skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Show HN: Languages Interoperability Tool
Hey all!
I'm sure you all know that combining programming languages is super hard. Just imagine a project with Python frontend and C# backend or PInvoke Calling C++ code in C#

I created a tool that makes language interoperability easy with lightning execution speed.
Additionally, languages can be combined in full programs by just simple drag and dropping

We are using this tool internally at my company Zenodys.
I open sourced it https://github.com/tvinko/AlgoniaEngine

And you can see it in action here https://dev.to/tvinko/languages-interoperability-406f

There is huge lack of documentation at the moment but it's coming soon
in Connecticut beginning 1 OCT 2021 business will require no smoking in public spaces. I know it specifically targets e-cigarette use indoors. But believe it also means no smokers outside the front of the office, or outside of the bar.
This is cool. I work with a large Python codebase that's been around for a while (hasn't been that long since it's been completely off Python 2). It's not a bad codebase, but naturally it has almost no typing annotations, and other devs are just starting to come around to the idea.

I love `mypy --strict` but it produces way too much noise with all the other code, so I've been using a tool I made that runs mypy over the changed files and then greps the output to filter for lines that `git diff` points out have changed. It's pretty rough and imperfect (doesn't catch errors that started appearing in unchanged files, or unchanged lines it the same file, for instance) but it's still quite helpful. I've been meaning to make an improved version that runs mypy over the branch point, then over my branch, and then maps new and changed lines between them so it displays all errors that are new, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. It'd be useful for other tools too, like semgrep.
Absolute nonsense. Not only does Islam guarantee a woman's right to divorce, the Koran has an entire chapter titled The Divorce: https://quran.com/65

It's baffling how some people make false claims as if they're truths.
> This paper finds that the average COVID victim might have lived another 8 QALYs (quality-adjusted life years - a measure of years of life saved, in which years when you are very sick and can’t do anything count as less than a full year) if they hadn’t gotten COVID.

I take issue with this.

The average age in the UK of death was 83 I think, compared to an average life expectancy of 82. Most had more than one comorbidity.
Do we really expected these people to live until 90?

In addition to this a lot of the early deaths were in care homes were the residents aren't expected to live 8 years (less than 3 years from a very quick search). That would mean that non care home residents would need to average an ever higher amount of life for that to be true.

Sorry, that seems kind of ridiculous.
Overhead electric power lines are typically aluminum-wrapped steel. They are not volume limited, so aluminum is better and cheaper than copper.
> I know this is a common argumentative tactic to attempt to get people to change their mind. I don't know what would change my mind, but we're certainly not there yet as long as the risks which I cited still exist.

This is a common tactic to best understand if I am wasting my time. Seems like I am. Hope you have a good rest of the day.
The problem is that there's facts and there's facts; if a company basically buys their way into a reputable journal and publishes peer-reviewed papers, are you trusting that as fact? I mean if you religiously believe in science / scientism, you would take the Word of a scientific paper as the Word of God, even if you should do your own research into the sources, citations, reviewers, and who paid for it.

I mean the current slew of flat earthers, anti-vaxxers/maskers, bleach eyeballers andsoforth also cite Science as their source - lending credibility to their arguments, making their thing not just emotional or gut feeling.

And religious people will take (parts of) the bible as a scientific fact as well.
Type checking /compiling often is conservative for this purpose.
It's sound (Rejects all incorrect programs), decideable (There is an algorithm to reject all incorrect programs) but due to Godel's decidability problem they're incomplete (There are always correct programs which the type checker rejects as incorrect).

There are exceptions of course (C++ templating is turing complete; so type-checking is undecidable) but often you want your compiler to be sound and decidable

Also see https://3fx.ch/typing-is-hard.html

(edit: Apparently , as the link I posted shows, rust is indeed undecidable in certain edge cases. However you can usually reason about a subset of the language (Restrict using certain features) that is still decidable. I have the feeling Rust might have such a subset but it's just a fuzzy feeling)
Personally I'll go with the one who introduces themself as "I AM who I AM"

To me that's a prime mover statement, if ever there was one

But I have a feeling you resolve nihilism towards something meaningful? Personally I don't get how that works, but I'm interested, and look forward to any explanation
HDMI 1.3 vs. 1.4 vs. 2.0 what are the differences?
Good diff tools will only show you that the indentation changed, not the line as a whole (Meld for example).
> But a Tuesday New York Times article on the subject contained a fascinating nugget midway through, which could be described as a buried lede (journalese for putting the most explosive part of a story in the middle of the piece).

I’m going to come down on the opposite side and say that a garbage journal that nobody reads publishing garbage research for money isn’t news. Though it is certainly a good example of why you shouldn’t believe something just because it is published.
Until we can build autonomous configurable scavenging robots at scale.
Not OP, but I find it important to mention:

Science is not a state of knowledge.

Science is a process for getting better (or less bad) knowledge. Eventually.

I think we all agree that many studies are flawed and/or wrong. But I also think most people agree that there is a realistic expectation that we will find out over time [1]

[1] Caveat emptor: With sensible scientific methods, see my other comment on this post.
Yes and Ganymede appears to contain concentric layers of oceans separated by layers of ice. There is also Callisto, Encaeladus, Titan, and since New Horizons, potentially even Pluto - not to mention that the trace amounts of H20 present in the sun would outweigh all of it a thousand fold.

Bottom line is that water is never in short supply. Nitrogen is likely to be the real bottleneck in our future efforts at colonisation and terraforming - at least till if/when we master star lifting of resources. At that point, mass and energy no longer make meaningful limiters and waste heat disposal becomes the primary menace to further development.
To answer this specific question the evil score of the country is pretty much secondary at best.
I'm arguing in bad faith, according to you, even though I individually and respectfully tried to address every point you asked/made.

Yet, you are the one doing unbased accusations of fraud ("stablecoins are essentially fraud"), and still haven't replied to the question I made 4 or 5 times already: What if I choose to get my returns in some asset that is pegged to USD (e.g. DAI, USDC), am I still speculating on the value of BTC?

I guess my question is inconvenient.

I'm done here, but I do hope you have a nice day. And, don't worry, I won't bite your bait ever again.
I believe you can encode paradoxes in C++ templating.
Something about two specializations which are mutually impossible because they reference eachother. So you can say:

A is of type T <=> B is not of type T
B is of type T <=> A is not of type T

Where <=> is if and only if.

In which case it is paradoxical to say that A is of type T. But also paradoxical to say that A is not of type T.
The referee at yesterday's England vs. Denmark match apparently didn't get the memo.
> I'm struggling a bit to understand how a belief in the importance of scientific knowledge and techniques equates to a religious mindset.

The scientific method doesn't include the word "belief" at all. If you reduce it to belief, it's not science anymore, it's religion.

> In an ideal world, I would absolutely prefer my government to make decisions based on facts and methods of finding out more facts.

Science is a process, not a collection of hard facts. The only hard facts (or the claim of them more accurately) come from religion.

Science concerns itself with building speculative models that have predictive power, and trying to match observation with prediction of the models. Redundancy (peer review) is used to REDUCE (not ELIMINATE) errors. Social and cultural factors can result in false positives and false negatives in peer review.

That's it in a nutshell. The models don't reflect reality, they only reflect an approximation of aspects of reality in given contexts.

Anyway, the problem is that people do have a religious instinct. And when they're incapable of perceiving science with all its subtleties, they simply reduce it to a religion, which requires the belief that it's basically flawless, it provides hard facts, the best solutions, and that it's uniform (and any contradictions are just examples of "interests" corrupting it).

While politics are very corrupted and often result in incompetence rising to the top, even it weren't the case, those competent politicians have no single place to turn to to understand what "science" thinks on any given problem of society. Science isn't a guy, so it has no opinion.
Citation needed; "hustle" and "crunch" culture in some parts of the rest of the world and some industries encourages working ridiculous hours. Some economies force people to work multiple jobs just to try and keep their head above water. Some cultures expect people to be engaged with their work, or have their work as a hobby outside of work hours ("do you contribute to open source in your free time?").
Every security threat is a path to freedom: Security means you have a treasure, an attacker and a defender. In this case, the treasure is data inside the processor, the attacker is the current owner, the defender is a vague group of hollywood, previous owners, intel, governements, etc...

Freedom means the owner (laptop thief) can steal the data from the previous owner (victim). Freedom means the owner can steal movies from hollywood. Freedom means Linus could create an OS without the blessing of Microsoft, etc... The problem is it is everything or nothing. So if you're a victim of theft, you want security. If you're pirating, you want freedom. If you want to clone the DVD your toddler keeps watching and destroying, you also want freedom. If you want to fully use all capabilities of your device, you want freedom.
I was part of a discussion few years ago where few people of a nearby university were very eager to implement modular learning, micro-credentials etc. They were discussing this in all earnest. Soon they realised that the logistics are just too much to handle this with the combinations that can happen with the modularisation and micro-credentials. And the evaluations becomes not just nightmarish but also very difficult to achieve.
The realisation was that this sounds very good on paper but is a nightmare in practice.
In 2014 I decided that what I wanted most out of my house router was ongoing software updates from the distro, and that I would be willing to pay more for the hardware in exchange.

For seven years, then, I've had a mini-ITX x86-64 box with a small SSD, 4GB RAM, and 5 gigabit NICs running Debian Stable. It's been upgraded in place and I see no reason why the upgrade to Bullseye in a month or two won't go as smoothly.

I think a Pi4 is roughly comparable in computation capacity, perhaps less so in I/O -- but what I've got is clearly overkill, anyway.
I considered both and ended up just using pf on OpenBSD. Very simple config on top of a rock solid OS.
I don't know what parent meant exactly, but I personally think that scientific methods are only useful for people who are smart/educated enough to interpret them.

There were so many studies for example about cancer along the lines of "eating apples reduces cancer by 5%" and then you see people start eating apples for this reason. Somebody wrote a paper to get a publication with questionable results and people blindly believe in the power of science.

Don't forget that a lot of the papers are also written in unintelligible scientific jargon and that scientists would massage numbers because their writings directly affects their job prospects and salaries.

Religion didn't necessarily start from being a highly politicised power-hungry beast it became in middle ages. Bible says a lot about being a better human being. So is science - the scientific method does allow us to learn new things; but academia is a political entity which is only going to be growing in it's power and thus corruption.
I stand corrected. The header looked like it was towards the goal the first time I watched it.
US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming
> If most people opt out of basic math classes, society will be worse off.

I doubt this. The overwhelming majority of people never use anything more complicated than algebra. Most people probably don’t even use algebra in an average year. And primary math instruction is an enormous waste of time. You can teach a twelve year old the entire primary math curriculum in well under a 100 hours. It would be great if we could make more of the population numerate but most Americans can’t name the three branches of government[1]. You’re not going to get them to learn statistics.

[1] Not a knock on Americans. The US has a great education system. People are people everywhere and most of them don’t care about nerd stuff that they find neither interesting nor useful.
It's awkward to abbreviate "in polynomial time" as "in P". P is a set of (decision) problems. We don't know that 3-SAT is in P. We don't know that it's not.

To say that a solver is not in P is a type error.
Exactly this. Science has too much emphasis on the "now", on present knowledge.

Take 17th century science... most of it would be ludicrous by any standard today. Now imagine applying that science onto humans/society... Science as a tool to deal with present knowledge, should not be used solely to manage societies or human situations with irreversible consequences.
The American Journal of Health Behavior apparently has an impact factor between 1 and 2, which isn't stellar but also isn't "nobody reads".
>It's interesting to see the rationalization.

>"Just don't use it, plus good phone habits"

Agreed. For a couple of years I had 1-5GB mobile plans, often free (thanks to the late great RingPlus). I never used more than 1-2GB a month so they were quite sufficient for my needs.

I then got unlimited service from Sprint (thanks to the late great free unlimited year offer). My usage patterns did not change. To my surprise, however, I found that no longer having to think about the usage limit—even if the limit was never a real problem before—perceptibly eased my daily life.
You're comparing a party with an individual; a fair comparison would be to compare it with the Democrat or Republican party.

That said, the US still has the illusion of being a democracy and its people having a will of their own, which isn't as much of a thing in China.

That said that said, "western" media does tend to make China into a uniform mass, while in reality it's much bigger, richer, more populous and more diverse than Europe and the US combined.
Novel study of high-potency cannabis shows some memory effects
Yeah, they bought it for $50k. It's like complaining about paying for an issue of some 3rd rate magazine.
Sure. But a naive compiler whose only purpose is to stomp out a poorly optimized executable can safely ignore that annotation, right?
> This compiles with no warnings, and at no point in the function "main" do you see that you're causing a memory allocation and a copy by implicitly converting your static message to a std::string, passing it to the function, and deallocating it

Such a warning would be a bug in this specific case as "Hello World!" is under the SSO size though - there is no call to malloc/new in this specific std::string creation.

I fail to see how that is relevant though: the kernel does not use the C standard library - it's not going to use the standard C++ library either except maybe the freestanding, compile-time-only bits such as type_traits, concepts, ...

In which case it is trivial to have a string type akin to rust's:

class kstring {
public:
explicit kstring(const char* str, std::size_t len);

private:
const char* m_storage{};
std::size_t m_len{};
};

auto operator""_to_owned(const char* str, std::size_t len) {
return kstring{str, len};
}

void print(const kstring& str)
{
// ...
}

int main() {
// fails:
// print("foo");

// ok
print("foo"_to_owned);
}

Here, the correct answer would be std::string_view anyways (or a custom c_string_view).

> If you code-review "main", it doesn't look like you're doing an allocation because you're passing a const char *; if you code-review "print", it doesn't look like you're doing an allocation because you're accepting a std::string, which has already been allocated.

My experience really disagrees with this part, every time I've been involved in code reviews, it was common knowledge that a function taking a const& or && can cause an allocation at the call site. It's barely a beginner mistake to not take it into account.
> how a belief in the importance of scientific knowledge

You quoted it yourself: scientism is "excessive", or, more correctly, it treats scientists as authoritative sources of truths that should not be questioned. This form of blind trust goes against the scientific method.

Also scientism can make categorical error in the type of questions that can be answered e.g. journalists asking physicists about "god particles" and such

> I'm struggling a bit to understand how a belief in the importance of scientific knowledge and techniques equates to a religious mindset.

I think the poster refers to dogmatic mindset. Assuming that all religions are dogmatic is incorrect.
In an ideal world, maybe. In the real world it means treating a study on 31 American undergrads as scripture (the studies that failed to replicate its result go unpublished), regulation based on a study sponsored by the regulated, or a diet recommendation for half a century based on a hypothesis that saturated fat causes heart disease.

This policy by science simply doesn't seem very effective. It largely provides cover for bureaucrats who can say that they followed science while doing what they wanted to do in the first place.
Scala – Linked list with compile time size
Increase type-safety by using a list with size completely determined at compile time.
If you do a SSA transform of your program the register graphs are chordal. It turns you that coloring chordal graphs is easy: http://web.cs.ucla.edu/~palsberg/course/cs232/papers/HackGoo...
It's convenience and discoverability mainly. Usually a git operation in magit:

* Takes fewer keypresses - it has a very nice nested menu system based on single keypresses, which has been split out as "transient" and adopted by a number of other packages.

* Is easier to discover - I've learned of the existence of many things you can do with git by coming across them in the TUI (which is easier and more contextually relevant at any given time than reading the entire command line documentation)

* Generates less cognitive load - the set of available parameters and their default values is immediately visible, not buried in arcane man pages (which open in a separate web browser on Windows)

* Gives far richer and more interactive feedback - when reading the output of git log, the full contents of each commit is a single keypress away, as is checking out the commit in question; code can be blamed in the editor with syntax highlighting; conflicts can be resolved similarly and opened in ediff with a keypress; files and individual hunks can be staged/unstaged with a single keypress when viewing status, etc, etc.

The convenience and completeness of this has been so great that I've not felt the need to memorise the git CLI beyond the absolute basics. To turn the question around, is there any reason I should? Performance is the biggest bugbear, but hasn't been a dealbreaker for me, despite being on Windows most of the time (I've recently started using lazygit to perform simple operations more quickly, though).
The problematic part is not the belief in science but in the absence of good science relying on or outright exploiting the things that resemble science. With bad science and statistics you can justify pretty much anything. When challenged simply say "Ah sorry, the science says so".
nobody is going to mention the positive side of this? This is going to contribute to the gene data pool of Asians, which is relatively underrepresented compared to the West (due prevalent of DTC companies), and help a lot in mapping our roots.
There is one[1] but Rust allows different major versions of the same package to exist in parallel, so dependency resolution is usually trivial unless someone in the dependency tree explicitly adds an upper limit of the acceptable version [2], which is pretty uncommon (I don't think I've ever met one in practice).

[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/blob/master/src/cargo/cor...

[2]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/specifying-depende...
This only keeps track of the shares that that the company has issued, it doesn't tell us anything about the profit that the company is making.
Croatia did a full proper own goal, most likely due to nervousness and maybe a bit of orientation loss.

All the others have been mere redirected shots from opponents, some of which would have landed or not, thus, so to say "forced auto goals".

Other issue is why was the penalty given to England last night, they had video review and I am still wondering how that could qualify as a malicious foul. I suppose it's the same rule with hands on ball, intentional or not doesn't seem to matter.
I immediately thought about the workplace. Darn. I was hoping for a flag or at least a logo.
I am quite confident my arguments are sound. However you are posting from a brand new account, continuously splitting hairs rather than confronting the argument head-on, and generally engaging in bad-faith argumentation tactics.

This might be effective on other forums, but I'm quite confident the HN audience will not be impressed.
These are necessary but insufficient conditions. A bad trip may be triggered by a fleeting recollection/thought. I believe that a medical procedure cannot be based on such precarious approaches.
Xamarin based Android application reverse engineering
Completely different. Magit is basically a full git IDE, while fugitive is basically just a thin wrapper around the git command line.
Adding World Cup data shows a similar uptick but makes the series messier (last few World Cups in reverse order: 12, 5, 2,4, 3, 6, 1).

World Cup has more participating teams and usually more mismatches which partly explains the larger numbers.

The Euros added more games in 2016 and back in 1996, and only had four teams participating pre-1980, which plays a large role in why so few own goals were scored back then, but size alone can't explain the jump in 2018/2021 tournaments. Either it's a statistical anomaly or tactics