skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Substack User and Revenue Statistics (2021)
This is actually a pretty deep idea, not to rely on a single language for implementation. I would go as far as suggesting to use as many DSLs as possible, to make sure that each component or level of abstraction is adequately expressed.
Barry Boehm’s COCOMO model is still relevant:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COCOMO
Minor correction; plotting Chia on an SSD will wreck it, not "mining" Chia. The article gets it right, but the title might be misleading.

Really, it's a bit inconsistent to use the term "mining" for Chia. Plotting is done once per plot, and then can be farmed for eternity (or until the network decides your plot size is not difficult enough).

Long term, I suspect farming Chia on SSDs may end up being attractive due to the much lower power consumption and heat output.
Fine. Abram.
C syntax isn't simple. Unlike most modern languages, which have a context-free grammar, it has a context-sensitive grammar. You can see it in the following example:

#define a stdio

#define header <a.h> // five tokens: <, a, ., h, > (otherwise preprocessor wouldn't substitue "a")

#include header // one token after substitution: <stdio.h>

int main() {
struct {
int h;
} stdio;
a.h = 0;
printf("%d\n", stdio.h);
}

What happened here is:

1. In #include directives a thing like <stdio.h> is one token; everywhere else (including other preprocessor directives) it is five tokens;

2. But an #include directive can have multiple tokens on the right hand side of "#include" before macro substitution. After macro substitution the strings are lexed again - into ONE token.

3. In main() "a.h" is substituted with "stdio.h" - this time it's THREE tokens.

(Oh, and writing "#include <a.h>" will produce an error, because here we have a single token <a.h>, so no "a" to be substituted, and normally there is no "a.h" header file in include path.)

So the same string gets lexed into a different number of tokens in different places; and that happens even after it got lexed first into the same number of tokens before macro substitution.

Now have an example of a C file that compiles with GCC, but not with Clang:

#define CMPS x /*
*/ <y>

#define ALMOST_SHIFT<CMPS

#define FWD_FST(x, y) x

#define CONCAT(x, y) x ## y

#define x
# /*
LOL
*/ define y stdio.h

#include CMPS

#undef x
#undef y

#include FWD_FST(<stdint.h>, y)

// btw. comma is a valid character in a header name. but this will work anyway,
// because lexing in C works in mysterious ways
#include CONCAT(<std,def.h>)

int main() {
int x = 0;
int y = 0;
int z = 0;
printf("%d\n", CMPS z);
// printf("%d\n", z<ALMOST_SHIFT); // doesn't compile
// but the rest works fine...
}

So clearly the C syntax isn't simple. It's so not simple, that compiler writers can't agree on what exactly it is.

(I've been writing such programs for the purpose of using them as edgecases to test my C compiler.)

Then of course you have the type declaration fiasco: <https://blog.golang.org/declaration-syntax>

Then there if of course the awful ternary operator.

Oh, and I almost forgot: spaces are insignificant... unless you're in a "#define" directive. Talk about language consistency...

Those things not only make life hard for compiler writers, but also for language users, because, I don't know about you, but when I write a program the smallest unit that I use to think about its source code is the token. When I can't easily predict tokenization, then something went really wrong. Same with other syntax complications. Guy Steele once said that when he designs a language he verifies that its grammar is LL(1) with a parser generator, which helps make sure that it's not only easy to write the parser and that parsing can be very efficient, but also that it's easy to understand by humans. C fails here big time.
What do you call a mob of people piling on someone and causing them to lose friends, opportunities and a healthy state-of-mind? A belief system?

You're free to believe whatever you want, but if you are wrong and they didn't do it, someone was just publicly executed for the wrong reasons.

You're also free to not care about any of that, but some people want to be cautious not to pile on without evidence.

Are you really arguing it's fine if I accused you of something and convinced everyone of that, without ever providing any evidence? And when you said "no, I didn't do that, here's some evidence," people should shrug it off because why does if matter what side they believe? After all, they are free to judge you based on anything they want, as long as they're not threatening your life or firing you, right?

No one was arguing you can't judge people based on any arbitrary thing you can come up with. It becomes an issue when you use that belief to actively destroy their life, possibly for no reason at all.
>Pretty much all mobile irc clients have that though?

Sure but the connection drops a lot if you roam, if you close the app you don't stay connected, etc. Discord does not have this problem.

>And if you are running weechat anyway, something like weechat-android might be an better option for you?

You're missing the point. I already run weechat-android but it's not about me. It's about people who have grown up accustomed to more modern and mobile-friendly applications. If the only way to get multi-device sync with push notifications is to run weechat in a tmux on a shell and install/sign up for Pushbullet, that's awful UX. Too much friction, to say nothing of the idea that the best way to use IRC is to sign up for a third party shell account.

I hate discord but it's a breeze to onboard people to your server.
Warning: this ScienceAlert article misunderstands the original paper and claims that non-replicated studies are 153 times as likely to be cited as replicated ones. This outrageous figure is not what the authors claimed.

Authors claim "cited 153 times less": ambiguous language, where they really meant "cited 153 fewer times". ScienceAlert writer turned that into "153 times more likely".
Reddit need to buy this
Thanks!

$ brew install cling
$ cling

****************** CLING ******************
* Type C++ code and press enter to run it *
* Type .q to exit *
*******************************************
[cling]$ #include <stdio.h>
[cling]$ #include <sys/utsname.h>
[cling]$ struct utsname u;
[cling]$ uname(&u);
[cling]$ printf("%s %s %s\n", u.sysname, u.release, u.machine);
Darwin 20.5.0 arm64
For those unfamiliar (including me 30 seconds ago), AlmaLinux is intended as a CentOS replacement.
Newly unredacted documents show Google shared location with other apps and more
You also had to have substantial personal resources to do research, at least in the 19th century. Going back to that system would probably reduce the number of people doing science for the wrong reasons, but it would also strongly reduce the number of people doing science at all.
Is that because of how it looks, cultural priming (other similar concepts are red, for example), or because of the red sun on the flag?
It doesn't but I think if it's done right, it has value. I would love to race the exact configuration of a classic digital asset along with physics model from 50 years ago. Porsche unleashed game from 2000 is a good example, there's history and culture there, especially now that digital sports are a thing.
Yeah... we're getting to angels on a head of a pin dancing here.

My fundamental point is that a broken clock isn't predictive, even when it happens to be right.
yup, always work around high voltages with your left hand (the one closes to your heart) in your pocket, to discourage unwanted currents from passing through the heart
Explicit casts are documentation. They may be tedious, but they are clear.
It's not some impossible problem with their resources. I think it's moreso the case that they prioritize newer (but less relevant) stuff you can still engage/social-mediaize with than the actual query even if you don't use the new filter.
Sorry, I should be more accurately. It is function type uses.

In fact, I'm not confused with simple function types. It is just that sometimes, complex function types are convolutions for me.
Interesting, thanks. It's true that "hot takes" of the form "X is Y" become a bit more difficult without the copula. Not sure how much we win by saying "A dictator rules Russia" vs. "Russia is ruled by a dictator", but I can see how just the fact of having to think more carefully about the formulation can contribute to a more reasoned discussion. It's a pity that the Wikipedia article fails to explain this point.
I heard it from MKBHD too, but I wasn't sure if he was the original source :P

I wonder how much the inflation affected the pricing of the phones.

Also you can get Poco Phone or OnePlus Nord for reasonable amount of money. But your are right that I'm not the average user since my SIM card is in a Nokia 105, purely because of the battery life.

LG G2 is running a custom ROM with Android 9. And it honestly is usable. Gmail, MS Teams, Puzzle and Dragon, Dualingo and many more applications work without a problem. The probably major difference between how I use the phone and others would probably be that I don't leave applications running in the background. Probably because I think that RAM is the limiting factor here and not the CPU.

I think people don't realise how powerful modern phones actually are, I mean you can record and edit 4k video on today's flagship phones and probably much more.

(ps: yes I carry two phones with me, although I do quite often leave the smart one at home, since the Nokia can handle calls and messages without a problem)

Interesting note, for a 8 years old phone the battery still lasts me the whole day!
Yeah, I passed commitee with flying colors according to recruiter back then - but 2 weeks later someone/somewhere decided otherwise... lol not sure what actually happened
Also geo-blocked in some countries
The study I cite was published in Sep 2016, so it predates Trump.
Sure, but that is unrealistic. If I get an angel investor who then says "hey my buddy wants to get in as well", they aren't going to agree to split their own share by half.
>The institution of research was supposed to be a rich man’s game, people who didn’t give a shit about practicality, just one upping each other.

Thaaaaannnkkk you. It has technically been reserved for Christian Aristocracy, which is practically a world where there is no desperation for calories. Instead many of the greats had an anxiety of their immortality (see Fourier).
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm assuming whoever wrote the act at least reviewed it with one. Here is a snippet what is says.
6787. Acts constituting a misdemeanor ...
(h) Use the title, or any combination of that title, of “professional engineer,” “licensed
engineer,” “registered engineer,” or the branch titles specified in Section 6732, or the authority
titles specified in Sections 6736 and 6736.1, or “engineer-in-training,” or use any abbreviation of
such title that might lead to the belief that the person is a licensed engineer, is authorized to use
the titles specified in Section 6736 or 6736.1, or holds a certificate as an engineer-in-training,
without being licensed, authorized, or certified as required by this chapter.

So it seems like we do have a law (at least in California) that say something like that.
Facebook lifts ban on posts claiming Covid-19 man-made as Wuhan theories surge
Neutrogena's had crazy high amounts compare to the lower level ones-- hundreds of times more benzene, up to 6ppm. For reference, even 0.5ppm over a long period of time significantly increases cancer risks: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5946455/
You're getting downvoted because you are complaining about something you don't understand, which puts into question the "after reading this" part of your post.

Jumping on the first opportunity to rant about telemetry without even checking what the article is talking about will do that.
Oof. I didn't realize "harm" was meant so literally. At least it was a one-time thing, though... right? I read "had several thousand WAV audio files that I generated" and expected to read something of the form "I corrupted several thousand important data files irreversibly".
I don't know how you're defining simplicity but the integer promotion rules are not complex at all, I would call them very simple.

The problem with them is not the complexity, it's that they work fine most of the time so many people don't learn them or are not looking out for bugs with them.
Nyquist, Bode, Shannon, etc. didn’t need an A bomb to advance their research which is the bedrock of the digital control systems that microcomputers are.
It actually took several reads here to figure out where you disagreed with me. You were like 90% of the way there.

Your re-write should read
> "Do not take YT's prescribed course (YT premium) because they are unethical. Instead, take my suggested route"

to accurately reflect my sentiment, although I actually wasn't claiming that YT is unethical, only that user
davesque seems to think they were. If I said "How can I stop this man from hitting me?", the response "pay him $5" would be poor, so I was suggesting an alternative.
Not directly related. I recently read some of the English work I did as a kid. It was painful to read.

Still, this is how we learn. We make some ridiculously bad choices and we hope to learn from those.

I guess what I am saying is: if you are looking at past work and feeling bad/embarrased, likely you have gotten better.
We can already end all life on earth, that’s nothing new. Transmissible vaccines are also nothing new, the original small pox vaccine did that. I don’t understand where this new fear is coming from?
I don't see why anyone should get special treatment, but the OP is suggesting that they do whatever they do for other groups to create reserved spaces for Republicans. There's this whole explanation about how it's not technically lowering-of-standards but I don't remember the details. I think it has something to do with only using their demographic to change your decision if they are equally as promising as someone else with a different demographic.
You’re strengthening the point of the article.
I'm glad he finally lost his position, at least. I remember reading about that last year when the university was still defending him.
They didn't fix all the warts, D's compile times are just as bad or maybe even worse [0][1].

[0]: https://blog.thecybershadow.net/2018/11/18/d-compilation-is-...

[1]: https://forum.dlang.org/thread/pvseqkfkgaopsnhqecdb@forum.dl...
I strongly disagree.

1) Increasing the number of investors, increases a CEO’s effort required to maintain the same quality of investor relationships.

2) An investor doesn’t need to be malicious to be a major problem. Misunderstandings, misinformation, and disagreements are more likely with larger groups of investors. One disgruntled investor in a shareholder meeting can do great damage to perceptions, which can harm your chances of reinvestment from the other investors.

3) If you want to remain a private company, you must keep the number of investors below 2000.
The Hostile Takeover of a Microsoft Flight Simulator Server
If you're in a high UV area and you want to try something like this, use a UV tracker so you can be informed about the risks.

I have a widget on my phone that displays the current level and estimated burn time, and can pull up a graph of estimated & forecast (turns out cloudy days DO generally block a lot of UV).

It's great to be able to get as much skin exposed as possible during the low UV periods for gentle UV exposure, then know when to cover up & sunscreen during the harsh periods.
Audio production is almost entirely CPU bound, to give one example.

Who's running them on ARM? Not many now, but everything starts somewhere.

It's called progress. You say it's 'to be expected' - well no one else has done it, have they?
I want to like C more, it's simpleness is great until you need to do anything at compiletime then the macro's blow any C++ complexity out of the water.

It's why I like zig so much, It really is the language that understands what was wrong with C and fix's those parts and doesn't do too much more.

Macros suck -> comptime is just zig code
Pointer or array is ambiguous most of the time -> array and ptr notation
Error handling things with a lot of possible errors leads to goto's or messy clean up -> errdefer and defer make that clean.
> Social acceptance is not validity. Social rejection is not invalidity.

Yes it is, otherwise the whole scientific method falls flat on its face. If you cannot expect that a person will identify valid and invalid ideas, what's the point of doing experiments and having people write up their research? If you cannot expect that a group of people will identify valid and invalid ideas, what's the point of peer review? If you cannot expect that the community of scientists will identify valid and invalid ideas, what's the point of doing science?

On what basis do you, personally, believe that the earth moves around the sun? For me, I believe it because the scientific community accepts it. Do you believe that it is at least possible that the sun really does move around the earth and the scientific community happens to be wrong?

What do you believe the speed of light to be? Did you just read it in a textbook? Who published the textbook? How did they know?

That said, yes, the process of human evaluation is very slow and very much prone to errors. But it fundamentally works.
> I can’t count the number of times I’ve had people tell me “I don’t think it’s appropriate to question science.”

Or when they invoke "Science" as an authority to resolve clearly unscientific questions (unsurprisingly, always in their favor).
Is scale part of the issue? A lot of academic/publishing culture and norms were established when it was considerably smaller.. number of people, not just number of papers.

SEO is a kind of explicit analogy. Google pagerank was modelled on academic publishing, and it worked until it went live. From that point, links started to decrease as a quality signal.. spam. Publish or perish is a similar sort of dynamic.

Honestly, I think most legible systems for determining merit have these sort of issues. If advancement, accolade, grants or somesuch are determined by a formal system, whatever that system used as a signal or metric becomes corrupted. Hence why Word-to-mouth, open data repos, conferences and just blogging and pushing stuff to git repos does work. It's informal.
Well, that's kind of what I thought when I was first FTPing popular music from sounds.sdsu.edu in 01994: this can't last! They'll shut it down! And indeed sounds.sdsu.edu did get shut down eventually... and eventually alt.binaries.* got mostly swamped with spam... and Napster got sued... and endless etc.

But you know what? There was a lot more stuff being shared on the internet in 01998 than in 01994, despite sounds.sdsu.edu getting shut down. There was a lot more in 02002 than in 01998, despite Usenet having mostly died. There was a lot more in 02006 than in 02002, despite the Napster suit. And that trend doesn't seem to be slowing down even today, despite the automated surveillance at scale.
The content of the article is specifically using the alleged unfair dismissal of Loeb's ideas to argue the broader point that the scientific community unfairly dismisses unconventional ideas in general. I agree with you that the counterargument above is not validly refuting the article as a whole, but it is definitely making a non-fallacious refutation of that specific sub-argument.

Put another way: the sense of the counterargument is not that this opinion piece itself is a fringe/crackpot idea, which is what you'd expect if the counterargument was simply "This is from a crackpot." In fact, it's not dismissing the content of the article at all. The counterargument is admitting the logical coherence of this opinion piece - that if, among other things, Prof. Loeb's works are unfairly dismissed, then it demonstrates a closed-mindedness in the scientific community - and attacking the premise by saying that the works in question were in fact fairly dismissed.
> It’s nice to have that as an automatic feature rather than something that you have to create for yourself with stored procedures (doing e.g. dynamic programming in the DB), but a matview is still a matview — it’s a real table taking up space on disk and getting replicated through the WAL.

Ah, yeah at the end of the day both unlogged materialized views aren't supported by postgres[0]. Also a patch that introduces temporary materialized views is stuck behind some refactoring that started in 2019[1] which is unfortunate.

> (explanation of materialize)

Thanks for this -- I think I get more clearly what you're getting out of materialize. I'm not sure I quite understand the stream analogy because the data being buffered here feels chunked (though I guess it could be incrementally maintained with some more smarts), but I think I understand the issue that basically ongoing queries need access to this temporarily-useful partial result. Basically a cross-session intermediate query result cache.

This feels like it could be reduced to a custom table access method plugin, but if that temporary table patch gets merged it could be even easier to hack something together.

[0]: https://www.postgresql-archive.org/CREATE-UNLOGGED-MATERIALI...

[1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAKLmikMgkuwFKHem%2BSf...
What if Facebook decides to orient its user with these kind of bans and lift bans?
What if there is no baby?
AFAIK UN statements even ratified ones aren't laws, they're agreements that those countries will create laws to those effects.
I was literally remarking to a workmate 'this looks like Sun 2.0', then I see who's on the team :). Congrats, I'll be keeping an eye out if you ever start shipping to Australia.
You seem to be talking about the preprocessor, not C itself, and I'm not sure that anything you say about it is true (the preprocessor is complicated). Certainly, your first example won't compile without warnings for any sensible GCC options.
Apologies, but are you using a bot? This sounds like it was generated using GPT-3.

I realize you might be a human with feelings, but your screed above has a curious structure that looks... off somehow.

Anyway, if you are genuinely angry and wrote the above, I acknowledge your emotions, and don't have anything else to add.
This is all pedantry. I don't think I've ever talked to a developer who cares.

All people care about is whether or not you have a sane API to work with over HTTP. It uses appropriate verbs, maybe, and has meaningful endpoints and request and response objects you work with, hopefully.

You can make up a new acronym for it like "WNI" or Web Negotiation Interface, but it doesn't change anything that people care about.

There are bigger problems in the world. No need to keep redefining dirt.

If you spend a considerable amount of time pondering such things, it's probably a sign that you need to be growing somewhere else in life and using those skills to enhance your existing ones.

Have tires really changed that much in 200 years?
The examples listed seem to be cases of broken clocks being right, which does happen, and it looks spectacular in history when they are, but it ignores how many broken clocks were rightly ignored.

For the most part, exact scientists are willing to listen if radical ideas are backed up by evidence. — Einstein's ideas were quite radical at the time, but they were backed up by convincing mathematical reasoning and were accepted, however absurd it might have sounded that nonmassive light is influenced by gravity, or that such things as time dilation occur, and they were not actually observed until decades later.

That being said, — there are definitely entire fields of science where the “mainstream consensus” seems to be based quite a bit on convention and simply things “truths that became repeated” but were never well substantiated, and when empirically justified by some experiments, sometimes later found to not be reproducible, or perhaps not occuring in the wild, and only in lab conditions.