skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There's a problem here as the author himself notes.

I can provide you a simple example of a function with monadic interface, you will understand it any language but that will not actually help you to conceptualize the idea of monads and influence your thinking.

You will just think that's simple, whats the fuss about it and miss the pattern altogether.

Imagine asking the user to provide a number, in most languages you will get a `string | null` value and you wish to get a real number from it by parsing the string if the user entered it.

In this case assuming you have a function `parseNo` that goes from `string -> int | null` you can create a special function which takes a `string | null` value along with the `parseNo` function and gives you back `int | null`. S

Turns out that function can be defined for many different data types and it has special useful properties.

In this case it allows us to compose functions neatly, without having to do a whole bunch of null checks.

But in other scenarios it can do a lot more.
> Most of the current generation of programmers have been mentally mutilated by Object Orientation in the C++/Java/C# style.

Why do you feel the need to denigrate people who are experienced in imperative and/or object-oriented paradigms?

If there is any paradigm that holds its own value, why not praise the value it adds instead of resorting to nothing but ad hominems?

I mean, if something was so unequivocally better then wouldn't this perhaps resulted in a massive adoption rate, and name-calling wouldn't pop up so frequently? But no, the popular thing to do is to just denigrate those who haven't jumped into that particular bandwagon.
This principle can be applied to dynamic languages as well if you have some mechanism such as type hinting, pre-conditions etc. that are checked by a linter during development, even if it isn't, you can still use it at runtime with sufficient error handling.

The essential point of this blog post is to avoid "shotgun parsing", where parsing/validating is done just from a procedural standpoint, where it matters when exactly it happens. In the paper "Out of the Tar Pit" it is asserted that this leads to "accidental complexity" (AKA "pain and anxiety"), which is something every programmer has experienced before, possibly many times.

I've become a fan of declarative schema to (json-schema/OpenApi, clojure spec etc.) to express this kind of thing. Usually this is used at the boundaries of an application (configuration, web requests etc.) but there are many more applications for this within the flow of data transformations. If you apply the "parse don't validate" principle you turn schema-validated (sic!) data into a new thing. Whether that is a "ValidatedData" type or meta data, a pre-condition or runtime check says more about the environment you program rather than the principle in discussion. The benefit however is clear: Your code asserts that it requires parsed/validated data where it is needed, instead of when it should happen.
As I see it we live through a period where two incredible capabilities remain unreconciled. The free format ability of paper to capture nuance, creativity and complexity in recording information versus the powerful augmentation of search / modify / repurpose existing records that you get with digital tools. Not sure there will ever be something that can support both but it does not sound forbidden by some law of nature
> You can write safe C, if you are careful

In practice this pretty much cannot be done unless you use a formal verification framework, which almost no one does. Even the most well-resourced projects written in C tend to have trouble with low-level bugs. Same goes for C++. Both the Linux kernel and Chromium have plenty of these issues.
Wow, what a motley crew of miscreants they appear to be.
Use mmap and you won't need to write anything to disk; the operating system will do it for you. That's C's killer feature while also being the last thing on earth languages like Node and Java would ever permit developers to do.
Zero risk likely doesn't exist, especially not without the backing of a lender of last resort.

In practice many stable coins are similar to money market funds or eurodollar banking, so mechanisms and risks are somewhat well known.
It depends on the company culture and its maturity towards software development.

Good PM if they know the product inside out and they have a good insight on how development works provides a lot of value.

However there are some companies that believes that software engineers are “second class citizens” and roles such as Project Managers and Product Owners just gets paid more without any clear justified contribution.

For me this is a red flag that the company has not realised yet the real value of the software engineers.
You're right.

But I don't think that is likely to hold for very long. I've never seen interest rates this low in my life.

Furthermore, when interest rates do go up, suddenly you're paying a lot of money for that large accumulated debt.
> "Burden of proof" is not a useful concept here.

I disagree entirely. It is key. You are discarding rationality here.

The "alien craft operating in our atmosphere" explanation is basically ruled out by how it's always liminal observations, never progressing to solid evidence, always a good fit to the limits of the sensors.
ARM is potentially soon owned by an enemy. RISC-V is owned by no one.

Arm64 and riscv64 are pretty close to equivalent in a technical sense for general purpose computing, especially once consumer ARM chips ship with SVE2 and RISC-V with their Vector extension (which are both going to be out at pretty much the same time).

Someone with a lot of money, such as Intel, investing in RISC-V will vastly accelerate RISC-V getting to being able to be used in a high end phone or laptop. Intel has the ability to "do an M1" with RISC-V, leapfrogging ARM.
Thanks. Generic modules turned out to be a good fit for Oberon; I can even validate the generic modules before instantiation and even without type constraints; assumptions about types can be hidden using procedure types which is also a good fit for Oberon (I can still add type constraints later if really necessary). The concept is actually mostly inspired by Ada, including the explicit instantiation. It was the first approach I tried, then I switched to the Roe/Szyperski proposal for some time, but which turned out to cause to many complicated rules and consequences not in harmony with the Oberon philosophy, why I finally switched back to generic modules. The approach indeed has similarities with Modula-3, but the instantiation is simpler, and the generic parameters are types, not module interfaces.
Still using an "ancient" pocket filofax (the one with 4 rings), I don't even buy paper for the notes anymore: it's easy to find discarded one-side printed on A4 brochures/presentations etc, I cut them to size via a guillotine cutter and bob's your uncle, its just for notes etc then once filled: shredded and off to the compost
> Secret chats - the e2ee chats self-destruct between users and stay on the device where it has been initiated.

Is this supposed to be a feature? Telegram themselves claim that this inability to backup chats is at least part of why they don't enable E2EE before mentioning that it allows users choice over data storage, which seems silly in the face of apps that allow for encrypted backups of E2EE messages. [1]

Signal backups are obviously E2EE and can be moved between devices by copying an encrypted blob or directly transferring over Wi-Fi, depending on your platform.

Meanwhile, on Telegram if I reinstall the app all of these chats are gone. If I change phones and posess both devices concurrently, there's still no official way to move chat histories. E2EE feels like a crippled afterthought on Telegram considering so many of the interesting Telegram chat features (or just backups/transfers) don't seem to work with it.

[1] https://telegram.org/faq#q-why-not-just-make-all-chats-39sec...
Sounds it is more like a money market fund and not an exchange rate regime. Yes, the latter are difficult to maintain but central banks have a large arsenal to act and some are in fact pretty stable and uncontested (those policy tools are not available to Tether).

In the end,money market funds are highly regulated.
What custom code do they need?
But the whole point is that "real time" doesn't exist in some comparable sense, due to (if nothing else) relativity (which can't be ignored at the speed of light level, but is also relevant at an analogous, slower, speed of packets level). You need something like vector clocks, interval trees, or (at least) lamport clocks to understand the causal impacts of effects, as if something supposedly happened somewhere but there was no way for you to have yet known it happened due to being too far away to have noticed the impact yet by the time you did something else, you simply can't claim anything you did happened "after" the other thing: the ordering of two events disconnected by a-causality is fundamentally subjective and you can't sweep that under the rug.
We understand flight perfectly well.

Although the common explanations are often BS.
Hi, thanks sure it would be great to exchange information about other libraries. Mainly I'm looking for third party libs that I can integrate with igel for benchmarking or automate deployment. How can I contact you?
Thanks, I guess?

I spent a whole lot of time staring at this, and I was eventually able to convince myself that you're correct, there isn't any way for this to actually go wrong.

In the case where you're storing a different value than was already there, you just took the lock and even in relaxed ordering that is in fact an atomic operation, nobody else has the lock. In every other case who cares if you release, you didn't change anything anyway. The unlock() will release, and so anybody who subsequently acquires the lock will see the changes made under the lock.

Even after convincing myself this analysis is correct, I'm still scared that it's wrong, anyway. After all my previous analysis was wrong :/
Nothing wrong with strong government institutions.
Same! Closed it on profile picture. Then saw people mentioning "bow" in the comments, so I had to find out what it is. Worst possible way start a day.
It's not like making paper is energy free. You need to grow the trees, cut the trees using machinery, transport cut trees to factory which is under all likelihood not anywhere close, turn tree pulp into paper, package it, ship it to warehouses before it's actually shipped to the end store to be eventually picked up by a consumer. Not sure what your point actually is, if you want to compare both supply chains then you need to take everything in account, including the amount of paper you'd need over your lifetime in case you did not use any electronic device, the amount of garbage it produces, etc...
I have more confidence that USDC (a stablecoin created by Coinbase and Circle) is fully backed.

However, I'm not sure "fully backed" means what most people think it means. If for every 1 USDC there is 1 USD on a bank account, that doesn't mean there are stacks of USD sitting in a vault somewhere. It only means that the bank has a liability towards the account holder on their books, and hopefully that same bank has a reasonable balance of their assets and liabilities.
The Help box grew over the page so I couldn't get past that.
I have one. You still can’t quickly flick back onto last week’s notes, and object permanence issues remain. Will never be the same as paper.

A better middle ground is probably one of those smart pens that automatically digitizes your scribbles, while you’re still using a paper notebook.
Hiding behind any larger cloud or VPN looks futile. If there's one place to hide scraper nowadays it's Apple's iCloud+ or whatever stupid name they've picked - two proxies to mimic tor.
Because the pressure on the top is lower :) (this is half-serious: the whole problem with these explanations is that cause and effect for all of these variables is not straightforward: you can see from the navier-stokes equations they are all dependent on each other).
This was the video in question: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HABNe7_D22k?t=1m52s. It's not about predicting the exact movement of tides, he's arguing science fundamentally can't explain the regularity of tides...
Tesla Shareholder Panasonic Sells Stake for $3.6B
The note taking device like Remarkable or Supernote are getting pretty close.
Or use traditional C. The x86_64 System V ABI is well defined enough that I'm honestly not sure why we need prototypes. All we need is a compiler that authorizes us to use an ILP64 data model. Then we'll be able to write C the way it was intended to be written without the quadratic header complexity. C++ showed us where that path leads and I truly hope modules happen but it's about as likely as my hopes of restoring the good parts of K&R C.
With the possible exception of Rust, safety always had performance implications. Forcing people to write their program in C# or Swift or Java causes many programs to be slower than they really need to be, forcing us to either wait on them, or buy a faster palmtop.

(Now most devs don't care about performance, so they don't see that as a problem. As a user however I can tell you, I hate when my phone lags for seemingly no good reason.)
They are low effort, but I'm not sure why that's relevant. Effort isn't what's valued. Scarce and useful resources and inputs are what is rewarded. A talented dev who works 3 hrs/day can earn more than a less competent dev who works 12 hrs/day, despite expending less effort. Effort is only relevant insofar as it pertains to valuable output.

On index funds, the reason they are profitable to hold is because of the risk premium embedded in its current price, and this risk premium comes about because of the risk aversion of the average investor. As time passes and the world hasn't blown up yet, the price goes up, as it should. It has nothing to do with effort, it is about risk and opportunity cost. It's the same mechanism underlying the yield spread between corporate bonds and government bonds.
> The issue is if Tether continues to grow, as it has been, it may become too big to fail.

If this happens, we need to let it fail. I'd be furious to see the fed bail out USDT to make sure the crypto market stays "stable".

> That is, Tether loses its peg, $X dollars go missing, and firms start to fail like dominos, even outside the crypto sphere.

If firms fall because they bet too hard on USDT, they deserve to fall. Tether has not offered sufficient evidence that they are fully backed, so that risk needs to be accounted for by the firms that use USDT.

> Tether is far from that level but theres nothing stopping its growth.

Hopefully what's stopping that growth are better stablecoins with alternative risk profiles that are more favorable to investors.

> The solution isnt to ban tether, but rather launch central bank stablecoins. Put the official USD as a ERC20 token.

That's still just trading one set of risks for another, which is fine. Having multiple stablecoin options is good.
It seems to me there are three options available when it comes to YouTube. One can allow the ads to play, block them, or pay for a subscription.

I've never not blocked online advertisements.
How Animals Color Themselves With Nanoscale Structures
Cheeky headline
It is backwards because companies deciding to go CO2 neutral by using sustainable energy sources are contributing towards the Paris agreement. The same people who are complaining the loudest about the datacentres using green electricity, are the same people who would be complaining about the datacentres using fossils fuels, and the same people who use the services delivered by these datacentres.

Companies are facing backlash, yes, for using green energy. How can a company ever go green as long as this kind of thought patterns are mainstream
Thanks for the kind words!

We have a similar issue in terms of onboarding and offboarding - we have a rather large checklist which has migrated from Dropbox Paper to being a Notion template these days - but it still has a large set of checkboxes and we edit it at least as often as we on-and-offboard people (and try to remember to update it in between as well, if something changes).

So I'm seeing two possible requests here:

1) become an ID provider that can be used by other sites; or

2) support Okta (I've had a call with them, and we're looking into the OpenId Connect stuff and what would be involved in allowing that to mint sessions safely)

No promises on timelines of course, but we know that this is something of value to small businesses! And we'd probably use it ourselves if we had it, which is also great because dogfooding is important.
How creators of fully backed stablecoins earn money?
I think it's a pretty safe assumption that if everyone started scraping with certain headers almost every website will blanket block those headers.
Not sure why but the HN title of the article sounds like a sci-fi thriller :)
Sounded like it was possibly an interesting topic but as happens far too often these days, the desire to have unique visual design ended up being an assault on the eyes. I'm very bearish on this type of (hideous) style above substance.
"The Markets Can Remain Irrational Longer Than You Can Remain Solvent"

https://twitter.com/BennettTomlin/status/1375900452798234634

https://bennettftomlin.com/2021/03/27/before-bitfinex-and-te...
Exactly. Hence the comment about the life cycle assessment.
My favorite CAPTCHAs are when they don't state whether they're case-sensitive or not and it's hard to tell whether some characters are uppercase or lowercase.
i tend to use tor network as a proxy which enables me to request a new ip whenever i need
The research end wasn't really the section getting hit by sniper fire, so that bit probably won't fly.
I really like the box in the bottom right corner. That made me laugh out loud when it kept growing.
There are a few tokenized gold options, if you'd like to be able to send/receive gold on-chain while having it physically stored in a vault.
I remember a lot of people (including myself) saying the same thing a few years ago, and selling a bunch of BTC at ~$8000.

"The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent"

It's a good thing I was simply closing positions instead of taking a short position, cuz boy oh boy was I wrong.

That was before institutional money started going into BTC. Will be interesting to see if the 'little guy' individual investor will be enabled to take large amounts of early stage profits and saddling the 'big guy' institutional investor (which is in a lot of cases, essentially just lots of 'little guys' money pooled together while the managers skim the profits off the top) with the late stage losses.

(I am long BTC)
> That's what it was supposed to be for, 20 years ago when it was introduced to the wider world.

That's what YAGNI still is and always was. It never changed. At all.

Another thing that never changed are those who criticize YAGNI because they feel the abstraction they wish to add is somehow a must when it really isn't.
I don’t think this is true. There are many physical ststems for which we know the underlying physics very well, but the equations can’t be simply solved, and numerical simulation is more costly than just building the damn thing and testing it. Wing lift under turbulent conditions is one of those things. So we use wind tunnels. Not because we don’t understand lift—we do—but because it’s just easier.

This is getting less and less true with each generation of supercomputers though.

EDIT: There is perhaps a better way of explaining it for this crowd though. To use numerical modeling to predict performance is to take a physical problem and turn it into a computational problem. And while engineers understand physical systems pretty damn well, us computer scientists have largely failed at the objective of making software systems with hard reliability guarantees. You can write a fluid dynamics simulation to test your new wing design, but how do you know that the simulation does what you think it does? Even if the code has been tested before, how do you know you're not now hitting some sort of edge case?

At the end of the day, you have to build the damn thing to test it. Numerical simulation are used more and more these days as the codes are refined, computers get more powerful, and engineers have more trust in their capabilities. But traditionally, and still a lot of the time, they build prototypes and test in wind tunnels because reality never fails to model physics accurately.
Sounds interesting and indeed, when I take a fresh profile, the website loads just fine. So I suppose some one of my settings or some extension causes the issue.

Thanks for the hint.

Edit: I don't quite get it yet. Even starting my default profile in safe-mode (disables all extensions and themes), the page doesn't work.

The dev console shows this error:

Failed to execute ‘postMessage’ on ‘DOMWindow’: The target origin provided (‘https://account.vorwerk.com’) does not match the recipient window’s origin (‘https://www.vorwerk.com’).

So I am pretty sure it must be some kind of configuration that is causing the issue, but so far I didn't find the related option in about:config
Does not move faster either. Otherwise, a flat wing would not work, and they do.

Gravity or force creates the pressure differential. Wing pushes on air below it. (Why birds fly.) Additionally, for moving wing, edges create vortices that create local pressure differentials. (Why helicopters and planes and birds work better than floating pieces of paper.)

Wings work very similarly to performance ship hulls in this regard.
Many Twitter users with a high follower count have turned off replies from people they don’t follow. So it’s basically just an announcement platform for perceived genius.
Research on pandemic impact on software development, developers' productivity
It's future-proofing for the next 1000 years.
Minor nit-pick: wouldn't that rather be make -j`nproc`? Not everyone has an 8-core CPU with SMT or a 16+-core CPU respectively.
Exchange fees, I guess.
> cloud data centers are operated by companies including Alibaba, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft.

A quick google search about market share reveals: “AWS has 32% of the market, followed by Azure at 19%, Google at 7%, Alibaba Cloud close behind“

Why is Alibaba listed first in the list in the NYT article if American data centers together have 58% market share?
Have you done the math on this?

My gut says this seems, worse somehow.

Using a 9 l/min shower head for a 6 minute shower results in 54 litres of water being consumed. 54 litres heated from ambient (say; 15 deg C) to shower temperature (say; 40 deg C) requires 1.6 kWh of energy.

Most toilet paper is recycled so it’s a matter of figuring out how much the recycle process consumes per roll, then dividing it by the amount of average toilet paper segments a person uses.

EDIT: Lloyd Alter of the website treehugger.com reports that making a single roll of toilet paper requires 37 gallons of water, 1.3 kilowatt/hours (KWh) of electricity and some 1.5 pounds of wood.

So a whole roll is less than a shower, but I guess it also depends how the energy is being generated; because there are indications that toilet rolls are not entirely recycled, most use some amount of virgin wood.

Anyway, my point is not "you're wrong", my point is that it's a lot more nuanced than people think, and often the "green" solution can be less green but make them feel better.
These days I just use Nix/Guix on work machines and get to using latest versions in less than 5 minutes.

At home I've switched fully to NixOS.
Reading your comments on this thread, you seem to be interpreting the article as advice, rather than an explanation of how the rich avoid tax.