skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I have not claimed you can "learn Go over the weekend". Not in a deeper sense where you could expect to design large projects and take the right decisions.

But you can get a pretty good basic Go intro in a few days and be pretty productive after that. It isn't that different from most languages and has a rather small core. Of course, it helps if you have Scheme experience, to understand all the power of high order functions etc.
This not only applies to "it" but also to other jargon-y words that are used a lot in a single discussion. If you find that a single word is used disproportionally often in a discussion, it's almost always worth it to take a step back and ensure that everyone in the discussion has a shared (clear!) understanding of what that word means.
Reading bullshit like this article makes me realize why Joshua Fluke's YouTube channel is so popular.

The jig is up. People aren't fooled any longer by corporate bullshit, and it's none too soon in my opinion.
Horizontal Gene Transfer in Vertebrate
On a VPN you are probably getting an IP address out of a pool. Maybe somebody else at your uni ran a sci-hub proxy.
> I thoroughly believe the road to hell is paved by matching users based on metrics such as projected compatibility or similar interests.

I have an anecdotal data point against this: my ex found her current husband on OKCupid, based on their question system.

Their questions ask what YOUR answer is, as well as what you want your MATCH to answer. Additionally, there is some leeway (you can choose multiple acceptable answers) and different importance levels for questions.

They have been married for 4 years, and I believe online dating can work.
Ditto. When lockdown cease the contagion will spread much more widely. Everyone will be exposed to some of it. What matters are fewer critical conditions and less spread from vaccinated.
A family doesn't fire you when economic circumstances change.

I see too many people whose core identity was the place where they worked. When they got laid off, they became extremely depressed.
Newsflash: no one wants to work with an antivaxxer and breathe your germs all day. Employers can, have, and should enforce vaccination requirements.
The loss of the concept of surplus value or wage share of production from basic economic knowledge is a tragedy.
This is because CFF is mainly built to support the software citation principles [1], where it is argued (rightly so, if you ask me) that software is important enough to be cited in its own right.

Also, there will likely be no new paper for each version of software, so if you want to cite the version you have used in your work (e.g. towards reproducibility), the paper may be useless.

[1]: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.86
> I am connected to the university via VPN

So likely someone else on your uni did something to trigger the alert. contact your uni to work with the publisher to fix it.
That's why the web is so important. When the proprietary platforms get the upper hand you get eg. Apple taking a 50% cut off revenue in their news app.
>> I wonder if it would have survived into the modern era

No. The roman bridges, the ones still up, lasted so long because they were ridiculously overbuilt. The romans lacked a full understanding and so made everything far stronger than we now know is necessary. Even with a millennia of weathering and erosion they still have more than enough strength to remain standing. Da Vinci's bridge design is more efficient and uses less material. It spreads a similar load on a lesser amount of material. If using the same materials as the romans (stone) it would not last the centuries because it would have less reserve strength to lose to weathering.
That is Betteridge's law. Personally I believe it could also be 'we don't know'. In all other cases the headline would be different (an affirmative statement).
When I started programming in Go after a decade of Java[1], I found it painful to not code without generics but then over the past couple of years I've become used to it.

I understood the philosophy of Go and why it didn't have generics or may be I'm just convincing myself of that because I'm invested in it. I think when you accept the philosophy of something you already get coupled into it.

I don't really have an opinion about Go bringing in generics, I would use every time saving feature available in a programming language. On the other hand I really hope additions like these doesn't become a point of friction among those who really have an opinion, Especially those who have been contributing to Go and end up forking Go.

[1] https://abishekmuthian.com/i-had-to-let-go-of-java/
Can you guys get your head out of your ass. We need one payment app. One messaging app
I kinda want to congratulate you on never encountering the sort of person you immediate and strongly dislike within 10 minutes of meeting them for the first time.

I know everyone has an off day some time, but I literally had job interview video calls before where my prospective boss asked me questions, then interrupted my answers 10 words in, for 20 minutes straight.
Teach you the foundations and grunt work?
The law is interpreted according to different standards over time. NPR has a really interesting 3 part podcast series that explains how antitrust laws have been applied over time. Marketshare was the significant metric at one time but more recent judges have used impact/harm to consumers based on price. Under recent case law, if the consumer is still able to get the good cheaply, you can basically own the entire market.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/03/20/704426033/anti...
Didn't they make the 500€ note basically just for fraud and money laundering? Only half joking here.
Something doesn't add up, and I think it's the author not being able to perceive the problem here.

For example, OpenPilot seems to be very comfortable with Level 2 driver assist, and so do their customers - and their position seems to be make driving "chill", like you're commuting more relaxed because the car is doing the boring stuff, yet you need to be present to make some decisions.

So clearly this is solving a problem for a lot of people.

What people need to understand is that if you don't understand these products, then maybe they aren't meant for you - and that's OK!

They are not trying to please everyone, yet that doesn't mean there's not a problem being solved for some.
> Google and Apple compete against each other, so there is no monopoly.

They effectively have a monopoly over their customers from other customers and can leverage that monopoly to control their vendors.

And Google and Apple secretly working together as "one company" literally defines trust behavior:

'After another meeting between Apple and Google senior executives, notes showed that the execs agreed: "Our vision is that we work as if we are one company."'
Often relevant:
http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
This is really interesting but I'm highly skeptical. I'm not sure we're given enough information to really get at why they're getting the results they are.

They report that if A-C have a non-trivial conversation and B-C have a non trivial conversation, then A-B have a "true-negative rate" of 78% of having a trivial conversation, by which I interpret a 78% over the base line of having A-B have a trivial conversation. The fact that it's so heavily biased against having a non-trivial conversation seems like it should be a huge red flag.

How are they conducting the study? Are they informing participants A and B that they're being matched because they've had a non-trivial interaction with C? Is it random?

If they are being informed and it turns out that there is a gender component to it, then that might be a big piece of the puzzle in that jealousy and competition start to come into play. Also, if gender is a big factor, then that might inform a "3-chain" collaborative filtering method in that if M0-F0 have a non-trivial interaction, M0-F1 have a non trivial interaction, M1-F0 have a non trivial interaction, then maybe M1-F1 have a higher chance of having a non trivial interaction.

I think psychologists call these "confounding factors"? They get a massively strong signal of something but then disregard and and say "doesn't work for us". Something's going on, it's be nice to dig deeper into what it is instead of dismissing it offhand.
المحيط
These insects don’t protect anything, mosquitos and tsetse flies haven’t been a valid reason to avoid settling an area since the Colombian Exchange. It isn’t difficult to drain a marsh.

Any precious little swamp (where all the wondrous animals within are also being preyed upon by mosquitoes & eg tsetse flies) is still going to be drained if it makes economic sense, and it typically does!

The only place where mosquitoes and tsetse flies protect “habitats” are in the most backwater, poorest, least developed regions of the planet where all the millions of deaths are as well, it figures their lives don’t matter/can be taken advantage of in the name of “nature”.
> Uber and Lyft threatened to leave the state if voters rejected the measure.

Let them. Who cares, what a self important tantrum
I recall advice once that you should think of co-workers as teammates rather than family.

- A family should accept you no matter what

- A team requires you to make the cut

Both have comradery, the latter accounts for contributions to the group
So, there you have it, there's a known risk. Now how about unknown risks, which is what the original commenter was talking about?

My point is simply that lying and saying there are "no risks" to the vaccine is a recipe for disaster. Let's tell the truth.

Nobody has said the risks are comparable.
>>There is no reason unions have to represent a subset of the labor force. They could very well be spread to almost all of it.

Unions would provide no benefit to their members if they negotiated collectively for the national workforce. It's the zero-sum rent-seeking that they engage in that benefits their members, when they force an employer to negotiate with the subset of the workforce that they represent, to the exclusion of all other workers.

>>100 000$ in New York is not at all unreasonable for many public sector workers

$100,000 a year puts you almost in the top 10% of income earners. When you add monetary value of the intangible benefit of being almost impossible to fire, I think we can reasonably class all ~300,000 as being in the top 10% of income earners.

>>Public sector workers, especially highly educated ones, in general always lean left-wing.

It's in their financial interest, as left-wing political ideology encourages more spending on social programs, which unions convert to compensation for public sector workers. Unionized public sector workers are the dominant political faction in advanced economies, and are responsible for, and benefit from, this trend:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-long...
> A quick search reveals a torrent of BibTex CVEs [1].

Is this a joke?
Right -- but of course you're bringing up the HUGER issue of "what is racism?" - where the binary of "racist" or "not racist" is hugely deficient and frequently unhelpful.

The easiest way I can think to explain it: e.g. Any white person who openly calls me the n-word is very likely a harmless loser to me.

More likely to harm me and others; a more powerful person who's intelligent enough not to use it, but may wield language strategically, like perhaps while trying to get elected, denigrates the black opponent by saying "let's not monkey this up." That person might actually like black people, and was being strategic to get racists votes through the dog-whistle, since they have plausible deniability.

The second guy feels "less racist," right? BUT HE'S MUCH WORSE THAN THE FIRST GUY in my opinion.
"technology accretes even if the quality of the average worker is declining across time."

I cannot fathom how you possibly write this - surely you cannot be claiming that dumber and dumber workers develop better and better technology, or technology is some independent quantity that develops without human intervention, like a divine gift of some sort?

"a lower skilled person in a later period can still outproduce a higher skilled person in a previous period."

The last bloke operating the machine doesn't produce anything on his own, you have to compare the whole value chain, including the folks making the leather, making the tools and machines, etc. I am sure the old process includes plenty of people doing unskilled groundwork, although I would not bet my house on which way the dice would fall
That practically requires wifi. In some scenarios you might have wired internet only.
> Reported your comment for misinformation, this is untrue.

What does this even mean? We are in a discussion forum! If you have the evidence to the contrary, please post it. This is how people are educated, not by "reporting misinformation." Dang has enough to deal with already.
Sampling 3rd dose after two weeks would be statistically insignificant and not enough time to record stats from sickness.
It's great that you like playing with computers, languages, etc. Nobody is minimizing that. But, many people who see a new computer language want to know what is unique about it.

It is completely valid to ask, "why should I use Janet (the language)?" Many people are familiar with or expert with many programming paradigms and have written their own DSLs or general purpose languages. Others are expert in fields that intersect with languages and want to know if there is specific applicability to their domain.

Seeing a new language that doesn't solve a unique problem or solve a problem in a novel way is often a complete non-starter. For that reason, many people expect a page on a new language to state the purpose of the language, even if the purpose is, "I wanted to play with writing a langauge." That's cool, too.

I'm pretty sure that is why several people have asked that question.
Been there, got the t-shirt.

Ironically the one person that leant the most on the 'family' is the last person standing, having personally seen off the entire group one by one over a 12 month period of time. It turns out the old timer who 'doesnt need the money anymore' will chuck plenty of young peoples careers under the bus to keep on getting paid.

That said I dont regret jumping on a plane with them at 10 minutes notice and flying across the country to help get them home when their kid died suddenly.
I fail to see what any of this has to do with reflection.

> any script interpreter

What are you even talking about.

> or management RPC server

I would very much expect RPC endpoints to be opted in explicitly and statically.

> or other languages’ FFI?

I fail to see why Go-level reflection would be involved in that in any capacity.

> What good are top-level functions

You can call them? From your go code?

Are you saying rust or C can't be because they don't have reflection? That's a strange position.
That is why we need trustless / censorship resistant platforms like “regular” web or the yet to be proven web 3 (led by ethereum)
It takes them six paragraphs to get to the relationship between oxygen and water?!?
Integrating Pocket to Firefox and showing the trending news on new tabs is one of the best decisions Mozilla has ever made.

I gets me the news I like, from the sources I trust. Has anyone checked out how much of it is personal recommendation based on the saves or is it just majority of Firefox/Pocket users share common interests?
Even that has problems. You might get into too much detail very fast.

Take the above examples on explaining something about git. It will depend immensely on what you need to explain and what you don't need to explain on what the context is and what you can assume is already known or not. This can work well enough if you have something self contained to document and you are the one documenting the whole thing. It falls apart quickly as things get larger and as more people work on it.

Pre-requisite reading that you assumed the reader went through before and "knows" are moved or slightly re-written. There are multiple paths to get to the part of the docs you're writing, some of which don't explain everything. Readers skip ahead because the pre-reqs are boring or over explaining some details they don't need or already know but that makes them miss the one important thing that they didn't know but is required for your part. If you re-explain it, your part might become this boring, skip-ahead part of the docs.

There are obviously techniques that can help with this, such as pointing towards pre-requisite documentation on a particular topic in case someone doesn't know already etc. Basically doing what you said, in a structured way with hyperlinks. In my experience, most documentation writers don't know how to do this properly/don't know the subject well enough and most developers that would know enough of the nitty gritty don't want to write documentation in the first place. There are just some very few (like you I presume) that are both good at this and like it. And many places won't let you do a good job of it, because you're supposed to be coding, not writing documentation for days.
Snap: A microkernel approach to host networking (2019)
Different times. Today we have more alternatives. iOS users have windows and hundreds of linux distros from which to choose. Back in 2001 there weren't any real alternatives to windows and so it was under greater scrutiny. The walled garden of iOS is a choice rather than a prison. Apple can get away today with things that Microsoft could not in the past. Times change.
That is cool! Other commentators were asking about good use cases, and living in Cosmopolitan seems to fit the bill.

I like the language, except I have never liked the “low parenthesis” Common Lisp loop/for macros, which Janet’s “for” loop reminds me of. Pardon the stylistic nit-pick.
> I have reported your comment for misinformation.

I seriously hope this is a kind of meme and you guys are just kidding.
I may be mistaken, but Teslas Dojo chip still seems to be relatively small. They can connect many of them into a 2D fabric, though.

Cerebras still seems to have an advantage here, because they can use on-chip interconnects, which potentially allows higher bandwidth between the tiles.
Ah yes, good point.
The person who wrote this is my spirit animal.
I think the poster was thinking it would make Google a clear monopoly, making an anti-trust case easier to pursue.
So your argument is about who could overrule who, but that is a secondary question.

General rule of thumb, if the constitution says "x has complete the power to do y", and you aren't x, your attempt to do so is unconstitutional even if x could simply overrule you.

At the federal level, you see this play out in things like the "dormant commerce clause" - States don't have the power to regulate interstate commerce. Sometimes they try in spaces where congress hasn't acted yet. Congress doesn't have to explicitly overrule them, they are simply unconstitutional in the first place.
It's not your power to play with.

You also see it play out in congress trying to regulate for the general welfare (a power reserved to states).

In this case, if the constitution says "the legislature gets to decide who has workers comp", and they decided, and you attempt to adjust that, that's probably unconstitutional.

The 100% normal thing that would happen is a court would sever it and say "to the degree the statute tries to adjust who gets workers comp, that part is null and void ". It's just that here, the statute explicitly says "if that provision is found unconstitutional, the whole statute should be struck down". So the court did.

One side thing to keep in mind, because it often plays into these things later - when a court finds a statute unconstitutional, they are finding that it was always unconstitutional from day 0, not just moving forward. In such cases, it is considered "void ab initio" - it is like it never existed.

So assuming this holds up, the next thing that will happen is a bunch of folks will then come and file cases about what they should have gotten in the intervening time period.

(void ab initio in practice is becoming harder to manage, and arguably being moved away from, but ..)
Maybe they aren't competing, but merely simulate competition in many markets. Why isn't the app-store-tax getting lower through heavy competition?

In many cases, it looks like there's some mutual competition-simulation going. Google launches Google+ to pretend Facebook isn't the only social network, Microsoft launches Bing so Google can say "we don't have a monopoly on search", Google finances Firefox to say the same about browsers, Apple creates Apple Maps to pretend Google Maps has competition etc, but they always seem to put in no more than the minimum effort required.

Of course, they could be honestly trying to compete and they just suck at doing those things their competitors do really well. It just looks suspicious, and quotes like that add weight to that impression.
I completely understand what you mean.
Just showing up in person by itself (with a stored photograph and maybe audio recording) is a pretty high barrier.
Based on this previous case Apple isn't violating the law because they also sold the hardware.
> since bash is not up to the task

What do you mean by this? You can write safe shell scripts; it just takes discipline and learning how to correctly write them.

There are a lot of pitfalls but it isn't that hard if people actually learned the language.

Edit: to clarify discipline meaning always doing things correctly and never taking shortcuts. For example, you must use:

while IFS= read -r || [[ "${REPLY}" ]]; do ((X++)); done < <(command)

If you want to loop over lines in a file. Don't use for loops, don't pipe to while, etc. It may be verbose but it won't be buggy
I think most people do. That's people you see all the time you are bound to develop some kind of relationship with them.

I regularly still see at least one person from all of my previous jobs and have regular friendly interaction with more.

It seems weird to me that you can spend so much time at work and not find friends there.
Not even that, really. He predates the pendulum by just about a century (and I mean Galileo's discovery of its regularity, not Huygens' employment of it). Sure, there was verge-and-foliot in limited number in cathedrals and monasteries, but common clockwork - Nuremberg eggs and that sort of thing - came along shortly after Leonardo went away. Sundials and water clocks were the order of the day in Leonardo's time.
From what I understand, both Tesla and Cerebras use TSMC’s on-wafer fan out technology.
I presume in this scenario you would have multiple keys and multiple backup accounts, so fallback to a likewise secured account is reasonable.
Benefits of Not Using an IDE
> If you're referring to map[K]V, that's not true. Go doesn't have generics, it uses some compiler magic under the hood specifically for the map type [0].

They're not generic (aka userland) generics, but they're still generics: parametric types, and functions able to work on them generically (you don't have a separate `append` function for every type you might put in a slice).

> The generics proposal is being implemented from the ground up.

Of course it is, the builtins are ad-hoc and half-assed. That doesn't mean they ain't a thing.
According to the article, there is no accepted definition of "sixth generation".

Pretty gutsy to embark on a multi billion project with a goal like this.