skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Sure, except your story doesn't any explanatory power for unusual modern day behavior, so it's not actually that beautiful.

Sure it does. The explanatory power is that not all human traits have a strong impact on evolutionary fitness, either on the individual level, or on the social level.

Unless conclusively demonstrated otherwise (which a story composed post-facto is not), this is all meaningless noise.

The first thing about knowing something is being clear about the limitations of that knowledge. Just-so stories have no such limitation, which is why they come up so often as unfalsifiable nonsense. They can explain everything and anything, and therefore, explain nothing. All they are is a vehicle for repeating the biases of the storyteller.
Wouldn't this kill the phone's ability to receive notifications? I don't think apps can just poll their servers like it's 2010 anymore.
So you swallow any BS in your own country and feel good just because it is worse in China? That's some really high bar you've got.
Mine doesn’t. It’s ostensibly expected that a backup is going to send your data somewhere. I don’t use iCloud backups for that reason. Also, some iCloud backup data is e2ee. The document it here: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303
Others have recommended Advanced Testing With Go [1]. I haven't personally watched it, but Mitchell Hashimoto writes clean code.

But if you'd like I'd be happy to take a look at some of the problems you're encountering. I'm @alecthomas on the Gophers Slack or Twitter, feel free to DM me. No guarantees, but it sounds very unusual for an additional test to consume 15 minutes of setup.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hQG7QlcLBk
In theory, their design makes sense: separating the component pieces makes it easier to adapt to different systems/scenarios, it allows you to more succinctly map out the architecture (and hopefully simplify interfaces), you have that whole testing framework you can use on the individual pieces, etc.

The problem is with implementation. The more you separate components, the more code you have to add to allow them to interoperate. The more code, the more complexity. The more complexity, the more bugs. In addition, when you continue to separate components out into new failure domains that have a higher probability of failure ("3 components running on 1 node" -> "3 components running on 3 separate nodes") you increase the chances of problems even more. So, while the design looks nice in theory, and I'm sure they have some wonderful reports about how thorough their test framework is, in practice it might be a tire fire (depending on how it's actually used).

Some people are going to go, "I've been using this in production for a year, it's rock solid!" Well, people said that about Riak, until they wanted to set it on fire when they found out how buggy the implementation was at actually handling various errors and edge cases, and that they each had to hire dedicated Riak programmers just to fix all its problems. You can make large-scale Riak clusters work "at scale" if you hire enough on-call to constantly fight fires and monkey-patch the bugs and juggle clusters and nodes and repair indexes, and hand-wave outages and flaws as due to some other issue ("the cluster was completely hosed and had to be recovered from backup because the disks got corrupted and a node went down and a network partitioned all at once, it's not Riak's fault").

(looking at this HN thread, it seems like my assumption may be correct: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27424605)
Children of the Sky was incredibly disappointing. Fire and Deepness are packed full of great ideas. Children has none.
Are you telling me that its an unsolved problem in aero industry whose entire tracking mostly dependa on radar and it doesn’t work with non moving objects?
That doesnt make any sense to me, I mean how is a static image more superior to, say a metric that has accurate angle and distance.
My daughter is named after one of Vinge's characters! Big fan of his work.
It always makes me laugh that dead bodies are a common vision on US media, but a nipple is something that makes people throw up their hands in horror.
Assuming the parent is being genuine in asking for help, I don't think is a very constructive response.
I don't believe that a successful product operates in some magical realm where the operators just don't know how it works. I'm sure it's complex but it's probably very well laid out and managed complexity.

An opaque system cannot be changed or improved upon. But yet, we see that Google Search changes every now and then with different methods of indexing and new features that bring relevant content to the top. Its evolving, which means that there are people who understand the system enough to effect change.
Just because it happens in nature doesn't mean it's OK for us to make it happen in more places. If you've ever been to the beach around that oil seep you'd know it sucks to get the tar on you or your surfboard. We don't need more.
The funny part is that Apple (unlike google) refused to respond to Leithman's numerous requests for comment/clarification but then is happy to have their PR trash the accuracy of the paper to journalists.
Renewable Energy Paradox: Solar Panels and Their Toxic Waste
How could the free market determine the money supply?
Cool stuff. Come back with part 2
When they save of bunch of taxes they have done what’s in the best interest of the company
How do you tell the difference between a joke and a compression crank?
> but the not-so-public track record since has demonstrated their absolute willingness to lick the boots of virtually every government whose citizens impact their top line materially.

Is there any public information that supports this claim?
You wouldn't have to be an exceptional programmer to figure this out. Your average user was much more accustomed to operating software like this at that time and may have been writing the software out of sheer necessity; most of them probably didn't understand what they were getting themselves into.
The Peace War is okay but oddly enough in this case the sequel Marooned in Realtime is much better IMHO. Much more thought-provoking and genuinely moving.
What Investors Saw in Ozy Media
Looks interesting! Is there anything other than a full PDF on this?
> No, it's highlighting a previously unlooked feature.

That would be a marketing pivot... which is precisely what the original commenter suggested.
I wrote a post explaining FDB as well, which got retweeted by @FoundationDB https://mobile.twitter.com/aptxk1d/status/141786976657708237...

My post focuses on the correctness, proof of the correctness of FDB’s failure recovery, some of which is missing even from the paper itself.

Some of the paper authors reached out; and I corrected one issue on my blog post pointed out by one of the authors.
I don't think that's accurate if we're talking about large publicly listed companies, the only way for shareholders to spend the money on themselves is to take it out via dividends or sell the stock for a capital gain.
It depends on what you are comfortable and familiar with and what your business related goals and deadlines are.

TypeScript in the long run is better as it will help ensure that the data flowing through your application is consistent, however, there is an upfront cost to learning to work with types that is not trivial. It will initially slow things down as you grapple with the stricter syntax and the tooling around it. For POCs if you are not an experienced programmer, this will likely add a lot of friction. Keep in mind though that when your application reaches a certain level of complexity, the cost of not having TS starts to exceed the cost of using TS. A good rule of thumb I go by is to try to pick up 1 new technology per project/sub-project. Hope this helps!
They have numerous private keys precisely because of leakage risk. In that case only one (or two) of them will get leaked (and then hopefully revoked), leaving the others intact.
Isn't there a frequency difference between natural "leakage" and man-made disasters like this? Naturally occurring events made be damaging but happen at less frequency.
Are there any recent third-party Android ROMs (without any Google services) which send little or no telemetry data?
Yes, that’s a fair reading. I would add that it’s vitally important for the journalists to get the ‘acute’ part right, being mindful of media cycles etc, to properly establish the the leak in the public record and in the minds of relevant parties such as investigators and other journalists. But yes, the real work gets done in the years following. It’s lots of work by lots of people on lots of boring things. It won’t be cinematic. There won’t be a catharsis.

Wikipedia has an article on outcomes from the 2016 Panama Papers [1]. Lots of boring things.

I see what you mean about whiggish (good word). But well, I do think it is more or less inevitable that there will be outcomes that certain people don’t want, otherwise they wouldn’t have been trying to hide their finances from regulators. And I would speculate those outcomes will probably be pretty positive, if added up together, such that the journalists and whistleblowers involved in the leak should feel immensely proud. But my main point is that the extent of general public outrage over the original data leak is irrelevant to how positive the eventual outcomes will turn out to be.

In which ways do you think it was brighter on this front in the past?

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_Panama_Pape...
I’m worried it won’t. There are an awful lot of people enthusing about how novice-friendly it is, who don’t seem to worry about wasting experts’ time rereading noisy boilerplate (which an expert should have abstracted out and generated instead).
The syntax is not so unconventional compared to, say, modern javascript:

({ pkgs }) => { deps: [ pkgs.cowsay ] }

or python:

lambda pkgs: { deps: [pkgs.cowsay] }

I guess really the question is why create a new language rather than using an existing one? The language needed to be functional, lazy, and good at managing packages, and not much else. I guess they felt that no existing language fits the bill (Haskell does I guess but it's got a lot of baggage). I can't claim to know much about its history.
There is almost no point in buying an ecosystem-dependant device and then trying to cut off the ecosystem dependency. This goes for iOS and Android alike.

In some ways, even cellular connectivity itself is problematic or any baseband system that requires some form of out-of-band processing to function (even if it doesn't "call home").

Most people won't know (or care) about any of this anyway, and the disruption trade for some invisible gains that are supposed to come out of unplugging like this isn't likely to attract any reasonable mass of users to do it. It would probably be mostly destructive anyway considering the information flow of civilisation depends on so much of this integration now.

Technically we could do without all of this, but practically it would be luddite's errand to try and do any this.

I wonder what we could do instead, but considering the min-maxing for profit sets the stage today, I doubt someone can come up with an alternative that yields the same (perceived) benefit from using Google's or Apple's technologies.

Considering most new people from the past few years are primarily mobile users and a lot of those never even had access to (or a need for) a desktop-like type computing, there is very little mindshare about what else might be possible in the digital realm.
urban planning in other european cities has failed massively the past 20 years. i don’t know about paris but it probably will go the same way. it has become impossible to get around and do anything productive in cities like this. large open spaces have been put in, and urban planners thought it would increase the liveability of these cities. large construction companies have made lots of money with these idiotic projects, and these spaces enabled mugging, theft, harassment, rape and other crimes at night, by certain layers of the population. the narrow streets have furthermore made it difficult for law enforcement and first responders to get to a scene. all of these just for the ego of some idiotic failed architects who joined the government urban planning offices where they can enact and force their ludicrous ego centered plans and visions onto the population, without needing any kind of approval from those who live and work there.
Yeah, it has gotten bad in that regard. Sunday morning shows is probably the least amount of 'book for sale' moments, but they are still there.
Sure, and I agree that sex scenes aren't inherently more complex / difficult to film than fight scenes (caveats around CGI, green screen, etc complexities that are more likely required in the latter).

As intimated though, the challenge is keeping China happy - there's been a constant series of articles about this phenomenon.

Beyond the acceptance of ultra-violence along with a distaste for sexuality, consider all the political hand-wringing that led Disney to the Iron Man 3 fracas. [0] Or informed their decisions around promoting any films with a non-white protagonist. [1] But really, any web search on 'how are the chinese market cuts of marvel films different' will get you a slew of results.

Aside - about 15 years ago, while in Hong Kong, I picked up a bootleg DVD of Love Actually (a highly popular, but arguably shite, film). Turned out that the local cut of that film excised every appearance of Martin Freeman & Joanna Page.

[0] https://screenrant.com/iron-man-3-china-version-different-sc...

[1] https://qz.com/quartzy/1231764/the-story-behind-the-racist-r...
> So, it's not that the economy is incomprehensible but it's structure changes and so it's structure can't be captured by pure economic theory.

This reminded me of General Relativity and the problem of unifying it with Quantum Mechanics. QM is defined on a fixed background, while GR says that background is dynamic.

Seems we need the Quantum Gravity version of economic theory, which tells you how interactions happen in a dynamic background.
Interview, what it was like to run a London hospice as Covid struck
Super cool concept, thanks for sharing!
Would a transparent HTTPS proxy be able to intercept traffic (once you install the certificate on the phone), or are the certificates pinned?
Reasons to use a database:

* to save data
* to query data with SQL
Because of inflation and population growth, this is what you would expect.
In this case, gas == petrol, not natural gas.
In all fairness, these rigs probably predate the great increase in population in OC. I doubt NIMBYs would go for this nowadays.
Did Facebook take credit for the Arab Spring? I remember at the time Twitter (and its SMS accessibility) both taking and being given credit (and blame, from different quarters), but other social media (Facebook, Google something or other, etc.) I remember getting mostly “also vaguely involved” mentions more than credit/blame.
> Babashka is a tool you can use inside existing shells like bash and it is designed to play well with them. It does not aim to replace them.
> or ship Task<T> as class instead of struct like C#

Required reading: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/understanding-the-whys...

------

This isn't as-big a problem as you'd think: The CLR has internal magic that will memoize/intern certain common Task<T> results, e.g. `Task<Int32>` for Result values between 0 and 100, for example. And a compiler-generated async method that returns `Task` will use the `static Task.CompletedTask` singleton instance.

While the runtime cost of GC heap allocations is now coming under scrutiny as the current main performance factor, we shouldn't be irrationally averse to Gen 0 allocations on the order of hundreds of objects per second: that's all well-within the means of a computer made in the past 10 years, and when you use a modern concurrent background GC with a CPU with more than a couple of cores (i.e. literally every machine made in the past 7-8 years) it's nothing to worry about.

Remember that a Task<T> is used to represent a relatively expensive operation, such as IO or a background thread job, - and in the course of the computer completing that IO or job it's going to do many things orders-and-orders of magnitude more expensive than allocating a small Gen 0 object for the Task<T>.

There is a struct equivalent of Task<T> as well: ValueTask<T>, which is intended for high-throughput async operations. Of course using ValueTask<T> only makes sense when T itself is also a value-type, and what kind of practical async operations need to return hundreds-of-thousands of value-type values in an async loop? Very, very few, in my estimation. The official guidance I've read is that the people who think they "need" ValueTask<T> probably don't need it.

Also, given that a Task<T> is essentially a mutable view of some linear process it means that Task<T> needs to be a reference-type so the latest state is directly accessible to the Task<T>'s consumers. A value-type obviously cannot do that, which is why ValueTask<T> can only be `await`ed once otherwise it throws.
https://archive.is/tQwE9
The free market always determines the money supply, that’s not the issue. Money is created when banks make loans and is destroyed when loans are repaid. The problem is sometimes this mechanism breaks down during a banking crisis and turn get deflation or it balloons in a speculative bubble and you get inflation.
Wasn’t TU-144 just a pissing contest entry with retrofitted engines of another aircraft?
And Boeing 2707 quickly scrapped?
Only Concorde ever saw the light of commercial operations.
It was truly limited by its technology, of that date.
And post 9/11 situation sealed its fate, its had one fatality in 20 years, its already better than 747 max by that metric.
There is no point in saying Supersonic is impossible, things changed a lot in last few years. Having computer monitors instead of a dedicated flight engineer with gazillion dials and Fly by wire, it can be much more optimised now. Boom just needs to make a working jet, and it would definitely revolutionise aviation again.
In the US, at least, the IRS takes a very dim view of this. Nearly all of it would be considered imputed income and would be taxable.
That's exactly how we made my high-school newspaper. Then about 1987, when I was a junior, the first day of Journalism class we walked into the room and discovered our world had changed forever. There were now two Macintosh computers (one with a gigantic 20MB hard drive).

We'd stepped into the future.
I understand the sentiment, but in this case it's more like, neighborhoods built around oil derricks. Go look up pictures of HB from the early 20's. It was all farmland until oil was discovered, the city came later, with the first developments being built in the 50's. Just about every house in the city along the coast sits atop a capped well.
But afaik all the airplanes used for the earliest demonstrations of airmail were privately funded/constructed. The minimum viable airplane for airmail was within grasp of skilled fabricators working out of their garages; the big government contracts came later. This is world's apart from scramjet tech.
My companies fired 2 PhD’s. They were super smart, understood all the leading research results etc. but had no clue how to turn theory into practice. Theory is not practice.
I am a solutions architect for one of the cloud providers. Pre-COVID, in-person meetings were the vast majority - and most were me travelling to the customer. While, often, that was a walk or Uber across the centre of town - it also, all too often, was getting on a plane for like a 1-2hr meeting.

So, what happens from here with my job has the added complexity of "will the customer both be in the office AND want me to visit them". In some cases customers have been in the office but they have banned anybody external from coming in. In others some of the staff are there but then some aren't - and so since some will be on VC anyway it is almost better for me to VC with them to ensure an equal experience. And, actually, I have found the more senior/tenured somebody technical at the customer is the more likely it is that they'll be the ones WFH and on the VC - with the more junior in the office - and so properly catering to the remote staff is usually the better call.

Our office was VERY open plan with staff jammed in like sardines with no assigned desks (we have lockers) and was designed to be a stop-over between customer site visits. So much so that they had to limit capacity at 50% with COVID to give people a bit of space between each other. And so, ultimately whether I can work from home is dependent on what the customers want - as going to our office and taking back-to-back VC calls in open plan is kind of dumb.

Before this last lockdown in Australia I was going in one day a week to have lunch & coffees & beers with my colleages - as I did miss that. The internal stuff. But one day a week was really enough for that as long as all the people who I wanted to hang out with standardised on the same day of the week.

I am not really sure which way it'll go. Will customers be in a big hurry for me to go to them - especially if it means I am on a plane of potentially infected people, get in a Uber and take it right into their office? As much as I do miss the magic that sometimes happens when everybody gathers around a whiteboard - I really hope not...

Speaking of that - I am surprised how a couple years into this the remote collaboration/whiteboarding stuff really hasn't improved. We all should have iPads with Apple Pencils and be able to get close-is to that in-person white boarding by now?
If enough sites started to do this, google would stop respecting it. This isn't blocking google from indexing, it's asking google not to index..
Interesting ideas - any place one could learn more on how to think like this? Ie books or ? Basically How did you manage to get it to this simple statement, which seems intuitively correct when so much macro economics I’ve tried to read seem like obvious nonsense
Somewhat disturbed by this article. It feels almost like the author's purpose might be to justify further monetizing the debt, so they don't have to address the inflation problem by tighter monetary policy. I hope I'm wrong here.
I always thought the problem was intractable and related to just ... moving through the atmosphere at that speed induces a lot of drag. Has there been any sort of major breakthrough that would change that?

I guess you could always fly at a much higher altitude (with its own problems) but it all seems motivated by, well, prestige as you put it. Like, I have a hard time believing it'll ever be more economical (as a commodity/for the market), environmentally friendly, profitable (for the operator), or just more practical than transsonic flight. The only advantage seems to be bragging rights, and the ability to cross great distances really quickly for an elite few.
One thing I’ve never been able to figure out with FoundationDB is how to deploy it and a good list of layers for various use cases (SQL, document store, etc.)
"Reitit is a fast data-driven router for Clojure(Script)."

"Fast" is good. "Clojure(Script)" lets me know I can use it on the browser side. "Data-driven" is useless, it is not telling me anything in a homoiconic environment where code is data and data is code.

If it wasn't data driven and I needed it I would write just one probably small macro and be able to translate a data structure to the right calls and get the same effect.
Very cool list.

I made a 67 server runtimes that has some overlap and some other PaaS services like Northflank https://twitter.com/sytses/status/1400134840754733059?s=21
Why do you want to build “cutting edge stuff”? Honest question. Is it to prove yourself to the world? Out of interest? I am asking because 99.9% of real problems that customers are happy to pay large $ for is not cutting edge. Cutting edge is called cutting edge because it has sharp bits and you will bleed.