skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yeah, I agree that in general tariffs and other trade barriers are in general a net negative for the economy (and I think this is/was the case in all developed countries). But I just don't see any other way high wage jobs could have been maintained in the manufacturing sector, with a simultaneously shrinking demand and an increasing supply in the labor market. Of course that would be at the cost of the consumer.
> The agreement in principle was reached by someone who has no power to do anything with regards to corporate taxes

I think you are considerably understating the power of the G7 finance ministers including the US Secretary of the Treasury. Sure, they can't ratify a treaty without the cooperation of congress. They're still extraordinarily powerful individuals and have loads of direct authority to shape tax policy.
Isn't regular point perspective that all axis-aligned lines meet at the one of the three points, whereas here all lines whatsoever eventually converge there?

This reminds me of the mathematical trick to make a "hollow earth" work, with us living on the inside: All rays of light are bent. You can never see the curvature of the earth (or it seems that we are living on the outside). The stars that seem to be at ~infinity are at the center of the sphere, and the sun is a ball of fire orbiting around the center, and so on.
I’m at a company where we have tons of Java services. Services scale out horizontally, are fronted with load balancers, and there’s some minimal JVM tuning. Some services have thread pools dedicated to making calls to other services. Aside from that, there isn’t that much multi threaded code that we’ve had to write. Throttling is in use as well.

I see a big Rust benefit when you’re writing systems level code or you’re writing once and use the code as a library on Android and iOS.

But what type of logic are you writing in your services that requires Rust’s safety guarantees? Or is it that you’ve found you can respond to the same performance metrics (total requests per second) with fewer hosts because there’s no JVM or garbage collection overhead?
"Elsewhere, decapitated bodies make between 2.5% to 6% of burials."

That seems like a really high percentage of the dead were executed. Is it reasonably to guess from this fact that 2-6% of Roman mortality was caused by execution? That seems absurdly high. Maybe burial in a cemetery was more common for the executed than the otherwise deceased?
I've never seen any example of businesses making deliberate choices on websites size and loading time.

The web "development" world is just too messy and hype driven.
Depending on how far we’re talking you could also just run network cable…
It took me several tries to understand this comment. In the first pass it looks like the result of some kind of Markov chain text generator.
> So there is still book 4, 5 an 6?

Yes, and they are still classified (for now).

Part III has been long sought after. Glad to see it’s out there (and that it’s release doesn’t jeopardize anything)
Carrying the torch of the Sqreen SaaS CTO security checklist: infosec basics
My analogy is really just a reference to what "reached a deal" colloquially means.

"reached a deal" doesn't mean the deal absolutely 100% will be implemented. It means, the referenced parties have reached an agreement to something.

In this case, the leaders of the G7 countries have reached an agreement among themselves to have a minimum corporate tax rate. Note that the United States has no obligation according to this deal—only Joe Biden has agreed the deal. And Joe Biden has no legal obligation under the deal, he merely has a reputational one.

Since the agreed minimum corporate tax rate is 15%, and the United States corporate tax rate is 21% there's literally nothing Joe Biden needs to do in order to meet the terms of the deal he made with the other G7 leaders.

If they want to turn this into an international treaty, absolutely, GOP Senate votes will be needed (though, given that the treaty would create a floor that's 6 percentage points below our current tax rate, I would imagine those would be attainable votes—if the GOP created a global floor that was lower than our tax rate, they could use it to argue for lowering our corporate tax rate).
And whose fault is that? They reap what they sow.
Making good GUIs is hard
It's curious that we haven't seen dedicated effort towards a consistent password autofill API in browsers, like what is present in Android. Even the Credential Management API seems to have not picked up traction for passwords, though it was extended for use with FIDO2 security keys.
I share the conclusion and for those friends and family who use chrome across devices I've been recommending to just activate 2FA (not sms) and use the built in password manager.

But relying on chrome as password manager - even on Android - has drawbacks as it seems not to support all apps and fields one needs to.

I personally use bitwarden because it seems to work - when I enable all assistive tech - on 99% of situations. I also don't use chrome anymore so using Google password manager isn't as useful.
The reassuring thing about DES is that DES is actually broken only for the reasons people knew about when DES was standardised in the 1970s.

The DES key size is too small (56 bits) and the DES block size is too small (64 bits).

Practical attacks on DES (as opposed to stuff like oracles that isn't a block cipher problem per se) all attack these known weaknesses of DES, theoretically it's still fine, within the bounds of those two fatal limitations.

That's reassuring because it means we're probably done. AES is faster, and it fixes the two things that are wrong with DES by having the longer keys (128-bit or 256-bit) and the larger blocks (128-bit) and so if DES is any indication there won't be a need to replace AES in the foreseeable future.

But I'm pretty sure it makes this hypothetical Cryptopals set silly. On specialist hardware DES cracking via these two obvious flaws is practical, though not exactly cheap, but "Pay somebody some Buttcoins to crack the key" isn't much of a Cryptopals exercise, and "Build your own DES cracker" is more hardcore electronics project than crypto introduction.
For anyone who wants Cryptopals set 8 (not linked on the website unfortunately):

https://gist.github.com/arkadiyt/5b33bed653ce1dc26e1df9c249d...
This does not reallz discuss offline password managers like keepassx except for this one sentence

> Conceptually, what could be simpler than a password manager? It’s just a trivial key-value store. In fact, the simplest implementations are usually great. Good examples of simple and safe password managers are keepass and keepassx, or even pass if you’re a nerd.

I think keepass synched via nextcloud is a great solution, e2e encrypted, works basically everywhere (windows mac linux osx ios android) and it keeps the sync and backup in your hands. If copy and pasting a password or using autofill for keepass is too much to ask, then you propably don't care about security.
That's a pretty big leap, from people not buying as much turkey to kids in school going hungry.

Sure supply and demand would state that if the price goes up, demand goes down. What it Doesn't state is how much demand will go down, whether that decrease in demand Actually offsets the increase in price, or whether total revenue stays net neutral.

Whole swathes of people wouldn't just stop buying turkey if the price went up a few cents, or maybe even tens of cents (but this is speculation, I'm not sure if anyone's published the numbers on how much the price of turkey would have to increase to support a higher wage). But people buy turkey over pork for a number of lifestyle reasons, too.

Suppy and demand is more of a model than a system. It's not perfect, no model is, but it's useful. But life is a lot more complicated than a simple model
Couldn’t you first ask to finalize it in writing?
Yes, with the failure of silicon valley producing a real city, like developing San Jose downtown into a world class place, I think it's clear that no matter how much money we have we won't convert these old places into something good. We are still suck with these ancient ranch houses, shitty Comcast internet, and "luxury" apartment mega complexes that are a joke and whose main purpose is clearly to be an investment rather than a quality experience.

Time to start from the ground up with things like community and general quality of life as top concerns. Investors can shove it.
Link in case anyone doesn’t know what this is referring to (I think)

https://www.zombo.com/

(Appears to have been upgraded to HTTPS and other modernities!)
In some countries, true. In the UK about the only things you can deduct are:

1. Pension (up to a maximum amount, and tapered down from 40k to 4k depending on income)
2. Cycle to Work bike
3. Childcare vouchers

There's also some allowance if you're required to purchase things for your job, e.g. a uniform or tools, but vans, cars etc. are out.
I used that debugger three years ago and it worked fine. Remember I had to do something special to set it up though. Made a career change after that so can't help you now.
Companies tend to pay wages, dividends or use capital for growth to pay for those.
Computer chips are mercurial: Rare miscalculations frequent at cloud hyperscale
Lots of errors happening lately
duplicate, please check before submitting: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27406497
Indeed. Luckily, “the world” ≠ ”the US”.
> Like how "Defund the Police" means stop paying for and therefore disband police forces.

Yeah, I'm going to disagree with you there. It means to reduce the funding (i.e. defund) the police in the same way that education has been defunded. That doesn't mean that a group is entirely disbanded, rather than the scope gets similarly restricted. When education is defunded, this means that after-school programs get cut, and school lunch programs are reduced. It doesn't mean that the school itself gets shut down. Should police be defunded, it means that extraneous use of police force, such as for mental health checks, are no longer part of the budget. It also means those funds can be shifted to programs specifically designed for mental health checks.

You are assuming that "defund" means to completely remove funding rather than partially remove funding.
Ok… but the following topics in your list have nothing to do with an API specification, which is what they say their goals is on the Goals section:

>

“A few UI differences between chrome's extension popup and firefox's one means you'll need to potentially leave out features for one browser.
- UX differences between browsers means you'll need to write extra code, and maybe a few extra tutorials.
- Huge huge difference between publishing on chrome vs on firefox
- Safari requires xcode, and therefore macos to publish”

Bottom line is I don’t think there is going to be an api standard around “distribution and publishing areas”
From what I can tell with what's out there on there internet, the main change is allowing local jurisdictions to tax a company on the money they make in that country, even if they have no presence there.

So again, it would just increase revenue for the US, and I see no reason they wouldn't agree to it.

At the end of the day, I don't think the US had to compromise here. I think it's universally better for the US government, just not US based companies, but it gives the GOP enough air cover to agree to it anyway.

It mostly benefits the European countries that are missing their tax revenue.
Apple pays a regular dividend and does regular share repurchases. Since 2012 its paid out about a half trillion dollars to shareholders. These are equivalent from a corporate accounting point of view, share buybacks are paid out after US corporate taxes are paid. Buybacks are preferred recently just because of the better tax treatment from an investor point of view, it changes nothing for the company.

As for how the money gets to Ireland, most of Apple's non-US operations are subsidiaries of Apple Ireland. For illustration, there's this (somewhat outdated) graph of the revenue flows on wikipedia: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Apple%27...
I'm a speedrunner. I understand the desire to make some glitches into ascended bits of functionality, but bunny-hopping is usually frame-perfect and that's not a good choice for a feature.

That said, walljumps in Mario games started as frame-perfect buggy jumps and later became much easier and reliable.
Sorry, to clarify Norton raised an alert on this domain. So proceed with caution.
Time-to-review is a good metric, although as with many metrics, it is possible for it to be gamed, and it can be context-sensitive (Mozilla and Stripe probably have various other team and cultural differences). That said, no-one (including collective engineering organizations) should enjoy the sense that potentially useful code changes are piling up unreviewed.
nice, what about dark mode?
Actually in terms of bandwidth JavaScript isn’t the problem, you can fit an entire SPA into the bandwidth required for one large image (it is a problem in terms of CPU usage on underpowered devices though)

Large images being “worth the trade off” is debatable depending on your connection speed, I think (though at least you can disable images in the browser?)
I always forget about strace. I'm gonna use that trick
As a native speaker of American English, I find Latinx to be either unpronounceable or lacking in an obviously correct pronunciation. Is it La-tinks? Or Latin-exks? The natural English construction of an adjective derived from “latin” that lacks gender would he just “latin”, not “latinx”, as English doesn’t have gendered adjectives in the first place.

(I don’t really understand how “Latina/Latino” came to be used for this purpose to begin with.)
Surprised there’s anything lower on that list than SFgate :)
Probably not very good, gzip is bad at compressing numerical data. It's good at compressing text, which is made of data that often repeats itself.

Compressing numerical data is done with lossy compression such as DCT.
I feel like I need to point out that they are identical, inasmuch as debasement means anything in our current currency systems.

Debasement of gold happens because gold isn't printed. You need to dilute it in order to make more coins. In a gold currency system, it's the gold that's the "real" currency. Gold value rises and falls, but that's not debasement. The coins are debase. It's theoretically possible for a gold coin to be debased, but also worth more because the value of gold has increased by more than the coin has been diluted.

Euros and dollars aren't redeemable for anything, so debasement doesn't really mean anything.

In the Eurozone, when a national government runs a deficit (all of us, currently) then the ECB issues a loan. That money is then available for the government to spend. This is where Euros come from.

The ECB refused to loan/print money to the Greek government until they agreed to certain demands. Ireland, my country, did agree to the demands and the ECB made some euros for us to pay our banks with.

It works in a similar way in the US. The Federal Reserve Bank gives their government dollars, and they US government give them bonds in exchange... a loan. The Fed can then sell those bonds to anyone who wants them, or hold them.

The one unbreakable eurozone rule is no printing your own money. The "Greek Crisis" was a fear the Greece would try to issue its own bonds, which would trade at a different rate & effectively create their own separate euro... confusing everyone.
How is Tavis Ormandy's blog a malicious site?
Neat!

Why not do that with HTML?
Indeed. As you stated, mutual vanishing points, as used in illustration, are when parallel lines of the scene are extended to infinity and converge. Animation of a rotating object requires animation of a set of vanishing points for each frame.

This is nearly deja vu for me, as a conversation that I've seen several times at the intersection of arts and computer graphics. I can only conclude that a sub-population have received instruction on "vanishing points" that were overly specific and missed the footnote on how it generalizes. Specifically: the artist and draftsman idioms of 2 or 3-point perspective or vanishing points are short cuts for perspective rendering of subjects which have cartesian layouts, such as rectilinear buildings and street scenes built on a cartesian grid, with lots of parallel or perpendicular edges. The missing footnote is that this does not work for arbitrary subjects.

Real perspective rendering has infinite potential vanishing points in one scene. Each point represents nothing more than the infinite continuation of any line segment in the scene, as it would be rendered by a true perspective rendering. The vanishing point of any one line is when the viewing ray converges with that line, to the limit of angular resolution in your rendering. All more distant segments project into the same small picture element, whether formed by raster graphics or your finest pencil, pen, brush, or engraving tool.

For a complex scene, the skilled artist would choose [edited to delete typo "three"] different vanishing points appropriate for each set of parallel lines. E.g. a vineyard with parallel rows of plantings might use different points than a road passing by at an odd angle, and a set of high-tension powerlines crossing the scene would have its own vanishing points as well. If the power lines follow a ragged course, each segment between two towers would need its own vanishing points. Furthermore, the artist would have to approximate the parabolic sag of the wire below these projected line segments, perhaps using parallel lines to locate the envelope within which the line sags.
> You are not going to ratify a treaty with the required 2/3 votes in the Senate via reconciliation

Which is among the reasons this won’t technically be a treaty in US law (even if it is in international law), but a Congressional-executive agreement [0].

[0] https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Congressional...
Substack (YC W18) is hiring engineers to build the future of writing
I tried to read this, but my head is too swimmy from all the allergy meds. I’ll have to come back to
It.
tl;dr: browser extensions are bad therefore all password managers are bad

Also find it odd the author uses Chrome, which doesn't even let you set a master password to E2E encrypt its password store.
To be fair, people coming from other languages lean heavily on Rc/RefCell too, and sometimes (uh oh) unsafe blocks.

In both cases, one benefits from input from those experienced in the language.

(not saying c/c++ is better than rust, just commenting on the difficulty)
> If you want to use an online password manager, I would recommend using the one already built into your browser. They provide the same functionality, and can sidestep these fundamental problems with extensions.

What would be really great if the major browser vendors would get together and come up with a way to reliable, secure, cross-browser syncing of passwords.

The main reason I use a password manager instead of the browser’s password storage is because I use different browsers both on the same device and an different devices. I might use Firefox in my Linux desktop and Safari on my Mac. Using a third-party password manager allows me to have the same set of shared passwords on both.
Almost: all equal ratio lines (x=z+c, x=y+c, y=z+c where c is some constant) head off in a straight line towards their respective horizons, but all other non-axis-aligned lines converge at the vanishing points.
I wouldn't read "guess what" nearly as harsh as you're taking it.
> Afaik Chrome does not support the standard

Chrome published the WebExtensions API, not Mozilla. Whether or not it’s a standard is another question, you could call it a defacto standard, but Chrome definitely implemented the api that they published.
I'm currently looking for Rust devs that are interested in joining a side project that uses Rust for the back-end of a web app. The project involves working with Solana (a smart contract cryptocurrency coded in Rust). If interested, email me at rusted[at]fastmail[dot]com
duplicate: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27126092
In the context of the article, the costs I'm referring to are related to a third-party component (integrated easily by default in a framework) that is moving to a pay-sometimes license.

(you also make a very observant hint: total cost of ownership includes hardware-level resource provisioning)
That's totally fair! I don't disagree that people who reach a deal shouldn't change the deal after that point (though the UK government seems to think it's fine).

But, suppose the following events happen:

- we reach a deal on some cool project

- reporters announce that we have a deal on the cool project

- I decide to back out of our agreement and not go forward with the cool project

- reporters announce that I backed out of our agreement

- You condemn me for my treachery, and tell everyone that I'm a backstabbing two-faced used-car dealer

- reporters announce that you have condemned me

The reporters aren't wrong at any step in this! We did have a deal, and it's correct to report on it and correct to say we had a deal. Even if the deal ultimately fell through to my used-car treachery.

I'm not saying people shouldn't hold to the deals that they make (though you seem to think that's my argument, so I must've made my point poorly somewhere along the way). 100% of my point is "reached a deal" doesn't mean it's final, and it's OK and even correct to say that a group of people have reached a deal—even if you don't think that deal is feasible.

Another example: Let's say that I form a deal with 10 investors that I will guarantee them a risk-free 50% annual return on their investment. You would be absolutely correct to say that I was probably lying! You would be correct to say it's clear that malfeasance exists! But you would be wrong to say that we didn't reach that deal. We did reach that deal, even if you think there is a 0% chance that the deal will actually be accomplished in the real world.
How is that relevant to OP topic?
Picking up Rust is not the same as picking up Python or even Java, in my opinion.

I started learning Rust and C++ at the same time, coming from a world of Java, Python, and Ruby.

If I need to solve a problem in C++, I would much rather write Rust because the compiler actively screams at you when you do bad things.

And in my opinion, the challenging part is learning what those bad things are. In other languages, the compiler doesn’t care. You immediately see your program crash or things fail in subtle, hard to reproduce ways later in production. Rust changes that model.

I disagree with you on the documentation. I think the Rust documentation is superb. I have yet to see any language give nearly as meaningful information when your code fails to compile. Secondly, Rust front loads and throws issues immediately in your face, as opposed to having you discover problems in your code at runtime. I don’t think that makes Rust difficult - it’s forcing you to think about your choices. And particularly it’s making you think about concepts that perhaps you completely overlooked in other languages - thinking about stack vs heap allocation, moving semantics, shared ownership, etc.

If you want to quickly prototype something, Rust isn’t the best language IMO. But if I have a choice between C++ and Rust, I’d go with Rust anyday. If I was starting a new project from scratch and it was more of a web service, I might go with another language over Rust only because I’m more of an expert in Java, Python, etc. and it’s easier to hire developers for those languages than Rust.

But I’m biased. Rust has a special place in my heart. It’s the first language I’ve learned in many years where I felt some sense of accomplishment and did not at all feel like “Oh great, another tool that fundamentally doesn’t add value.”

For my use cases involving Java and iOS interoperability in a multi threaded environment, nothing else came even close.