skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Trucking has tradeoffs in both directions - EVs are cheaper, and easier to maintain, trucks are huge and can have a lot of battery capacity. I think what's better depends on specific circumstance.

For large apartment complexes there will probably need to be some load balancing, but seems manageable. Power going out doesn't seem like that big of a deal, more likely to have some charge in the car and it's more likely to find power than gas in a crisis (long lines at gas stations etc.)

Long trips by car via super charger are pretty easy for everything except 700+mi trips which are very rare for vast majority. Unlikely to shift anything to air travel, if anything lower EV fuel costs could shift other direction.

For snow my parents have had only EVs in Buffalo and have been fine. They also drive down the east coast to Florida.
I'm curious what your issues were with Duplicacy. I looked at Borg, Duplicati and Duplicacy among others when I was evaluating a backup solution and eventually settled on Duplicacy and have been pretty happy with it. The only issue I've had is that it's a bit memory hungry during backups.
I think you missed the point where he said the bug was present in the stable release, too.
This might be a cultural/linguistic barrier you went up against. It might also not be related to what happened to you, but it feels like it is.

Japanese use a lot of back-channel chatter when they talk to indicate that they are actively listening (Auzuchi). This includes saying "Yes" to indicate "Yes, I understand what you are saying" instead of "Yes, I agree that we should do as you are suggesting". They may not always indicate disagreement by saying "No" either, but simply by not committing to your suggestion when its their turn to talk (or some other, subtler expression than "No", such as a head tilt and an intake of breath)

This active listening behavior has apparently led to similar misunderstandings before.

Of course, if you made sure you actually came to a clear agreement with the execs, it's an entirely different story.
I attribute it to the desire to do something, and at the same a perception that an individual cannot affect the big fish. The only option left becomes individual action. Logically, people in this state will see indiviual action as a virtue in others regardless of their Puritanical views.

I don't deny that it's moralistic though :)
Android dev is better, iOS dev is better, heck even Tk layouts are better.
Their post meets both criteria. Their description of the issue is not hyperbolic; it is a brief but reasonable and accurate description of the failure of American policing. Their description of the solution is well-reasoned: it is not unreasonable to suggest that we should prefer an institution facing intractable flaws be deconstructed and replaced with a new one.

I do think it's unreasonable to expect a detailed description of this solution off-the-cuff. A simple search would have provided you with that, though: https://defundthepolice.org/alternatives-to-police-services/
It always amazes me people use the infrastructure argument against EV adoption. Electricity infrastructure is nearly universal worldwide and clearly more available than gasoline. Also recharge times on new Teslas is very impressive of not irrelevant to most of the population that can recharge at home
If you're arguing for prosecuting the people saving lives, then you've fallen credulously for a disinformation campaign.
anyone surprised?
I think they only had two big ones. One was around the time they had no banking, the other was when Phil Potter left.

My point wasn’t that the redemptions routinely happen. My point was that it does matter if no one can redeem, because eventually that will cause the peg to break and USDT to become worthless.

I wasn’t arguing redemptions will be honoured en masse.

Though interestingly Tether supply has gone very slightly down since June.
>>Merely be pedantic, provide a counter example, or suggest a thought experiment in which their generalization may not be true.

It solves one problem but walks right into another. Your counterexample would be observed as so-called sealioning[1], "concern trolling", or one form of the ever-expanding nebulousness of "gaslighting". How does one diffuse obstinate hypocritical crusaders while proving one's own point? The solution doesn't seem to be making a well-made statement. Disagreeing is considered making a "bad-faith" arguments. The answer isn't pointing out their fallacies and thought-terminating clichés. You'll be accused of co-opting an dog-whistling.
The only solution I've seen is to do or say as one will as though others don't exist. A lesson learned in one of Aesop's fable, The Miller, His Son and His Ass.

[1]https://wondermark.com/1k62/
I've been toying with an idea like this too. I set my browser to never delete history items years ago, so I have a huge amount of daily web use that needs to be indexed. The browser's built in history search has saved me a few times, but it is so primitive it hurts.
Abolitionists did that all last year. It should be somewhat common knowledge by now for people who read news.
Because the "best" electric car company in the world is barely eeking out a profit from selling a million cars a year, and even then only through regulatory credits, Bitcoin shenanigans, and outright fraud with FSD.

That said, I am bullish long term on EVs and hope to convert my primary car to an EV next year.
I have a few questions for people who largely agree with this article.

Firstly, where do you stand on developers having input into the design process? From my experience, developer input in specification has led to better fitting solutions. Personally, I wouldn't like to be in a situation where I am instructed what to do, that sounds extremely tedious.

If you agree that developers should have some contribution to the design process, then two points in this post are in conflict. Either the developer must be interrupted to participate in synchronous design decisions, or participate asynchronously on a much-maligned platform like Jira (better alternatives available). Is there another way?
Depends on the regulation. Often the law says that just asking for a date-of-birth is insufficient. I've written software in which I want nothing to do with PII but am forced to collect it due to short-sighted laws.
Yes hopefully all the analysis would happen on device but that limits anything like a google home/alexa. Last I looked neither device allowed processing on device.
I did an internship in Singapore once. One of the most backward things I remember about my time there is needing an "MC" (medical certificate from a doctor) when I wasn't feeling well one day.

Like goddamn, it was just a minor cold, nothing serious, I just needed to stay at home and rest, not trek out to a doctor and infect other people on public transit on my way to the doctor. There wasn't anything the doctor could do anyway other than just tell me to take some Panadol for the low grade fever, which I was doing anyway.

If it had happened again I would probably have just gone to work sick because of the silly system. I should decide if and when I need to see a doctor, not my employer. Considering how well-educated people were at the company I was at, there's no reason to not trust people when they say they need rest.
The opposite of free speech is censorship, not propaganda.

Lying is not illegal.
Got an article? ie. were these Solarcity/Tesla employees or just 'contractors' peddling PACE loans[0]?

0: https://youtu.be/zv8ZPFOxJEc
I agree with everything in this except "You can't extend existing types with data". Data inheritance is implementation inheritance. Don't add it.
Check the link. What it's saying is that most times the police receive a notice of a gunshot, it's a false positive. In Chicago this leads to 60 dead-end responses each day. Very few systems are worth that trouble
> The executive, Chris Reynolds, has argued that hybrids, like the Toyota Prius, as well as hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles should also be in the mix.

I don't see whats wrong with this. The media always just twists things.

It sounds like they are advocating that the government shouldn't just choose the winner as EV's already when maybe the future could be hydrogen. Whats the problem with subsidizing both EV and hydrogen, not just choosing EV as the winner?
It's not about "market cap", which is a myth in the crypto space anyway: I made 1 billion of my proprietary tokens, and sold .001 to myself in another wallet for $1. Therefore my token's market cap is $1 trillion. I'm sure banks will let me buy a hundred million dollar mansion now since my net worth is verfiably gigantic.

It's about cash "equivalent" in flow and out flow that tether/stable coins make up. Currently they're responsible for over 80% of this volume[0], which mean virtually no "real money" exists in the crypto space, it's just imaginary "totally-backed-bux" and wash trading.

[0]https://coinlib.io/
XState seems more useful as a tool to help a non-technical layman, like a Product Manager, think through developing a prototype of a feature or something on their own.

Engineers who have some notion of what the meaning of their code is know that FSMs tend to be encoded in a distributed fashion in an average code base. Whether or not its valuable to extract those into something more explicit is a case-by-case decision if that makes sense
As long as WaPo, CNN and NYT continue to spread disinformation social media is of a lesser concern
Why do you see clear evidence that the company directly lied and acted fraudulently, and immediately assume that this must be the one single time they have ever done so?

When I see that a company founded by criminals has lied, I tend to assume that they will be lying again. I think that is a fairly safe bet.
This is one of the fundamental principles behind Satoshi's white-paper and all of crypto currency.
Isn't this already what Windows does? It's warned about unsigned binaries on first run for a while now, no?

And I can see some argument for that, even if in practice it feels more like teaching users to blindly ignore warnings.

But holding uncommon or un-Microsoft-sourced (that is, signed) to a higher standard feels wrong.
The author's twitter is linked from their profile page on hackernoon.
For the same reason they didn't create PCs: they had a different idea of what the Japanese market wanted which was calculators, not computers. And this drove the entire Japanese semiconductor and electronics industry during the 1970s and 1980s. Different Market. Different Culture. Different Technology Strategies.

And the Japanese are super sure of whatever direction they've picked once they've achieved "consensus" - NOTHING can change it; not other markets, and not situational changes.

The consensus part combined with risk aversion also meant they'd sooner duplicate the Moto flip phone or Nokia than step out to the iPhone touch screen button design.

Honestly it's easy to grok if you've spent time in Japan and/or doing a lot of business with Japanese companies.
Framework Review: Modular Upgradable Laptop [video]
Italy is tech hostile like most of southern Europe, engineers are paid horribly compared to other professions so they usually leave north.
Many people are afraid of the range, but don't actually drive anywhere near it day to day.

EV range is also continuing to improve.

I suspect/predict we'll see adoption continue to accelerate. I think a lot of the resistance is just status quo bias.
Wow Developers: "No work" being done amid Activision-Blizzard lawsuit
and if we destroy any market that isn't electric by punishing gas/hydrogen/etc, what does that do to the 1%? Sorry you're out of luck, just move to the city and change careers/lifestyle? Also note that a lot of that 1% are the trucks that bring goods into the city.
you had to be there in the 1980s when all the brand new tech apple and tesla are inventing for the first time ever were commonplace
> what's stopping the govt/some company from getting msft to remove programs and files they don't like?

Literally the capitalistic profit motive?

You know, companies generally try to avoid pissing off their customers and driving them to competitors for no good reason. If Microsoft started politically censoring users' content, that's probably the easiest thing they could do to send users away from Windows and Office over to Macs and Google Docs en masse.
Look at the left hand sidebar of the article with the author info. There's a Facebook and Twitter icon.
There's a twitter icon underneath the author's name that links to that twitter profile...
> I do not know anybody with cable TV.

AIUI, these things typically described as “if you have cable TV” apply to most cable, satellite, and internet multichannel video programming distributors (so, yes, cable/satellite, but also Youtube TV and similar online services.)
No, there is no issue. And the Copenhagen interpretation isn’t just “shut up and calculate” even though people may humorously refer to it as such.

Basically what we have is that if you had a model of reality where small invisible angels tug at the feet of people and thereby cause gravity, if I come along with a Newtonian model of gravity, then you can’t dismiss my theory because “It doesn’t explain the angels!”

Classically you want to assume that there are small local particles traveling along always in one specific position with one specific speed. QM instead postulates that this is not the case, but that reality can accurately be described based on probability wave distributions that when we do the math accurately predict your particle observations. But does so without explaining “the angels” and without bridging what you perceive as a gap between localized classical particles being the ground truth and what QM postulates.
But the incorrect notion of localized particles behaving classically was never a universal truth that we have to include. It was just an incorrect model that seems to give us correct predictions in some but not all cases. QM now gives us both the same predictions when they were correct, but also correct predictions in all the cases where it fails.
> just a quarter mile is already in the noise

There's no reason to care about precisely measuring things a quarter of a mile away. Human drivers don't.
If I ever catch a delivery person doing that I'll report them to their employer.
Both articles mention specifically that police were replaced _for certain calls_.

But that doesn't jive with your proposal to completely eliminate police and replace them with something else.

I'm not going to engage you any further since it's become clear you're either trolling or not really trying.
I meant the battery supply chain, which no one can touch Tesla on. Tesla already owns mining rights on a lot of lithium. Other car companies are going to have to go to Tesla for some of their EV needs.

When people make the mistake of analyzing Tesla as a car company it always makes me smile, because it leaves me feeling secure that my (albeit small) position on Tesla is sound.

It's been said by others ad nauseum, but I'll say it again:

Tesla is a battery company with a car division.
And that's exactly why you have several nuclear reactors in a plant and several turbines, and several power lines…

Please be a bit serious about what you're saying, you don't have to actually turn of a plant when you need to refuel. If any kind of plant (including hydro) need to be completely turned off for maintenance its really because you had a major design flaw.
That's a very fair point - obviously, I was just going with official quoted CO2/km figures for comparison sake, to basically show that certain power plants are so astronomically bad, that even the most efficient EV powered by them ends up being worse than the (quoted) CO2/km figures for petrol/diesel cars. That's not a an attack on electric cars, nor a defense of ICEs - just an attack in the idioicy of burning lignite for power.
I don't think that's fair. Your blog post is not about what you think is bad - at least, it doesn't read like it. It reads like a list of stumbling blocks and how to get around them. This is not the same as listing the major problems with the language.

Jeff's talk is indeed great, but... it's not mostly about what he thinks is bad, either. That part is quickly swept aside with "just so you know we know". The talk is really about some very specific problems in the type system that are so obscure that I don't even consider them worth mentioning in a blogpost about Julia's weaknesses.
TSMC's innovation on production is impressive as well like the on chip water cooling.

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/324625-tsmc-mulls-on-c...
If I remember this correctly, that age group had so few cases that the error bars essentially covered most of the entire possible range. So even if you have a value like 6.3% this might actually be something like 6.3% +- 60%. And it that case the single value is extremely misleading, the true result is "we don't know".

I'm not sure I'm remembering the right case here, this happened more than once e.g. with some data from South Africa where low values were quotes without explaining that the studies simply were not large enough to get useful numbers for these subgroups.
In my opinion the most important positive thing Julia has is the Compsci community it attracted.

There has never been so much enthusiasm in oftware for doing physical simulations and correct and stable arithmetics. It made a sizeable dent in the Fortran/C++/Python/Matlab environment physicists were in.

That said even after 10 years Julia has still so many rough edges that I wouldn't employ it for anything outside the aforementioned use case.

Just getting it to Plot something in a headless environment was a pain. Essential utilities like debuggers (!) are external dependencies. Matrix/Vector/Array confusion permeates the air. Ditto for a syntax annoyingly in the middle between Matlab, Python and Fortran.

Given it is already not that young I predict it will never really attract the masses beyond its niche, but it can still kill the remaining Fortran codebases.
I’m 43 and I’m a dev manager. I try as hard as possible to insulate my developers from interruptions and pointless meetings. We have a dev team meeting every two weeks, and each dev maybe has 1-2 other meetings in those two weeks to discuss software with end-users; very much focused on the software. That’s it.

But we also pair-program — when it makes sense — and we practice TDD.

Perhaps the author has not observed good TDD. I find TDD enormously helpful; TDD helps me get into flow, and maintain it.

I think there’s as much wrong with this article as there is right, and can’t really recommend it.
I've escorted a few people out of the building like that. How people tolerate such trespass is beyond me.
Why is it, then, on the front page?
> relatively low mileage

You can get a base model 3 today with 263 to 353 miles of range. That's upwards of 3-4 hours of driving with no breaks. Stop to take a break at a super charger for 30 minutes and you can do another 3-4 hours.

How is this still no practical especially combined with all the time and money they save not having to do most routine maintenance.
How is Toyota saying something is impractical different than Tesla lobbying congress to push for something that benefits themselves and is actually impractical? There are two sides to this. Toyota vehicles still outlast every vehicle on the planet. Tesla has no proven track record for longevity. If I have to buy 2 Teslas for the lifetime of one Toyota that manufacturing footprint is going to cancel out a large part of the benefits of going electric to begin with.
So I should assume that this guy's opinion is the same as everyone else's? A+ communication skills.
Is this just your opinion, or do you actually have data to back up your claims here?

I ask because there was a 5 year old study that illustrated that in 2016 87% of trips were within range for an electric vehicle with overnight charging. https://www.nature.com/articles/nenergy2016112

Range anxiety is a real thing, but we settled on a PHEV SUV with a 40km range last year due to not finding the right mix of towing capacity and range in an electric vehicle (we need to routinely use a trailer that can haul >1500 lbs for business reasons). That 40km range covers approximately 3/4 quarters (74.38) of our routine driving (I actually have this data, we were surprised that it came out to such a round number!)

We expect to sell our current vehicle and switch to a full electric SUV with similar capabilities once they are available in 2021/2022.
As long as we are talking hypothetically and pilot projects, unlike hydrogen you can charge EV’s at highway speeds for unlimited range. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_road

As to the current infrastructure, plugging in nightly works for most people most of the time. Spending an extra 15 minutes charging for long trips is hardly a big deal. People tend to go inside for drinks walk around etc which eats into the time lost.
This is way old ancient irrelevant news as the project never really took off and was quickly abandoned/contributors refocussed on Scala proper. That was also many major versions of Scala ago (2.11, which has since been succeeded by 2.12, 2.13, and now 3.0). No idea why this would be submitted in 2021.
That was explicitly not the OPs point. His point was that there are warts on every tool and he wanted to clearly bring them up in a way that is productive and helpful.

He says julia is his favourite language in the very first sentence.
> are now showing that they had no plans to embrace cleaner vehicles as an overall company strategy.

If you read the NYT article that is the source for this, though, that's not the whole story. The real issue is that Toyota placed a big bet on hydrogen, which turned out to be the wrong clean energy bet, and now they are caught flat-footed.

It's like people who bet on Mesos and then later had to try to catch up because the world chose Kubernetes. It's not like those people were against "container orchestration", they just bet on the wrong tech.
The article mentions that chess GM level is probably more like 99.9th percentile. At that level you need to be both very talented and practice very hard.
I do not know how automation is measured, but a couple Americans I've met here in Norway has said that automation is higher here.
When I see “this code is nice and well commented”, I open the first file that comes up to see how good it is, how an example it can be. Then what I see there is functions without any comment, with single-letter variables, with little error checking, with hardcoded yet repeated literal values, and with a few mistakes (with or without consequences but that requires some investigation to be assessed).
Then I open a second file and I find a mistake there too. That's in less than 3 minutes, in a review that's just a quickly oversight picking and peaking random excerpts.

So should I have said, "baaaah, this sucks!"? As it nevertheless far from being the worst code ever, I'd rather warn that what I am going to do amounts to nit-picking, and put a smiley to show that I don't want to disparage the work presented to me.
could be yeah