on the competition's payroll.
A Practical Wait-Free Simulation for Lock-Free Data Structures [pdf]
And get ignored or laughed at. Some people know the rules and nothing but.
True, but we can both agree that this is a better constant than "a". Much better job security in that code.. unless you get fired for writing it, that is
> An obvious extension would be pulling out argparse

Yes absolutely. A lot of possibility. We hope to create a whole new way of building terminal apps!
We owe it to our kids to put an age limit on social media
Keep up the good work. Ignore the haters.
Stripe has set foot in 44 countries—with many more countries on the roadmap. https://stripe.com/global
I had some performance issues with Magit (and git in general) under Windows, but ultimately resolved them. I documented the solutions here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26736006. Maybe some of it will work for your case.
Youtube Premium is $12/month now, in the US. $18/month for the family plan (up to 5 members).
> side of the same coin and we try to tuck it away, keep it under the rug, hide it from light

if only there were a phrase synonymous with side of a coin hidden from light
This is the first time I see my confusion so clearly addressed! Thanks, this makes total sense now!
That's exactly the problem. The Siemens Press Office employee doesn't have the domain knowledge of what Adafruit and Hackaday are that would be common knowledge to end users of their products, or would be if they, like their users would, bothered to do a cursory search before replying.

These German megacorps put so much procedure and so many layers between the people who build stuff and the people who use it that it's impenetrable. You can get a Siemens sales guy in the office by just mentioning you might buy something, but when he gets there he can only parrot the information off the glossy brochures. You have to go through him to talk to the applications engineer. The apps engineer has a cursory knowledge of typical uses of the product, but when you actually need some details, they have to call their technicians in the lab. That tech can try it but can't offer any guarantees it will continue to work, they'll have their manager contact a manager of the domestic Siemens engineering office, at which point you finally get to the guy who worked on that product. But it turns out he only translated the English version of the manual, there's no way to reach the guy who wrote the original in German.

The inevitable result of all that communication friction just to answer a basic question is that the company representatives can't tell a good idea from BS. You need that to keep scams off of Tindie, submarine marketing and pseudoscience off of Hackaday, and in general build stuff better than the discrete companies that the megacorp slowly amalgamated.
how grievance officer is helpful ?
Gaza-based journalists say their accounts blocked by WhatsApp
Slightly tangential, but when you localize a product for India, do not automatically translate it to Hindi.

Only 38% people of India has Hindi as their mother-tongue.

There is strong anti-Hindi-imposition sentiment in many places of India.

Just because someone's geolocation is set to India, don't automatically translate it to Hindi. It irks many.
What YT could do is to have content creators mark those sponsored blocks and autoskip them for paid subscribers (with monetization cut of course). It's in their best interest to make paid experience good and keep people around.

Ideally they could also offer paid content hosting so organizations like Blender or hospitals could host ad-free content and pay for the hosting/bandwidth costs directly.
Russia yes, but Ukraine has no reason not to follow suit. Even ignoring the fact that this is the right thing to do, they want good relations with the EU and NATO instead of being isolated like Belarus.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_37750.htm
> it wasn't AOT compiled to the metal, which Common Lisp is.

It's required that a CL implementation supports compilation, but compiling to machine code isn't required. e.g., Clisp has a bytecode compiler.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Lisp#Compiler_and_inter...

- https://clisp.sourceforge.io/impnotes.html#bytecode
My guess is that the aliens of which Wolfram speaks would know about numbers. After all, animals do (see e.g. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20121128-animals-that-can...).
> All that we do now is find ways to make that hose go faster, and desperately search for another hose.

There’s one other thing Google does a lot of: try to foresee and actively forestall how someone else might cut-off or divert the flow to the existing hose. While both Chrome and Android evolved in directions that explored potential new hoses, they were clearly both initially directed at protecting the existing hose from being choked off or diverted by monopolies on the client side; Android was purchased and engineered to prevent Apple gaining the kind of dominance in mobile to do that, Chrome and Chrome OS against the desktop Windows monopoly and IE.

Google+ was deployed against Facebook and abandoned once it was clear that Facebook’s position, while making it something of a competitor for ad dollars, wasn’t, even without a competitive Google alternative, an existential threat to Google’s money hose.
Children's Hospital Colorado declares mental health state of emergency
Yes.

https://stripe.com/global

Available in 38 countries, previewing in 6
In ‘Languages of Truth,’ Salman Rushdie Defends the Extraordinary
That's a wild leap with zero evidence. Fuchsia runs on one unimportant production device and has basically zero usage. Saying it will replace all of Android and ChromeOS is...optimistic to say the least.
> Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely

You could definitely say this about their self contained power grid.

If Texas was so interested in spreading out power, then surely they would be more willing to trust their elected, representational Federal government instead of having a Texas specific version of everything?

> Texas generally fears a tyrannical government more than they fear a random shooting

Why do you think this is the case?
Thanks! We currently work with the VSCode integrated terminal and will add support for Jetbrains IDEs, if possible!
Maybe not helpfull, but it made me smile :-)
If you're interested in this kind of thing, check out BundleWrap, an under-appreciated gem of configuration management tools. I've been using it as I set up my Raspberry Pi Kubernetes cluster, and it's a joy.

https://bundlewrap.org/
There are issues with massive commercial “organic” farms and I’ve got a book on the way that has more details on it.

https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520277465/agrarian-dreams

But I have been studying small scale regenerative organic or “biodynamic” agriculture and it seems that biodiversity in the soil itself - a healthy complex microbiome - is an important part of fighting disease. Stressed soil leads to stressed crops that can’t fight disease when it comes.

But don’t take my word for it. Listen to Jason Hobson talk about this here:
http://regenerativeagriculturepodcast.com/episode-69-jason-h...

And I agree completely that monocropping is a problem. But look at the farming of JM Fortier or Eliot Coleman. There is no monocropping. I am hopeful that with my open source farming robot we can help make farming like that viable at larger scales without sacrificing biodiversity in the soil or the crop patterns.
I really like Navi
Rocket publishes a library that requires nightly features to work because the alternative is not publishing the library that requires nightly features to work. I'm not sure what you think you're losing by the library existing on crates.io, but there really isn't a way of doing what rocket does without nightly. If there were, Rocket would be doing it (and stabilization for its features is fast approaching).
Why Headless CMS Needs Page Management
Hey there, I'm an American in the US I've done business over chat apps for several years. Mostly being around Chinese, Nigerian, Indian, Phillipine and Malaysian crowds on those apps. You just have to listen, the trend has been clear but in the US people derive clout from pretty irrelevant things, such as a domain name, domain name information, and people with ideas think they need SEO and other marketing gimmicks.

The biggest trick is the banks. When using fiat and opening a bank account for an incorporated business, the bankers often ask for information on the company like website presence of marketing materials.

For the past few years I've been able to point to articles about commerce in Asia being chat app based, to get past that. Bankers don't actually care, but you do need to know how to make them not begin to care.
This would be another benefit of antitrust scrutiny for the tech giants.

They're not innovating at this point. They're twiddling thumbs.

If we broke up Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon, then they'd be forced to fight for survival.

Struggle births innovation.
The blanket rule is because even "good" necroposts tend to encourage bad ones. If I'm on an active forum and I revive some ancient discussion with a useful comment, lots of people will click on the thread and try to argue with the old posts.

The generally recommended alternative is to make a new thread and simply link to the old one so you don't confuse people.
At this point does it matter if youtube goes out of business? Influential content creators can post very optimised and compressed videos on their sites, and a search engine can aggregate top creators.
Born and raised in California, have lived abroad the past 10 years in various locations. The language I always want a website displayed in is the language my browser says I want it displayed in. Sure, make the content local, e.g. assume Chilean pesos if I'm in Chile, but please simply follow Accept-Language for language selection.
I think the internet favors newer books, as most people favor books by authors that are contemporaneous with them, and the internet allows all that writing that in previous generations would have been ephemeral and have a very short distribution to perhaps have greater permanence (perhaps not) but definitely a much wider distribution.
An even better method is to just install uBlock Origin. It will improve privacy too.
Big-O notation summarised using emojis
As long as it doesn’t break the contract you signed when buying the device, go for it.
I am willing to pay to get rid of ads, but that also makes it easier for Google to track me, since now I have to login a Google account. What's worse for me is, because I use private/incognito browser sessions by default, it will take even more time if I have to login to the account every time I visit youtube.com than just playing the ads.

And the worst experience is when I am on my phone, where logging in my Google account in one Google app means I am logged in on all other Google apps. I am sure they put a lot of effort to make it difficult to logout. I remember last time I accidentally logged in to Google Maps app a few month ago, I had to revoke the app's auth token from web management dashboard because I couldn't figure out how to logout within the app.
Because criminals don't use cash... and let's pretend cybercrime didn't exist before crypto... a quote from the article:

"The existence of bitcoin and the rest benefits nobody except criminals and speculators."

There is so much evidence to the contrary that this opinion is laughable. Bitcoin and other cryptos have evened the playing field around the world, I know many open source contributors that get paid in crypto, not to mention growing applications like NFTs (1). WSJ continues to publish FUD like this. Sad.

(1) https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/iconic-charlie-bit-finger-...