skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Admittedly, I turn arrogant when I (potentially mis-)smell bullshit.

First of all, it does not matter what the initial intention was when OOP started growing to where it is now. The whole historical argument makes no sense whatsoever. The fact that something was like X in the past does not mean it is going to be like X in the future.

Second, I have a lot of doubt about the statement, that the idea of object API was solely to represent changes to object state. Unless you can link a supporting quote, I am ready to dismiss it as made up.
I'm not sure why this is being downvoted so hard. If you don't go per-capita, there's no sensible way to measure and compare emissions.

If a country splits in two (something like Yugoslavia or Sudan), has its emissions halved? If a city gobbles up its neighbor, has that city's emissions doubled?
> Because we have continually outsourced our emissions to China while still reaping the financial benefits of expoiting resources in those countries.

That's simply not true. The chart I linked is CO2 accounting based on consumption, not US production, it takes into account Chinese emissions for US consumption.

> There's reason to take action now, but since you won't even accept the notion that you might have to reduce your standard of living,

Sorry, what? What do you know about what I want to do? My preferred life would be considered a "reduced standard of living" to many Americans, because I want to live car-free in a walkable neighborhood.

> At what point will you admit you are wrong?

When there's evidence that a position I have taken is wrong. Start sending me data!!

Will you admit that emissions have decreased, even accounting for moving production to China? Will you admit that we have cleaner energy sources ready to deploy that will replace fossil fuels, if we choose to do so? Will you admit that we can develop alternatives to industrial processes that generate non-fossil-fuel emissions? Will you admit that we can switch disastrous land use policies that reduce the ability of the ecosystem to sequester CO2?

These are all possible without a drastic reduction in the quality of life. The question is how quickly we can make that transition. At this stage in the game, nihilism is as bad as denialism. We need to make drastic drastic change, and I am doing so in my personal life, but personal action is no substitute for changing the system.
Hydrogen is probably not as unsafe as the general population might think it is, but it find it bizarre just how much the article downplays the flammability issue. For example:

> Fun fact: pure hydrogen doesn’t burn. It needs an oxidizer—like the oxygen in air.

Airships literally float in that oxidizier!
Sounds like no, you wouldn't. Perhaps you grok that the dangers of glyphosate are real.
Both the mouse and keyboard were banes of my existence as a lab owner. They failed constantly.
-Also, much slower and lower cargo capacity.

That being said, I can see them being used where roads are sparse, inland (so shipping is not an option) and far away from the nearest railroad.

We definitely need more green-tinged options; I root for airships!
A large (135cm diameter) umbrella. It cost just under £30 and I love using it.

I've always had a good outdoor coat but my legs and feet would still get wet. With the umbrella, only my toes get wet in a downpour. It's large enough for my two kids and I to get under!
How do we make them care? Or more politically worded, show them it is in their interest to care?
The idea is that this gets you above the densest atmosphere and that could save you fuel. I used to think this, but if you run the numbers it doesn't work out.
> I can’t read minds, but my sense is that much of what individuals are asked to do is knowingly conservation theater.

Oh it's not just conservation theatre, it's also cynical responsibilities shifting: by convincing everyone that the public at large is to blame, corporations get off scot-free
As I, and a small minority have pointed out for years: Apple's privacy marketing has always been fake; this is a PR failure more than it is a technical failure. I had nearly given up on hacker news because this idea had been so controversial here in the past, and I'm not sure I should have stayed since it took this long for everyone to notice.
It is not the next step, it is already there, if you read the technical papers. Additional encryption level comes to iCloud images with this change, and Apple can’t see your photos anymore unless CSAM threshold is achieved.
Lessons from my 10 years working in product (long post)
By "advanced methods" I mean, for instance, python's `.update(other)` method (which allows you to merge two dicts/maps), or `.pop(key)` (which allows you to remove & return a value at the same time).

Having such methods on a table which you're still expecting to use as a container sounds like it would allow a attacker to e.g. overwrite your methods if you're processing user-controllable data.
> the places with the most rigorous enforcement of theological dominance also have the worst child abuse problems.

Citation needed. The data doesn't back up that claim, contrary to the media's narrative.

A report which Christian Ministry Resources (CMR) released in 2002 stated that contrary to popular opinion, there are more allegations of child sexual abuse in Protestant congregations than there are in Catholic ones, and that sexual violence is most often committed by volunteers rather than by priests.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_c...

Catholic clergy aren't more likely to abuse children than other clergy or men in general. The 4 percent figure appears lower than school teachers during the same time frame, and certainly less than offenders in the general population of men.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/do-the-right-thing/2...
I think about this problem often. I think it's caused by economies of scale and is an escapee of Pandora's Box that we're not going to be able to put back. Instead, we need to think carefully about what we build and how we build it - educate consumers, regulate to price in obsolescence and recycling costs, and place greater value on long-term quality as a society - to prevent this from growing even worse.

I build industrial automation equipment, so I'm in part to blame for the problem, however, I'm also in a position to advocate for easier repair processes and more sensible assembly stackups. It's simply a fact that the six figures in initial equipment capital divided by, hopefully, a similar number of unit sales, plus the few dozen seconds of operator hands-on time per unit, always going to produce an end product which costs less than hours of diagnosis and maintenance by a local, high-skill repairman. The math simply doesn't add permit any other arrangement, no matter how standardized your tooling is, how open your repair manual is, or how efficient your aftermarket parts ecosystem is.

Repairing and maintaining something for more money than it cost to produce it puts those activities firmly in the realm of luxury goods. The better we get at producing useful things cheaply, the more we have to multiply the value of human labor, and the less it makes sense to repair cheap things with this expensive labor.

One interesting option today is that you can get an electronic watch and get access to all the internals as well:

https://open-smartwatch.github.io/

However, its operation depends on electrons and bits instead of springs and escapements, and you can see those bits moving about in PlatformIO code instead of under a magnifier.
Telegram does this. They have many clients written by independent teams focusing on slightly different parts. All apps are fast and pleasing to use. But you may like some one app better than others and you can just use that one.
You would save around 5% fuel and multiply costs by 10. People have tried and tested, much better to just make the rocket reusable.
> both cases would have negligible leached-plastic compounds.

I was with you until this.

This comment will not age well.
Well, that's the same as having wind.
The last 2 or 3 years I've had 2 or 3 high friction updates on Arch.

More than 0, but not a lot.
As I mentioned in the comment to mjburgess, it does not matter, unless you can show it does. Fortunately, knowing the details of history is entirely optional for the ability to discuss the current state of affairs.
HN is a site where “slippery slope”, which is actually a logical fallacy, is instead used as an argument against anything that HN users don’t like.

It’s nonsensical to treat this site as anything other than a complete trash fire, meant to get engagement from a very specific audience.
"putting pressure on China to act, and if they don't we need to think about moving manufacturing out of China"

None of this is feasible. The inevitable cries of imperialism and sinophobia and nativism ensures such policies are dead on arrival. Instead we will simply inculcate the necessary cognitive dissonance to overlook this and other unfortunate realities (Chinese rivers being the source of most ocean plastics, banned CFCs still widely used by Chinese manufacturers, etc.) and continue muddling along with the smoke stacks neatly hidden on the opposite side of the planet while chanting "we're the consumers!" That the blame is ascribed to the optimal criminal is sufficient and delivers all the solution required.
That sounds awesome. I haven't produced content in so long because I'm super particular about technical explanations and have to start over if I don't get it exactly right.
Anti-Pattern of the Day: Type Keys
Apple compares picture hashes against a db of known bad hashes.
>Getting to space[1] is easy. It's not, like, something you could do in your car, but it's not a huge challenge. You could get a person to space with a small sounding rocket the size of a telephone pole. The X-15 aircraft reached space[2] just by going fast and then steering up.[3]

Loved that line.
Puts the Branson/Bezos thing into perspective.
"Hypocrisy is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another or the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform."

RMS is as close to the opposite of hypocrite as it gets. He definitely practices what he preaches to the degree that he used a slow Loongson when he couldn't get an Intel machine with free BIOS, for example.

He might not act diplomatic, be way outside social norms, or not people-please, but that does not make him a hypocrite.
Apple already acquiesced to China in that manner, yes. They store all iCloud data in China and they gave the Chinese government the encryption keys.

This is a bit different in that they're scanning files on client devices, /not/ solely in the cloud.
A Fujitsu S1500 ScanSnap, dual-sided, document scanner (now discontinued, replacement might be the iX1600). Completely changed how I manage my personal documents (e.g. financial, invoices, receipts, product manuals, medical info, business docs, recreation and hobby stuff, etc). Anything remotely important, I scan to PDF, which triggers automatic OCR that is reasonably accurate, then I upload the PDF to Google Drive, which is organized into a hierarchy of folders.

Google Drive's internal search is not good enough when there are 100s of documents with similar titles, so I try to maintain a consistent naming convention "{yyyy-mm-dd} {summary of document}". Electronic documents (e.g. bank and credit card statements) are downloaded as PDF and uploaded to the same Google Drive folder hierarchy.

The originals go into a set of 12 file folders labeled "Jan" to "Dec". The folders become a ring buffer. Every month, I empty out the upcoming month, by shredding the originals from 12 months ago. I got rid of a 4-drawer filing cabinet by incrementally scanning the original paper documents over several weeks.

(Edit: fix typo)
I fail to see how this new "servant economy" isn't an improvement on the unskilled labor sector.

It's never been easier for someone who needs to work two jobs... to work two jobs; one with weekly hours and another you can do whenever is convenient. It has never been easier for a student to make some cash when it's convenient for them and with no weekly obligation.

These are improvements on jobs that already existed and new jobs altogether.

We should probably be focusing on how to provide more upward mobility and access to education instead of demonizing improvements to an economic sector which will always exist.
> Not to sound all doom and gloom, but I’m concerned about mass migrations from the developing world, which politicians will use to instigate fear of foreigners and further divide people.

I don't think they need to be used by politicians to create a divide. Currently in France we haven't been able to intergrate the last immigrations waves. I'm worried about what will happen if we get even more.
Beyond coupling and cohesion: strategies for un-fucking yourself
New drug combo shows early potential for treating pancreatic cancer
Buying an iPhone (and increasingly Mac) is like going to Disneyland: You pay a lot of money to be allowed in so you can pay them even more money. The experience is highly curated and controlled. At the end of the day, you are just a guest there and what you are or aren't allowed to do is determined by the company.

EDIT: And they have CCTV and undercover security officers everywhere. More than you can possibly imagine.
>Show me an economy where a significant number of people didn't have insecure incomes

Here in Germany and the 'German culture adjacent' countries (Switzerland/Austria/Benelux etc) that culture is still very much intact.

When you turn 16 you can pick up a vocational program in the very large and still healthy Mittelstand, and you have a steady career for your entire life, decent pay, without having to have pretty much any universe education.

The rat-race mentality and cultural divide into the 'cognitive class' and disenfranchised service work is not universal, it's a consequence of the de-industrialization that the Anglosphere in particular went through.
Fossil fuel companies getting PR to spin everything they can into trying to improve hydrogen's image.
If anyone is interested in this I highly recommend Longitude by Dava Sobel. It's about the creation of modern timekeepers by a carpenter with no training at all in watchmaking. Brilliant guy who created something which truly changed the world.
> Problem is that the devices are really really good

their devices are really good, but they come with so much crippling for the sake of the walled garden that their goodness is wasted in some fronts.

There's a large list of things they are (or can be with minimal effort) perfectly capable for, but are forbidden for reasons, like reverse wireless charge of other iphones / airpods.
If I could go out and buy a Google-free Android phone today, I would. Now that I no longer trust Apple with privacy doesn't mean I trust Google. Even less so, actually.

The alternative now is: no phone. Bye-bye Facebook and Instagram and Twitter and Snapchat and Candy Crush, etc. The mobile app market, and the advertising market, could fall apart if everyone did the same. The economy would be significantly impacted.

What a huge mistake.
I wonder if the author has ever visited any developing economy, where racial stratifications of literal servants (doing chores in the home of the masters) is the norm. For example, a huge portion of the migrate Filipino and Indonesian populations in Hong Kong work as full time household servants.

The stratification has nothing to do with venture capital. You could argue that VC money makes this industry less stable, and the lack of stability could have a negative impact on "servants", but that's an empirical prediction that I think is less compelling than the moralizing in the article.
Considering our primary assignment of value is not total carbon dumped but net change in carbon, the logical thing for any developing economy to do is to outrace all others in burning large amounts of fossil fuels and then cutting some percentage of them after some chosen threshold.

Since we don’t care about area under the curve, or the current y axis value, but only slope, I would optimize for dumping mondo CO2 for the next 25 years and then spend the remainder of humanity’s time lecturing everyone else on why they haven’t cut as much as me.
This is a CSS only 3d thing I did a while ago as an exercise. Its a bit buggy but still pretty neat
https://jaygles.github.io/city-block/
Yeah it kind of defeats the point when your definition of 'doesn't burn' covers every single substance.
He's making the point that an unstable underpayed job is not something anyone would want. It's a fair question to ask which jobs we want in our society and which not.

You probably would argue that "at least they have a job", but the jobs people have shapes the society we life in, stable, unstable, reasonably paid or not
Seiko's "spring drive" is a pretty cool innovation, though it's not purely mechanical.

I think at the very core of the issue is that mechanical watches are really art pieces at this point. Quartz watches are just cheaper and more reliable. So, if you wanting a watch for the pure utility of it all that's what you should be going for.
> people like that apple controls your iphone, and wouldn't buy one if the owner controlled it.

My guess is that this applies to about as many people as the opposite “wants to control their device” stance. Which is to say approximately nobody. Most users probably don’t think about these things much if at all. They want a smartphone that runs the expected smartphone apps and has the expected smartphone features, and do not care whether or not some nerd can install and run some apps they’ve never heard of on his own device.

I imagine, though, that most people would have an opinion one way or the other about phones snitching on their owners.
To be honest, this entire episode is starting to radicalize me.

Everything stallman has said about proprietary software is slowly coming true, and I must admit that now I’m reevaluating a lot of the technology in my life.
A worse but simpler solution:

Cram the keyboard end of a laptop between the headboard of a bed and the wall, rotate the display 180º in the OS settings, and plug in an external keyboard and mouse. Lie down in bed and compute.

Works okay except that strain is then offloaded either to your wrists if you have a regular keyboard (not like the OP has), or legs if you arch them underneath the keyboard.
-The airship would likely be the bottleneck; a 40ft shipping container may weigh anything up to approx. 30 metric tons.

You wouldn't be able to put many of those under an airship, hence you'd need a lot of rather space-hogging airships.
> But the US is worse when it comes to CO2 emmited per capita. That means that US should also be taxed.

China - as all nations - has a responsibility based on its population scale (ie its total emissions output), not just its per capita output. The total output matters far more than per capita, as we're dealing with a matter of planetary survival, not whether it's fair that Monaco has higher emissions output per capita than China.

Other nations are not responsible for China having those 1.4 billion people. China bears that responsibility. Other nations are obviously not responsible for the US having its per capita emissions output, either.

Estonia having 4x the per capita emissions output of the US wouldn't pose a terminal risk for the planet. And sure, maybe it's fair to argue a tax to incentivize per capita behavior of high per capita emissions nations. And what to do about China's total output risk, given it's going to destroy the planet (whereas smaller nations do not pose that risk)? The logical thing would be to apply taxes to both, in a way the keeps the planet from getting destroyed: it means China can never be allowed to have parity with smaller nations that have high per capita outputs.

China, with its 1.4 billion people, would pose a terminal risk for the globe if it reaches per capita emissions output parity with the US (actually it's already approaching that risk now, and it's merely half way to parity). Taxes don't mean much if half the planet is wrecked. China has a different responsibility than Estonia does given China can all by itself destroy the world with its emissions. I use Estonia merely as an example to highlight the point, very obviously the US has a responsibility as well based on its scale. Sure, we can focus a tax in on Estonia in that case, however it's by far not our most pressing matter.

China going from ~28% of global emissions to ~45%, is a very pressing matter. The globe can't afford China to increase at all at this point.

If a country had four billion people, it similarly wouldn't be reasonable for it to reach emissions parity with the US: it would kill everyone in doing so.

The equation of fairness must also consider the scale of the threat being posed, as it's also not fair if one outsized population nation gets to destroy the planet because it has 1.4 billion people. One can live in fantasy (where fairness means every nation gets equal emissions output per capita), or live in reality. In reality it matters how many people you have and what their per capita emissions are. Reality is course the dimension where we can all die from the emissions output of a nation the scale of China.
Not really. I had Oracle refuse to use the index written exactly for the query in question (select id from contracts where auth_status = 'U', with index on auth_status) because the planner decided that the index was useless (the statistics were gathered at night when the table contained no unauthorized records). But in Oracle you can use hints to force the planner to use the index, while in Postgres you can't.
20m is not normal. Look here, the top law firm makes 5m profit per partner https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_law_firms_by...
From linked xkcd what if: Gravity in low Earth orbit is almost as strong as gravity on the surface. The Space Station hasn't escaped Earth's gravity at all; it's experiencing about 90% the pull that we feel on the surface.
Floating point can be easily handled as long as the compiler says this is the way cte floats are handled irrespective of platform. It only gets harder if you must match the target platform. And even that could be pretty easily done with qemu for most platforms I'd wager.
It's not expensive to go to space because you have to go up. Going up into space is 'easy'.

It's expensive to stay in space because you have to go sideways, really, really fast. 8 km/s fast, in fact.
I second this. I sleep so much better with it on.
But I do need one with concavity, otherwise it hurts my eyes after a while.
1) You will usually pay short term capital gains tax every time you spend money. Note however that your taxes will only be a fraction of your gains, not your total assets. E.g. if you have $1,000 gains in a year and pay 35% short-term capital gains tax, you will make $650 post tax. If you have $0 gains, you will also pay $0 in tax.

You can configure which of your shares we will sell first. If you set this to Tax-Sensitive, we will sell shares with a low tax burden first, so if you have a greater inflow into your account than outflow, all the shares with a high tax burden will never be touched and they will eventually be classified as long-term capital gains.

2) Money market funds only allow you to invest in low risk/low reward securities. We allow you to invest a much broader set of securities (including bonds, stock, ETFs, etc).
Do not count on equity and do not trust the projections they gave to you.

If you want to switch to SWE, then grind leetcode and apply to some roles. If that doesn't work out, look into bootcamps and masters programs. You should be able to find one with night classes so you can keep your current job.

Also FWIW, "just be a SWE at a cool startup" sounds incredibly naive. What makes a startup cool? Why would that fulfill you? I would reflect more on what you want out of life and stop drinking the startup life kool aid.