skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I've used AOP a few times, it's never caused problems.

Other than logging and profiling I've used it in ejb3 app calling old plsql business logic - we had problems with some plsql code handling exceptions and transactions in non-standard way (basically - comiting or rolling back in pl/sql code) which messed up our ejb3 container-managed transactions. We had a template for pl/sql code that should be followed - every function should start with a savepoint, never commit, and only rollback to that savepoint in case of error. But there was a lot of plsql code and some of it didn't followed that rule.

So I added aspect in java that wrapped around any plsql call, created a savepoint before it, and checked after the call if it's still there - if not it would a special exception. That allowed us to quickly find all the places that weren't handling transactions properly in PL/SQL and fix them.

We also used AOP for integration testing with our java business logic and plsql - instead of preparing and using up data during tests we simply wrapped transactions around testing methods and rolled back everything afterwards.

I don't think AOP is bad, even if it's truly COME FROM with a different branding.
Best Online Text Editor for Web Dev and Alternative of Codepen
"They" meaning conservatives and the alt-right?
Welshness is entirely cultural not at all genetic.
Copilot acts like a search engine, you search, you find, then you judge. It was never the case with search engines that you could just copy some code you found without verifying it. Also, it has the same copyright problems as if you used Google to find the code.
I guess that would be a false economy then.
I think CASE - (Computer aided software engineering) was starting to come about that time iirc. Business folk would just drag and drop stuff in these new fangled GUI's and everyone would go home early.

Edit: That crab stuffed fillet sounds good
Who ever said that? I don't think 99% of people would think your a Nazi for not liking this.
I guess that's the weirdest part. The guy that referred to Gem Twist as a racehorse does artificial insemination for horses as a profession. So the basis of his career is horse breeding. He conflates racing and show jumping and either doesn't happen to mention the most obvious explanation for the size difference or is not familiar enough with horses to be aware of it. I believe I was 12 when I learned that a gelded horse tends to grow bigger than they would if they were left a stud. I honestly googled it to make sure it's not just one of those things that everyone "knows" that has no basis in fact. Difference in feed is another likely explanation that wasn't even mentioned. Why would you go to the size of the dam and the length of gestation when there's two obvious possibilities that are common knowledge to anyone who has horse experience? The quote makes it seem like it's some kind of surprise that genetics isn't the only contributor to size, but anyone who has any horse experience can tell you there's a number of other factors that determine adult size.
I can attest to a pattern of management introducing a change and realizing substantial benefits that don’t hold up over time. For whatever reason, the initial boost isn’t sustained and some other change is introduced in order to boost numbers and the process repeats.

Now I personally would love a shorter work week. I actually think much of the 8-hour workday is chock full of non productive time that can be cut safely. But I see what the other user is getting at. Just because this study produced great results it doesn’t mean that this change produces sustainable effects.
My uncle dropped out of Waterloo in the early 70s because everyone figured there weren't enough computers for computer science to be useful.

Like Professor Frink said: "I predict that within 10 years, computers will be twice as powerful, ten thousand times larger, and so expensive that only the 5 richest kings of Europe will own them"

I entered Waterloo in 2002 and I took "Computer Science for Business" where a confidently incorrect lady repeatedly told us all our jobs would be outsourced to India so we should all be managers instead.

20 years later and that person was the worst fucking professor I ever had.

The only reason I knew she was full of shit was because I was a second generation 'good at math class' person. It doesn't matter where you live or what non-logarithmic things cost, dialectical materialism is real.
> It's so weird to me to see people argue against a shorter work week.

No one is arguing against a shorter work week, that's just misrepresenting the position. Furthermore, you've been able to offer 4 day work weeks to your employees since forever, no one is stopping you. In fact you can offer them 3 days work week right now since you are so benevolent. Why don't you offer them 1 day work weeks while you are at it? You should make a list for that.

The pushback is against the idea of government decreeing the number of days you are allowed to work.
They used an overly simplistic computer simulation and programmed it to get their assumptions back as outputs. Luck may play a large role in wealth, but this study did nothing to prove that.
Transform Health Care
> I interpreted the part you quoted to mean avoid rebase once you push into a public stream other people are using.

But "or otherwise make the commits or tags publicly visible" is written very broadly.
Similar story post Dotcom crash at my alma mater. There were either 21 or 26 incoming undergrads declared as CS majors. The dean exclaimed that it was great to have them and that they were "the true believers".

Fast forward to now, and there's about 250 incoming CS undergrads without much student body expansion.
As a parent, I’m wondering whether a four day work week will carry over to the school week, too. When I was at school (this has stopped since) we had school on Saturday even, for two years. This was not great! Nearly all the arguments I’ve seen pro four hour work week, would also apply to students.
You're not grounded in material reality of the situation.

When a crime is committed, justice is pursued.

The nationality of the individual doesn't matter that much. American or not, if they've committed a crime against the US, then they will face justice.

If he possibly raped a woman in Sweden, then he's extradited to Sweden to face justice for that crime.

If he possibly robbed someone in Switzerland, then he's extradited to face justice there.

Since it looks like he conspired with Pt. Manning to steal classified data from the US Military, he's going to be extradited to the US to face trial.

" how the powers-that-be twist language, logic and reason to justify contemptible behavior and justify crushing an individual."

This is not some YouTube conspiracy story, for the most part it's really not that complicated.

There is already reasonable evidence in the public domain that a crime was committed, he's going to have to get a lawyer and face a judge so we can find out the truth.
Burden is on anyone who assigns value to US currency, as the most likely method of paying for medicare will be stock market manipulation perpetrated by the federal reserve in cahoots with the too big to fail investment bankers.

Who cares if the corporations don't pay taxes when their very existence permits exploitation in order to pay for the same programs their tax dollars would have.

The circle jerk of freedumb.
Well, if you accept using an arbitrary model with very little basis in reality, then yes, math proves it. But if you don't accept the premises, then I don't think math has much to do with it.
I think NYT tries to incite the unrest among staffers.

Eat the rich, yadda, yadda
I suspect the word can have more than that one particular meaning. Can you think of a meaning which makes sense of the passage? You know, try to understand what he might have meant?
I think we're on the same page..I was collating subjective and irrelevant together for the sake of the parent comment. and it is quite common in the "objectivist philosophy/meta-physical" view .

> Language shapes reality,
Sorry I have disagree on this one. I don't think language shapes reality. It definitely shapes our perception, filters, and biases but shapes reality only in a very Probabilistic graphical model sense. And even then it shapes(as in cavemen---> civilization) reality as much as say, air shapes reality, mathematical formulae and theories shape reality . My usual stance on the gender identity debate comes along with the "freedom to swing your arm but not hit my nose" sense.
In this case of weightlifting for ex: I recently saw a twitter mention comparing the same athlete before starting HRT therapy and now.(along with a co-competitor in the male category she used to compete with) It pointed out how much the gap between both the lifters progress has been because of the Hormones.

Anyway, I don't have a clear stance on trans-people competing in their gender category .. I think the gender based categorization in sports has to move further, but I'm ambiguous even about how the sports laws work on even doping. So since I don't have skin-in-the-game I only try to add clarity to the discussion without taking either stance strongly.
Choose a Path and Be Committed
This was not a particularly compelling argument. While you can become rich by random luck, most people I know that are consistently “lucky” are very good at risk management, which is a skill. It isn’t so much that they consistently make amazingly good choices but that they consistently mitigate the downside scenarios such that it allows them to make a lot of high ROI bets with limited exposure if they don’t pay off.

In this scenario, your outcome is largely determined by the number of high-risk bets you have the appetite to place over time. Most people are pretty risk averse, even if they are good at risk management.
This comment has about as much thought put into it as those who dismiss vaccines outright. Are you really suggesting that every joe and Jane schmo out there read, interpret, and analyze a paper and come to conclusions themselves before trusting a treatment?
> but why are they modifying those settings anyway?

This is exactly the Apple attitude that bothers me. The idea that a user shouldn't be messing with settings. This is why they remove them as much as they can.

But sometimes there's a good reason to want to change something. Apple's vision isn't always right for everyone. And some users just have more complex needs. Imagine telling an Arch Linux user 'why would you want to change settings anyway?' :) It would break the entire idea behinds the that distribution.

In this case they do even offer the setting (so even Apple see the need for it) but it's not very transparent what it does.

PS: I'm not saying the arch method would work for Apple of course ;) But I am saying that what is configurable should be well documented, and that Apple should probably have a bit more configurability in my opinion.
"Should-Retry" is useful, but "Idempotent-Replayed" while might be somewhat useful for debugging, makes the idempotent semantics worse: i.e. the side-effect idempotency stays the same, while result isn't idempotent.

I guess in HTTP you may say that only the body of the HTTP response is the result, not the headers. But I implemented a similar system for GraphQL, and there are these boolean flags (isRetry and isReplayed, etc.) are part of the mutation inputs and/or payloads. The same with the "Idempotency-Key" itself, which is called clientMutationId in Relay mutation spec. The added value of not using HTTP headers is that it also works over websockets.
Great article that describes how to migrate 2FA codes from Authy to the built-in system that’s included with macOS Monterey (or iOS 15) which is now in public beta.
Scale, details of Kaseya ransomware attack emerge
It seems reasonable to me to pay a small one-time publication fee for an open access journal, to cover clerical and typesetting work (professional typesetting is important and expensive). Predatory journals exist and would exist independently of what the best practices of good journals are.

I have received plenty of emails inviting me to submit work to predatory journals, but their low quality and lack of peer review and general ethics is pretty obvious and they are easy to avoid. They feel more like a spammy annoyance than a real threat.
> Also, it has the same copyright problems as if you used Google to find the code.

No, it has the same copyright problems as if you Google and instead of getting links to sites that host code and licenses, you get just the code.
I don't have easy REPL opportunities for speeding up my cycles in the language/environment I have to work with. :/

Martin Fowler discussed it recently, note the section that discusses about sociable vs solitary tests: https://martinfowler.com/articles/2021-test-shapes.html

My team is oriented towards solitary. For unit tests, mocks stand-in for collaborators with the system under test. For integration tests, databases and queues are realistically simulated with locally running instances and downstream services we call are wiremocked with local configs pointing service clients to those mocks. It's an incredibly effective way to produce reliable, fully tested code. It's also incredibly costly execution time-wise.

James Shore has a nice take on sociable tests; I interpret what he's produced is like a mishmash of unit and integration tests. I have trouble making my brain work that way, but I am intrigued given his impressively low test run times. There is something special there, I feel it just needs a sexy paint job for people to take notice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwbKSiqG0DI

I liked this blog post on the topic as well: https://merge-conflict.com/post/sociable-unit-testing/
What guarantees that the released key is actually the decryption key?
Does GitHub Copilot tell me which license the code it suggested has? If not it's a huge difference to code search engines.
AlphaZero and co only trained via self-play because that was their research goal, and they looked unwinnable because they were the first to get this kind of neural net working, but it doesn't seem like it's the best option.

AZ notably got completely tilted once it started losing, doesn't necessarily recognize strange positions you can't normally get into, and doesn't care about its win margin at all.
SCNR

edit: To my defense I can only say I had 5 times 380 to 390ml(16.5 fl ounces) instant caramell coffee(double dosed!),

with additional caramell syrup, canned whipped cream(sprayable), and a large shot((for me anyways) about 3 to 4 fl ounces) of Rum.

/me giggles in drunken sugar rush
Rails will handle "thousands of comments" just fine. If you are hitting scaling issues with a midsize Rails app you probably could look into how to optimize.

Throwing Mongo at the problem is not really a solution.
So if we classify AI as search.. and then claim fair use.. we can launder dirty viral code.. how could this go wrong?

But really, if thispersondoesnotexist is just a really good per-pixel search against a corpus of human faces where each “page” of result pixels is organized in a grid presented as a new image with its own metadata..

I mean I guess Google really was an AI company all along.
A couple past threads:

The Powder Toy - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24389920 - Sept 2020 (37 comments)

The Powder Toy - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11052473 - Feb 2016 (16 comments)
Learned this from basketball player in college.
Nice theory. Won’t work out in practice, because this produces code that will run, and it’s AI, so it must be good, right?

When you found code on the internet, it was presented in a context that let you make better judgement (e.g. on Stack Overflow this regular expression would have had a score of roughly −∞ and multiple highly-voted comments saying “do not use this, it’s catastrophically bad”), and where you have to put in more effort to plug it in and shuffle things around a bit as well. With Copilot, you get given ready-to-go code without any sanity checking at all.

See even how, a few seconds later in the video, the author does test it out—but not thoroughly enough.
It’s a great business model for has-been pseudo-celebrities.
One reason was the rise of the Internet. While there were a lot of neat things you could do with a personal computer, it wasn’t until you could connect easily to others that it really became fun and useful for most people.

I got my first computer, a Mac, in 1986. That was exciting for me, but I really felt that the revolution had happened when I got a modem in 1992 and connected first to a local BBS and then, a couple of years later, to the Internet itself.
> only, to build the tools that make that world happen, I can't only build apps and platforms that only work for half the potential users: the network effects simply don't work like that

I call complete bullshit on this. I want the same thing, and so so many other people. The only reason we don’t have it is that it’s a lot of work and nobody has done it yet.

Blaming Apple for their business standing in the way of network effects is just an excuse.

If the software was built, we’d find a way to run it.
The Mac was really, really expensive in the 80s.
That's meaningless, you can just simulate the execution of a contract locally and get the key without spending anything.

The power of smart contracts is very limited. The hype around them is based on a lot of lie, from the people that are not very different from those criminal hackers.
> We have to bill clients for hours, so we track them ourselves

You do not need to track hours to bill clients for their hours. This myth is awfully demotivating for so many people I hate that it still is the default.

> I basically just figure out what percent of each day I spent on each project and apportion my timecard appropriately.

And you've basically figured out the better way on your own.

As Tippett figured out and published in 1934, if you want to know how much time is spent on something, you don't record every hour for every person. That's insanely expensive and demeaning. Not to mention that self-reported hours are very biased toward what's perceived as important work.

Instead, you do work sampling/snap counting. Have a person show up at random times and record what's going on at that time. The portion of times an activity was recorded corresponds to the portion of time spent on that activity.

(The more tech friendly version might be an email or instant message asking what you just worked on, sent at a random time and meant to be answered just as you finish up something and move onto the next thing.)
It’s a well known rule in JavaScript to default to “===“ for everything except checking for null or undefined, in which case “== null” is acceptable.

https://eslint.org/docs/rules/eqeqeq#smart

Even better is to just use TypeScript.
10 hour days can be complicated for people with families. Dropping the kid(s) off for school, picking up, getting dinner ready, helping with homework. Heck, even just spending family time together. All of those things are more difficult with 2 less hours of personal time each day.
Stockfish would beat AlphaZero handily. Even the original paper's test conditions were not fair, so Stockfish may have been much better than the results of the original matches made it seem.
I agree with you but some peoples identity are very much integrated with their work. Make them work less and their life becomes less meaningful.

For people like you and me, we work to live, not live to work. So we want to work less. It makes us feel happier and more free.

I think the salaries are also an issue. We can't cut salaries with 20% so this becomes an extra cost for the companies or the government, depending on who should pay for it.

Overall though, I think most people would agree that it's considered progress if humans work less so we can actually do more things than work with our lives.
Actually the lesson of optimizing productivity over the last 100 years is that the benifits have almost exclusively gone to the "capitalists" (in the sense of the people financing work with their capital) and not benifited workers. With the productivity gains that we saw over the last century we should be working 1-2 day weeks for the same standard of living (fun fact many economists of the 1900s were worrying about people not having enough to work in the future). What happened is that people work more for the same standard of living instead, the middle class is disappearing and the gap between rich and poor is widening.
GitHub and shopify are written in RoR afaik, many millions of requests go through them just fine
At first I assumed he had an extremely dry, dark sense of humor, but perhaps you are right and he is simply beyond my comprehension.
I've lived in or near NYC for 14 years now. There were no "major riots" last year, full stop. There was some looting, yes. Not "major riots". Crown Heights in 1991 was a "major riot", this was nothing of the sort.

As for violence against Hasidim (not "Jews" in general), there have been occasional acts of violence between the Hasidic community and other residents of the same neighborhoods -- in both directions, notably -- for several decades. Including times when the mayor was a Republican.

I'm Jewish and have never felt unsafe in NYC. The NYC metro area literally has the highest percentage of Jewish population in the entire US.
This year I decided to just stop untieing my shoes. Now I just slide them on and off still tied. It's by far the fastest and best way to use shoes. And once you tie them well once, they don't come undone while walking.
Infoproducts have practically no marginal cost, no support obligation, and can be produced without any initial capital investment.
Intermediate: Thread Management in Harmony OS
It’s not the same but when Elon Musk can move the needle due to sycophants by tweeting anything how different is the result really?

It’s so hard to take crypto seriously.
As a scientist who does not need extra brownie points, this is exactly what I'm doing: every single review request coming from an Elsevier publication is ignored.

And, yes, it is the quality of peer review (i.e. the work done by unpaid editors and reviewers) that makes a certain publication prestigious or not.

Elsevier does typesetting and distribution, both of which can easily be done otherwise (see LaTeX and Sci-Hub). It sure as hell does not do peer review.
Given that AlphaZero will presumably never be publicly available, I think you might be interested in TCEC which has fair fights between Stockfish and LeelaChessZero (which Stockfish has won recently).
What about the “track changes” feature?
Definitely. Most of our developers do do that. We typically only run a subset corresponding to just the service containing the feature we're focused on.

On our larger services, unit tests take 20-30 seconds to run (WAY too slow) and integration tests take 2-4 minutes to run. In both suites we have hundreds of tests. There's no excuse for how slow the unit tests are. I chalk it up to the heavy reflection in the mocking frameworks we rely on and inefficient use of those mocks. Got to either optimize or decrease the use of mocks in our tests.
> Because it was tied much more quickly and symmetrically, the laces suffer less wear and tear and thus last longer.

Might these claims also fall victim to the replication crisis?!
There is also a pure go implementation of
SQLite[0].

[0] https://gitlab.com/cznic/sqlite
You can turn the same argument around. If 4 day work week is standard, you can work 5 days if you want. You can even work 6 days or 7 days right now, nobody is stopping you.