skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Then why do some corners of twitter thrive?
That's actually an argument in favor of git.
SQLite has literally <= 3 developers.
It sounds to me like promoting SQLite itself. There are lots of people deploying Postgres and friends when their best DB for their case would be SQLite. In the same way, we are all using Git even for microprojects that would be better served with Fossil.

I never had the impression of Dr. Hipp saying "Fossil > Git", but "Fossil might fit you better than Git".
Some do, the one I noticed recently is the Valerian bluray.
> The safety in your steps is reading the script, not in avoiding curl | bash

Well, yes. The safety is in doing something between "acquire potentially malicious payload" and "running payload". I don't see how "safety [is] not in avoiding curl | bash" when, avoiding the direct pipe to bash is exactly what I suggest.

If you look at the url, then curl and pipe that url, you have no idea if bash sees what you just reviewed.
Like everything else in git, rebase feels like bits of seemingly-unrelated functionality bolted together, but I think I find basically all of the parts useful:

- Rebasing my local changes onto remote updates has always felt safer and more natural than creating merge commits containing actual diffs.

- The ability to trivially patch, drop, combine, and reorder commits has always felt like a superpower when it comes to telling the "story" of a change in a review, or breaking up a review into multiple smaller ones.

- It's a bit more roundabout compared to just "edit", but if I want to amend a commit that isn't the HEAD, I often find it easier to just make a new commit with the desired change and then use rebase -i to move it up and squash it into where it needs to go.
> It's fundamentally unproveable

While we can't know the future, this might not have been the case in the past. Most religious books describe a time where special people like prophets have very direct, physical contact with the main deity of the religion (one of them even had a fight with God).
Encrypt an email with what key? It takes two to communicate.
that is comical - funny to see how climate change doesn't really drive direct action even with environmentalists - looking into this they appear to be against nuclear while claiming carbon emissions are biggest issue?
it is mostly linear and there are lots of optimisation opportunities. rapid movements like explosions are the exception. then again you have the gpu and the other cores, i rarely see below 60fps on my sand game and map size is the only limitation.
Another way to describe this is that PoW is a Cybil resistance measure.
> But then what if I stop coming up with cool game designs and stories and music as a result?

Do you come up with the designs and stories and actually implement them or are they all half-finished projects? I think if you’re actually completing them, there’s no need to change and I somewhat doubt you have ADHD.

If they are all sitting half-finished on the shelf, yea that’s different. IMO
"Not Found

The requested URL /cgi-bin/text was not found on this server"

Seven out of seven tries... Can't be that unlucky???
That's the norm for a Microsoft product. Sell something full of holes, deal with it only when it starts posing an existential threat to the product
Powder Game was what got me into Powder Toy
BTC will never be PoS. Sorry, PoS is a dead end. Wait until those black swan event start splitting chains. They will be clambering for the PoW lifeboats.
Yes, but if you sign the executable with an acceptable certificate (the company’s cert or some other trusted CA), you can install an arbitrary executable usually. Docker would typically be blacklisted, however. In most corporate IT environments, it’s much easier to get a small, focused executable white listed or code signed than to get something with such a huge attack area as docker approved for regular, non-technical users.
Wow! I've been meaning to transition to bare foot running for quite some time now. How does your running schedule look like?
> Like Git, Fossil has an amend command for modifying prior commits, but unlike in Git, this works not by replacing data in the repository, but by adding a correction record to the repository that affects how later Fossil operations present the corrected data.

I may be misreading this, but what if I accidentally commit (not push) a piece of sensitive data (say a private key), but notice before I commit. In Git, I would simply remove it, and amend, and it is now gone from the Git history. It sounds like with Fossil, it would remain in the history, or am I misunderstanding something?

There are times where being able to rewrite the history is critical.
I see it as more of a "don't try to use Fossil as Git or Git like Fossil". If you are just using them for code control for your own project, then this might tell you which fits your style.
Amantadine and certain antidepressants are said to help some people affected by AD(H)D as well. But talk to your doctor before you go "oh, amantadine is cheap otc flu med...". And it depends on a lot of factors, like your exact symptoms (with/without hyperactivity), treatment goals, side effects and secondary problems. Really really talk to a doctor about this, getting "the meds" right is complicated and takes some trial and error.
It's just almost nobody wants to identify with or work for an app made exclusively for extremists.
Maybe I’m not 100% up-to-date with AWS Ec2 offerings, but as far as I’m aware, you can only choose from predefined instance types.
Only for the patents owned by the contributors.
If we are going against internet censorship in China, a blockchain-based DNS might be more resistant than the current system.

In my ideal world we'd copy the current DNS into a blockchain, not start a new one, and have it run alongside the current system so those who need it could benefit.
Not OP, but I can address this. Leading by example does not compel anyone to act, it works the same way that nuclear treaties do not reduce nuclear arms. But we still have treaties and we have had no nuclear war in the last 70 years. Leading by example is necessary but not sufficient for carbon reduction. But it removes accusations of hypocrisy when talking about solutions, which makes discussions much more productive.

China does have climate policy and it’s and issue that they do not ignore. They plant trees at the interface of deserts to prevent their expansion, they produce 80% of the worlds solar panels. China is the world's leading country in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over double the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States.

China has a lot to lose from climate change. They will see reduced agricultural production from prairie land, in a country of over a billion people. A starving population will not allow the current regime to continue and the Chinese government has every reason to come to the table.
The cool thing with git is that nothing is preventing you from doing the latter. For small personal projects I don’t even care about small commits.
It’s perhaps not technically a premine but practically it is. There’s a protection however - if any of those coins ever move Bitcoin will have a very interesting day.
How to Make Money Online – For Struggling Students
10x performance improvement after transitioning to Next.js
I built a re-imagined version of Hacker News: https://hn.boxpiper.com/ on top of create react app and added some webpack configurations for performance boost.

Because of SSR, app used to take a considerable amount of time for the processing and rendering. Used redis for caching but performance was still a question. The intent was to never wait for data. It should be readily available.

So, i migrated the app to Next.js (11.0.1) because of an in-built feature of Static Site generation (most important), webpack configurations (most important), image optimisations, etc. and it works like rocket! Speed is super awesome and now it actually works like 202X way!

Earlier the FCP and LCP values was way bad.
Current FCP is 322ms and LCP is 821ms. Still I can improve on this!

GT Metrix report: https://gtmetrix.com/reports/hn.boxpiper.com/B0MMoMay/

Happy to discuss on this and learn!
Logical errors, dead-ends.

You don't commit when the tests fail.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the cost as a major downside of hydrogen fuel cell cars. The Honda clarity was set to be priced at roughly $350,000 for something that looks very much like a civic.
I’d be very surprised if management at the least didn’t have their heads in the sand about the potential failure mode. There are often “must deliver” dates at large companies because someone made a promise about a deadline and now heads will roll for missing it whether anyone actually cares or not. So long as middle management thinks the C suite is watching them, they are desperate to meet quota.

Hilariously, this results in stuff like Copilot getting released to great big legal problems. Only then does the C suite actually notice the project and get upset that it is a legal nightmare for them.

I think the real secret to winning in big tech is that your job is just to keep your head down and keep the money rolling in without causing headaches for higher ups. Increase sales, make customers happy enough to keep paying, maybe release a cool product. But more importantly, don’t cause a major outage, burn the PR team, or get caught up in a legal kerfuffle.
I'm old(er) and don't plan on having children.
> There are no alternatives, that is part of the problem. The UN was primarily created to prevent all-out war between the US and Russia...

Please don't pervert the history. This wasn't the case. The UN was created as a reaction to the horror of WWII and the failure of the League of Nations.

It was to become a League of Democracies, an iron fist against the next Nazi Germany wannabe, a guarantor of the "Never Again."

It was the US who go the idea to get USSR into it, pretty much sabotaging it on the day 1.

> There are no alternatives

The alternative is here, and it's the resolution 377 action.
Why would you think FINRA has no interest in enforcing it's punishments? If they didn't enforce their punishments then they wouldn't have any authority over their members, so I expect they want to have opportunities to enforce punishments.
I think the issue (which seems to exist in pretty much every VCS out there) is that there is a single flat timeline - even with branches (assuming they aren't treated as just separate parts of the tree) you get a single timeline per branch at best.

Wouldn't it be better to be able to "nest" or "group" commits so that, e.g. all the "intermediate" commits go under the final commit which is what is displayed by default and "traveled" through via tools like log, blame, etc?

Right now the best (though really not solving the issue) is to have a branch per task for VCSs where branching is trivial but this doesn't really solve it since you still get all the commits in your history anyway (i think some clients can display only the merge, but this is up to the tool, not an inherent feature).

There was the other day a submission about a project on github where people noticed that the git history looked as if the author was making a new commit automatically every time he saved a source file and most comments were about how bad that it was. And i was thinking "Why? The issue here is that you can see those commits, not that they exist".

You could easily have something like

* Feature #1 submission
* Feature #2 submission
* Quick prototype hack
* Save at 12/13/14 09:30
* Save at 12/13/14 09:31
* Save at 12/13/14 09:41
...
* Attempt #1
* Save at blahblah
...
* Attempt #2
* Save at blahblah
...
* Final Fix
* Save at blahblah
...
* Bug fix for #8923
* Attempt #1
* Review update
* Etc

and by default in the timeline/log you'd only see the top three commits until you drilled down, even to automated ones from file saves. Similarly when you looked at "blame" (or whatever) you'd see these commits. And of course all these tools should have a "max depth" (default 1) to allow you go into more detail. And yeah, you'd also need some functionality to specify and edit (preferably with its own history - Fossil already does that for other stuff like wiki) the parent/child relationships, perhaps with some current state (ie. under which commit all new commits will be placed).

With something like that in place i do not see any reason to not keep as much as possible around.
The path of discovery of new software development paradigms is far from linear but over the long term the improvements are impressive and ongoing. One of my favorite recent examples is declarative (Flutter, SwiftUI) vs imperative UI. The gains to efficiency and clarity are significant.
A big part of the problem are the green parties themselves. They were in many cases started as a youth movement against nuclear power in the 60s. The basis of these green parties consists of people who are ideologically opposed to nuclear energy and their youth rebellion against it is now part of their identity. This is why the leadership of green parties cannot support nuclear energy even though opposing it is completely nonsensical at this point.
Open Science at Europe’s Universities 2020-2021: EUA Open Science Survey Results [pdf]
I don't want to "try my luck", I want to build software.

GCC, and various proprietary vendor compilers, are often the only C compilers available on some hardware; and llvm doesn't have a mature, stable and supported backend for them, either.
You can actually get kits that are pretty hard to screw up these days:

https://www.parts-express.com/Dayton-Audio-18-Reference-Seri...

You'd be hard pressed to find something as good as that DIY kit for <$2000 in the retail marketplace.
Cycling batteries small percentages around mid level charges does almost nothing to battery life. Already, it's expected that we will soon have car batteries that outlast the rest of the car, with million miles lifetimes.

Plus, there's a specific cost to the battery life, that can be calculated, and evaluated against the gains from arbitraging electricity prices.

If batteries are economical on the grid, and they are increasingly replacing natural gas peakers for cost reasons, then car batteries will be a huge resource that is an economic win for car owners and for electricity rate payers.
> Human-created meaning

Could you give an example for "meaning" which is not "human-created"?

A human (and possibly other animals') instinct to create meaning might be not different from a spider's instinct to make a web. "Meaning" looks like an evolution-selected motivation tool for long-term goals.

If it is true, it is an ill-motivated question whether there is some universal meaning. The same as if there is an objective cobweb.

Still - yes, it might be sad for us that "meaning" does not extrapolate beyond our human psychology.
Absolutely. I also believe that Copilot is getting more flak than appropriate at the moment.

To rephrase my comment above: I don't want to blame the team behind Copilot for not getting everything right on the first try. Neither am I in a position to do so, nor would I want to live in a world where smart people aren't allowed to make mistakes.

What irritates me is that there are two possible scenarios here:

1) They knew about potential issues and decided to release it anyway (without at least addressing them verbally).
2) They didn't.

And frankly, I don't know which one I like less. Even though it's still a beta/preview, either option seems to signal a degree of negligence? that feels unnerving given the potential impact of such a system.

That being said, if we do live in scenario 1) than I am certain that better framing could have prevented the PR fallout that we're seeing right now (at least partially). IMHO, GitHub (the platform) is still a great product after all.
I have to admit, in my career so far, I've never had to, or seen anyone have to, interact with a commit more than a sprint or two old. Almost all my workplaces enforced the usual standards regarding linear history, squash/rebases before PRs and commit naming, and then did absolutely nothing with the results of that effort. It probably means that I've had an atypical career, but I still wonder if all these ceremonies are as meaningful as we hold them to be.
It is a little disappointing that it's not bike-to-work weather year-round (it gets both too hot and too cold). But I do enjoy winter and snow, so overall I appreciate the changing seasons, and none of the extremes are really too extreme. (It also helps that the subways generally keep running through the entire winter; I suspect I would dislike Cupertino density with NYC climate.)
This would also be consistent with less steel being included than originally designed, as was rumored during construction of numerous hi-rises during the boom.

Looks almost like punch-through of all floors simultaneously due to shock, almost as if it was a planned demolition where stuctural supports are compromised with precision to assure orderly collapse.

Only this part of the building fell precisely without any carefuly placed dynamite.

But when buildings are stronger, sometimes intentional demolition projects do not complete the job so thoroughly on the first attempt.
This seems to be missing or at least conflating the meaning of idempotence.

The draft correctly identifies idempotence as a "property of certain operations", but what the draft seems to describe is locking and caching.

Locking and caching are important to building idempotent operations, but shouldn't be conflated with idempotence which is a conceptual property of the operation.

I like what the draft describes, but it would be better done in the correct context.
Okay, I'm just going to call bullshit on this.

There's this tiny, very-very vocal minority of people who continue to mystify the 2/3 changes and act as-if migrating code were some massively difficult herculean task that almost ended Python. Sometimes a little bit of "string/bytes split is ALL WRONG and utter non-sense!" mixed in.

The truth is, that these were not actually big changes. The truth is that some orgs just wanna sit on their lazy asses doing jackshit to maintain their stuff and are surprised that, after 15 years, they have to do MAINTENANCE WORK??? ON THEIR CODE??? This is an outrage! The truth is that if porting was hard, or difficult, the code most likely had no meaningful tests, and so you couldn't do any changes anyway. The truth is, that changes like these expose bad engineering. And guess what, people don't like being exposed.
Yeah, I think one of the issues people have with lack of intrinsic meaning is that they experience it as a loss.

My parents weren't religious, so I grew up an atheist. I never believed that there was intrinsic meaning, intrinsic purpose. That was intimidating in my youth, as I was learning about the vast scale of the universe. Now it seems great. The universe is a blank canvas: we can create meaning for ourselves.

One related thing I especially love is the art documentary "Rivers and Tides", about the work of Andy Goldsworthy. It does a great job of conveying beauty and meaning even when it is transitory. Especially when it is transitory. It's only when give up the belief in vast, universal meaning, that meanings we create for ourselves and one another can be seen in their proper scale.
Thanks! That was really funny (and still is). Great idea :-)
Agreed. I'm entirely not following how a commit stream that may contain entirely broken commits aids in bisecting to find a specific flaw. Those would just be noise, at best. Even if you're just manually testing each commit, you do need it to build and run.
Some good advice has already been posted. I would suggest advisory board at most (be clear about the reason for inclusion of each person, carry no ballast, give them something to do), an option to take a 1st look at an early investment round (without defining price, which would be meaningless anyway at this point). Although dull and unexciting you may find your local equiv of NVCA, BVCA etc has some good documents to help you.

Most important of all is that an advisor should earn their spot. There’s no shortage of “room meat” who will happily sign up to “advise” a dozen companies while providing zero real value to you or your company. Good luck.
The checker/formatter distinction makes a lot of sense. Given the choice between the two for a given goal or set of operations, e.g. alphabetize/isort, I'm not sure why I'd settle for a checker. If the fix is deterministic and objective, why would I want to make the fix myself, rather than let the tool handle it?
Cue for resume-driven development, and people asking "why do we hype so much that new worse-than-useless tool that is costing that much people's time and reducing our software quality?"
> Nursing, my friend. Nursing. That's the future." He went on to explain why nursing was not only one of the most important jobs, but it was also one of the fastest growing. And then he told me something that I still can't believe I heard correctly.

Actually, I still see stuff like this these days, in regards to automation FUD. Something about the only jobs that will be left will be those that require human emotion and empathy.
In Fossil it will remain in your local repository but you can put the hash for the data you accidentally committed in a "blacklist" so that it wont be pushed/pulled. I think you can also rebuild the local repository to purge any data, though i'm not 100% sure about that.

(though you can certainly make a local clone of it which wont clone the blacklisted data, but you may need to manually copy/configure some stuff that aren't cloned)
>> If you think China gives a crap about your example you’re horrendously naive.

Tell that to the legions of Chinese immigrants who have flocked to Canada in recent years. It happened during the Hong Kong handover too. The Chinese see Canada as the more tolerant alternative to the US. Canada's opinion on China matters because that opinion is shared by the many Chinese people living in Canada. What is naïve is to ignore the family and social connections between the countries.
What I meant is, I can imagine a client tool where, when an idemptotency-key is given by the caller of the tool, the tool can treat the request as idempotent. Triggered by the presence of a supplied idempotency-key.

The caller still needs to correctly supply (or not) the idempotency key, and supply a correct idempotency key, along with all other attributes of the request: http method, url, other headers, body. all of this needs to be constructed according to the documented behavior of the server, true.

But just like if the caller says "make a GET request" the client tool knows it can be treated idempotently (automatically retried on ack failure for instance), if the caller says "make a POST with an idempotency-key", same. If the caller says "make a POST with request-id" where that is intentionally defined with no guarantee of idempotency, then not necessarily, I think?
Been watching this whole thing happen and I agree. This feels like one of those times where a thing comes to life because you uttered its name so many times… :)
I have a feeling that there's far too much emphasis on mining from a wealth perspective. The vast majority of Bitcoin is owned by a few thousand whales combined with many millions of smaller holders.

There seems to be this narrative where some people believe miners are minting and then holding all the coins, getting ever richer, but this is plain false.

It would be true with PoS though, so agree.
Vedic Samskrutham was pretty much different I guess.

And regular people didn't speak sanskrit in classical age. They spoke regional languages like Prakrit and Pali.