skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Reposting a comment I wrote a couple days which surprisingly is on-topic once again!

Multiple adjectives always have to be in the order: opinion, size, age, shape, color, origin, material, purpose.

You can have a lovely little old rectangular green French silver whittling knife, or a beautiful big new oval blue nylon sleeping bag. Those sound completely natural and intuitive, but any tweak to the order just sounds "wrong" to a native speaker. Try it!

If you have a "cardboard brown box", it sounds like the box is the color "cardboard-brown"! If you have an old little knife, it sounds like "little knife" is the kind of knife it is! Other tweaks change the implied meaning in a way that is completely opaque to a non-native speaker.

Why can't you have a "green rectangular French old silver little whittling lovely knife"?
The borrow checker?
> Is the expectation that someone could squat (as per the new channel description) a channel for all perpetuity, even if they no longer participate on the platform?

I really think that is the expectation. I can see reasonable exceptions for specific important channels, where someone abandons an active channel that is a valuable community resource and it is transferred to another caretaker who has some sort of mandate from the community. Even that could be seen as a bit sketchy, imo, and there is precedent for just choosing another channel name rather than going against community norms.

In this case, I think it's hard to argue that the channel just had to continue to function and so protocol had to be breached. The raised eyebrows this is getting are justified, imo.
How long have you been at Google, if you don't mind? I'm sort of curious about tenure and how long people typically stay. A recruiter reached out to me for an engineering position in their Chicago office. I'm considering interviewing, but since it'll require a good amount of preparation on my part, I've put it off. I've basically worked at start ups for my entire career so far (10 years) and I'm thinking it would be good to switch, both for pay and work life balance.
Just thought of another - '[something is] very less' - which comes, presumably, from कम being used for both little/few and less than.

Hindi is much more economical, to put it literally, one says things like 'than/from/compared to orange, lemon is sour', and 'orange is little/less [without comparison] sour'.

Which, I believe, is what gives rise to InE sentences like 'the salt in this is very less' (it needs more salt, there's very little).
There actually is an argument in there I just trusted people to be able to see it through the joke.

Should have known better.
I work for a dev shop called Sanctuary Computer (https://www.sanctuary.computer). We take work/life balance very seriously and every employee has the agency to shape the company in ways they see fit. Would love to have more serious back-end/systems developers with me! + we’re always hiring.
Sounds like a big school district with administration that is a bunch of assholes. Making disciplinary referrals to a police officer is gross.

My sister had a classmate who ended up with a felony conviction for counterfeiting money, using a low-end HP OfficeJet and glueing two sides together as a joke. It was absurd, to the point the sentencing judge made his displeasure known.
Sorry if the scare quotes made my question look hostile, but I am genuinely curious.
Yes. I have learned that r following a vowel in British English tends to vanish. I remember reading about the pun in the title of Waugh in Africa when I was in my twenties and wondering what the pun was since in my Midwestern American English, Waugh and war are very different sounding words. I encountered a similar one later where a writer friend from England had a scene where a character expressed confusion about pawn shop vs porn shop.
So many people use flounder when they mean founder.
That's not what I (or the standard, or compiler writers, or programming language researchers) mean by "semantics."

From the perspective of defining and specifying a programming language, when we say "semantics" we mean the set of rules for an abstract machine, or a similar formalism. If those rules don't specify the result of an operation, it's like the machine gets stuck- like dividing by zero in a proof, there is no correct way to proceed. The behavior is undefined.

Nobody is disputing that compilers will produce something for code with undefined behavior. They're just saying that there is absolutely no useful way to rely on it, because nobody has agreed on or even decided what it should be (and always for some specific reason!)

If that makes it impossible to use the language, that's not UB's problem. It's the design of the language, and the quality of the tools that surround it. There are ways to increase your confidence that a C application never invokes UB, and they're getting better all the time. (There are also lots of new languages that try to solve this in various ways that C can't!)

Those are the solutions we have. "Just don't have UB in C" or "just make compilers more predictable" are not very effective by comparison.
"Am I the only one who..."

The answer is almost always 'no'.
Blank line above and below each line of code made even worse with opening brackets at column 1 of yet another new line. WTF!?
I used that as a kid, in place of Microsoft's internet connection sharing software that my dad had set up. I vaguely recall it worked better for multiplayer games.

Any layer 3 router is basically just a computer and software. Some of the more mechanical tasks can be accelerated in hardware, but that's only important with really high throughout setups. It is pretty impressive how much data you can shovel through a modest CPU, though. Part of that is the fact that CPUs process many bits in parallel. You could imagine a 20 year old CPU running at 100Mhz shovelling 50 million words per second between memory locations, which at 32-bits is 1.6Gbps.
>I didn't get rich, and I worked way too much, but it was awesome. I loved the constant change and chaos. I learned so much, way more than I would've in any other type or work place.

How are startups different from average joe soft with 20ppl?
That explanation sounds circular to me - by definition any word you'd use in that way is an adverb.

A more intuitive explanation is perhaps that "overseas" came from the combination of two words, "over" (a preposition), and "seas" (a noun). And when you write it out as three words "going over seas" it makes perfect grammatical sense.

Disclaimer, I have no idea if my explanation is rooted in facts about the English language or how it actually developed. But that's how I'd answer the question if someone asked me for an intuitive explanation about why we don't use "to". Because there's already a preposition ("over")! You wouldn't write "going to over seas", would you?
What the fuck are you all on about?
I suspect there was bureaucratic and personal digging in once the district and its technical staff were challenged.
Yeah you're right. I guess a style guide or a usage guide would be a prescriptivist dictionary?

I'd always heard "prescriptivist dictionary" is a thing that exists but now that I'm thinking about it I'm kind of doubting it.
There's no such thing in practice as "California is in the US." What you can get in reality is "Alice told the computer in 2008 that Bob wrote in his 1999 book that California was in the US in 1470BC."

Perspectivism is the understanding that it's impossible to interpret semantic "knowledge" without knowing the limitations and implicit context carried with the fallible, partial transcription of the truth (set in a world that obeys quantum mechanics, for one thing) into words (which run to about 1MB tops before the author gets bored.)
It's very common for writers, especially journalists, to use to sanction to mean to impose sanctions. I've given up on correcting them and in their defense, the OED has the verb to sanction meaning to impose punishment dating back to the early 19th century in legal contexts.
> What do they do to prevent people from quickly founding a channel around a new topic and squatting on it?

I don't think this is a huge issue for IRC communities.

Freenode in particular had a bureaucracy around #<name> channels to prevent this (and even that was rather ineffective in the single case I was almost-personally involved in), but ##<name> channels were explicitly more free-for-all.
I remember working this out in sixth grade while I was bored out of my skull in language arts class. I brought it up to the teacher and she had apparently never noticed it.
> If you have an idea on how abusive actors behind CG-NAT can be identified and blocked without blocking the entire CG-NAT, and that idea is not morally unacceptable

I don't think a general solution would be required in this instance.

In this case, as I understand it, the abusive actors did the following:

1) tried to join with an abusive name

2) impersonated a student login and yelled abusive things in chat

It seems that (1) could be solved by blocking connections from any user name that is not on a whitelist of approved student names and nicknames, and (2) is most likely an issue of someone else accessing the student's login credentials, so it could potentially be mitigated by multifactor authentication.
Is it really a challenge if "quality" is a measure of being fit for purpose? You don't necessarily have to compare across every technology if you are able to recognize a great tool that does what you need.

"If the definition ends up aligning with what large companies look for when adopting a new technology, then the signal ends up being the same."

And even then, the signal is only the same, but it's not worse. Whereas if large companies don't always optimize for quality, but have other incentives at play, or if they are less nimble, or less efficient, then looking for what large companies look for might actually end up setting you back with worse signal. So there's no upside I think.
This also happens in fedora when applying updates through the gnome-software-center.
It’s saying (poorly) that women afflicted by hyperemesis gravidarum couldn’t keep fluids down- today, IV fluids bypass this problem, and are extremely effective.

The sad thing is there are also very successful oral fluid replacement regimes, but they are hard & not intuitive.
This is an interesting take, and largely correct, but you describe these "waves" as if they are some literary or artistic trends that just play themselves out, and not takes on a very real situation, which is what they really are.

Yes, the 2nd wave of cynicism is now well-established, the comments are predictable and preaching-to-the-choir.

However, has it become any less correct or accepted? This isn't literature or art where folks will become disenchanted with a take purely because it has become cliche.

IMHO the answer is "no". This take has indeed become so established, that it is now simply taken for granted, as the foundation for discussion on sites like Blind.

Everyone understands that startups now provide less value to their employees than top tech companies (FAANG etc), the startup culture in the US is doing nothing to address this (senior engineers are still getting crumbs of equity, your total compensation at a startup will still be far lower than FAANG, there is effectively zero concern for providing the long-term career growth you'd get in top tech, etc), so nobody takes startups seriously as an option unless they are among the handful of well-known unicorns.

Everyone is targeting top tech ("FAANG") and pre-IPO unicorns and that's it.

It's widely accepted that you'd look at any non-unicorn non-pre-IPO startups only as a fallback option after completely failing to get an offer from any of the above. Even then, you'd constantly try to ascend to the real winning options, and any call from a FAANG recruiter will take you away from the startup role you had to settle for.

I believe startup culture can change that, but it will take much effort and actual sacrifice (e.g. reserving more equity for employees). Until then, startups will remain a strictly less desirable option, and just because everyone now knows and agrees on this take doesn't make it any less true. I anything, it's becoming more entrenched and harder to change.
It's probably worth noting when people commit petty abuses of power so you know not to trust them with actual, important power.
It’s not just “conservatives.” It’s something National Review and Jacobin can agree on: https://jacobinmag.com/2020/06/brands-corporate-publicity-ra.... Solidly left-wing Democrats like Tulsi Gabbard have spoken out against it, and left-wing journalists like Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greeneald, etc.

The right wing opposes it because it attacks American history and readily dispenses with notions of race neutral application of the law. The left wing opposes it because it’s transparent whitewashing and also divides the working class against itself.
I have to say, I am in agreement. We are not talking about computer illiterates here who cannot find work if their life dependent upon it.
Wireless carriers use proxies and cgnat.

Had a colleague who discovered some of the edge case failures with an app he was building.
In my experience, there are 2 major things that contribute to this from the company. If you want a solid work/life balance, avoid very small companies like the plague. Their whole thing is working you hard to see if the company can become a thing, with a high chance of getting little to no return for the extra work.

The other major item that's contributed to that in my career/careers of people I've talked to about this is growth. You want a company that is experiencing moderate, steady growth. Doubling every year? That's going to be a painful job. Declining every year? Better work harder to justify your job. But a cool 3-15% each year in a steady company means you get to go home at 5.

More than any of that though, the most important contributor to work life balance is you. If you really value that balance, be ready to tell your manager you're not working late and accept that eventually you may get fired. If you're willing to do that, and you do your job well, you'll be fine (either at that role, or the next). I've had to explain to managers that I won't work 60 hour weeks to make a deadline they made up. It's not my company, I don't get any upside in spending more than the agreed upon hours working on it, and it's just a job. People scoff at that mentality, but you need to decide how you live your life and be ready to enforce those boundaries.
> Jose has stated that fixing internalized pain is a real priority for the elixir ecosystem moving forward, so it's entirely possible that these things will be fixed over time (or it's possible it won't!).

Ah, that sounds interesting. Do you have a link to where he said that?
> But our "parents" are still largely in control? Wouldn't passing economic reforms probably be easier without a bunch of deluded boomers and gen Xers in Congress?

No. It would be easier without people deeply invested in the status quo system directing the political system from outside, but which marketing-focussed-label applies to the birth year of representatives in Congress has pretty much no bearing on that, even if age-cohorts correlate with differences in views in the electorate.

We don’t have a sortition system where you might expect people in Congress to be otherwise typical of their age group, after all.

If you want the values of Millenials more represented, you want more Millenials voting and devoting time and money to activism; more Millenials in Congress isn’t itself a recipe for change. Finding 535 Millenials that the establishment could rely on to represent their interests wouldn't be challenging.
That was the CSIRO (and boy don’t they love to tell people they invented wifi).

I asked about Data61, given that they are meant to bridge research and industry through commercialisation, I’ve yet to hear of an actual profitable success story from them.
Oops, my bad. Those NOT coming from JS backgrounds.
You are the one bringing up the utility of money.
It's actually fairly safe to discuss, since it happened more than 60 years ago and the results were so obviously disastrous that the policy was scrapped in its entirety. The Baidu Baike article https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E5%A4%A7%E8%B7%83%E8%BF%9B/228... (which you can assume to be officially vetted) criticizes it as unrealistic, but takes care to stress that the party "quickly" (well... within two years) corrected their mistake.

Drawing parallels to contemporary politics would be a different matter.
Not being replaced by modern replacements is pretty much IRC's thing.

Edit: I guess https://xkcd.com/1782/ makes that point better.
> It’s now one of those topics that’s not safe to discuss.

If you live in China.
I disagree that requiring the time to be correct precise to 30 seconds is "a mistake" in the general case, but it is a good point that this might happen in some weird edge case (where also changing the local clock +/-60s is not enough to fix it). Having a fallback that lets you in via a mechanism that does not depend on any external factors or uninterrupted power supply does seem like a good idea for important physical infrastructure. (For virtual stuff, in such a weird case you can always just modify the disk image to get ntp from a working host and boot again.)
You’re hitting a wall moving from mathematical theory to hardware implementation. I hit a similar wall at some point. When writing a rendering pipeline the problem is not the math, but making real world devices do that math.
Show me a government that's even attempting to move in that direction.
Kids these days - calling 8mb “a bit of memory” :) (yes indeed it’s not that much these days but I remember when 8mb was enough to run a multitasking OS with a ton of high-end applications.
Post of original source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27250811

HN Guidelines: "Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
>Wikidata

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikidata

Thanks for that! TIL.

It seems a fascinating project in epistemiology!
Bump this - I'd prefer to avoid using that script, especially since it seems like it's a bit unstable (e.g. "some systems have a wake-up issue").

I'd love a solution that doesn't require closing the lid, as well.
Musk he been AWKward to decide the best order of the initials
Mongoose schema hasn't been registered for modelMongoose schema hasn't been
> they speculate that the non-local individuals present were mercenaries

From the infamous Mauro Nero company?
> less annoying version of reddit

Hey now, there are plenty of corners in reddit that are less annoying than my HN comments. We're for sure more self-important here, though.
British English speaker:

import foo

"im-PORT foo"

"foo is an IM-port"

"this code im-PORTs foo"
not so far, no. I usually create a view as a compound result type for functions, and match the struct for the results to the view. So the SQL compiler tells me if I got a return type wrong, and if I need to change the struct then I change the view to match, and the compiler tells me all the other places I need to change.
I wonder what percentage of homeless in places like California are simply "refugees" from places that A) don't provide an environment for marginal people, and B) push them out of town and out of mind.
The big box stores here frequently have eggs for $1. On a recent visit (to buy cheap frozen chicken) the register printed me a coupon for a free carton of eggs. They use the cheap eggs to get people in the door.
When you use it as a verb it should have the stress on the second syllable, /imˈpôrt/ as a verb, /ˈimˌpôrt/ as a noun. It's probably one of the more common mispronunciations. The number one mispronunciation, though, has to be “often” (look it up). With forte, meaning strength, as number two.
Well that and the hodgepodge of skills that make up DevOps are not taught in university yet are desired from candidates who have established years of being a DevOps Engineer but given the field's infancy are in short supply.
You may be right that it's easy to set up, but pgbouncer doesn't help with this problem most of the time. It's a problem that needs to be solved within postgres.

There are three pooling modes:

- Session pooling. Doesn't help with this issue since it doesn't reduce the total number of required connections.

- Transaction pooling / statement pooling. Breaks too many things to be usable. (eg. prepared statements...)

See the table at https://www.pgbouncer.org/features.html for what features cannot be used with transaction pooling.
Here are a few channels that I watch ofen that always upload in 4k. This is not a niche for serious youtube channels:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsn6cjffsvyOZCZxvGoJxGg

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHnyfMqiRRG1u-2MsSQLbXA

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSpFnDQr88xCZ80N-X7t0nQ

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXuqSBlHAE6Xw-yeJA0Tunw

Besides even at 1080p the difference in how much battery it saves is astounding. With acceleration your CPU is just idling while without it has to work quite hard.
Yeah, I can reproduce. Installed iStats Menu, connected, and it's 18W on the Radeon GPU as expected. I was kind of resigned to this always being true, but maybe not! I am somewhat optimistic that Apple or AMD will fix this now.
It's not clear to me if the OP want's to run without any connection pool (incl. a built-in one), or just without a separate one.

In an ideal world PostgreSQL would handle infinite number of connections without a connection pool. Unlikely in practicem though.

There are good practical reasons to actually limit the number of connections:

(a) CPU efficiency (optimal number of active connections is 1-2x number of cores)

(b) allows higher memory limits

(c) lower risk of connection storms

(d) ... probably more

Some applications simply ignore this and expect rather high number of connections, with the assumption most of them will be idle. Sometimes the connections are opened/closed frequently, making it worse.

Eliminating the need for a connection pool in those cases would probably require significant changes to the architecture, so that e.g. forking a process is not needed.

But my guess is that's not going to happen. A more likely solution is having a built-in connection pool which is easier to configure / operate.

Separate connection pools (like pgbouncer) are unlikely to go away, though, because being able to run them on a separate machine is a big advantage.
Matt Parker has demonstrated this at least a couple of times on YouTube, I bet he’s who you’re thinking of. It is surprising!

https://youtu.be/-u-O_2Hz82I
Except that passwords, private keys, and safe combinations cannot be guessed in 0.1 seconds the way that a port can (65k possible values and a SYN packet really isn't large). There is a line to be drawn between high-entropy secrets and using an unpredictable port number.
Secret hacker pro-tip: don't use foreign key constraints. At all. They're incompatible with the goals of most modern software systems. Ssh. It's a secret.

In before downvotes because your textbook/groupthink told you otherwise.
The biggest challenge was, this was 2000 and MP3s were still a new technology and Java of that era could only play uncompressed audio samples.
>A non-native speaker once asked me why we say "Going overseas" instead of "Going to overseas". I couldn't give them an answer at the time(even though I'm a native speaker).

>Later I asked a very smart friend of mine who studied english as a second language (and was quite proficient at that point) and he was immediately able to recognize that it was because "overseas" is an adverb. It seems obvious in retrospect, but you just don't think about those things as a native speaker.

What about 'Going bananas' -- is that still an adverb?
Twitch: We’ll have tags related to gender, sexual orientation, race, nationality