skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don't, and I don't care.

Productivity comes and goes. If I feel good, I'm productive naturally. If I've got a reason to be motivated, I'll be productive. Otherwise I might not be that great.

I have standards which are above what others, including managers, expect of me. I don't communicate these to anyone, in fact I don't have them written down. These are so internalized that I get anxious about failing them, in the same way I might about a deadline. This is where I get my motivation.

Motivation is fickle. The longer I've fallen back onto standards and motivation the greater the chance of slipping the standards. When that happens, the motivation evaporates.

If I feel good, I'm productive naturally. How much energy do I have? Energy comes from sleeping, eating, and exercising. If I'm doing those three things well, I don't have to worry about productivity at all.

None of this was set up with 'productivity' in mind. I really don't care about it. My 'standards' influence but don't include productivity. I sleep, eat, and exercise not because I work better but because I feel better.

Obsessing over 'productivity' feels like a mental health trap to me, like money.
That extra whitespace is horrible
Compare the Linux foundation's treatment of projects:

Node: Neither the OpenJS foundation, nor its parent the Linux foundation claims owner
ship of Node: https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/LICENSE

Linux: No copyright assignment, just a compatible license required: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin...

The CNCF and the kubernetes system does do a CLA, so it's not a concept the Linux foundation has never heard of it, but clearly it's not required for every project they support.

See also SPI's stance, which provides the legal support for projects like Debian and Arch Linux: https://www.spi-inc.org/projects/relationship/
I agree. Like others here I don't know the context, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but her first paragraph seems about as sincere and direct an apology as anyone could reasonably want.

After that she talks about broader organizational stuff which isn't intended to take away from her own apology ("Separate from this personal misstep...").

It's a shame that based on the reactions in the linked thread, many seem unable to take what seems like a genuine apology at face value
While the system is opaque, there's enough data points of people who have gone through it to create a set.

Origin of country matters, so does race. The uniqueness of your job matters as well especially if it "can benefit Singapore society", <S$150k pay not so much. If you integrate yourself into society, have locals who can vouch (this one is not opaque, they ask for character references).

"Benefiting Singapore society" is this catch all term and very opaque/hard to pin down. But I've seen middle managers at colleges not get PR while classroom teachers do. But not all things were equal so it's very hard to tell, but there is/are discussions around it.

Over the years it has gotten increasing harder to obtain PR and thusly citizenship.
It's like paying artists in "exposure". There's value, but it doesn't actually pay the bills.
Can confirm. Also, heard an "admin" who was also CEO's ex-housekeeper got >$1M severance right before the wife went public with the Uber story.
Those are all (government funded?) mega-projects.

I’m not talking about that category.

I’m talking about private sector stuff by groups which claim developments in superconductors means they can do it privately for much less, e.g.: https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/09/mit-backed-fusion-st...

I lack the knowledge to tell real projects in this sector from snake oil.
I think the goal of that language is to avoid an increase in drama from random people outside the community (e.g. us!) reacting to the apology without actually being an affected party. If you don't know what the apology's referring to, it's probably not directed to you!
To me the stupid thing is the abuse of undefined behavior for changing the semantic of the code. The fact that a behavior is not defined in the standard doesn't mean that on a particular hardware platform it doesn't have a particular meaning (and most C programs doesn't need to be portable, since C it's mainly used for embedded these days and thus you are targeting a particular microcontroller/SOC).

These optimizations leave for C++ folks. C doesn't need all of that, just leave it as the "high level assembler" that it was in the old days, where if I write an instruction I can picture the assembler output in my mind.

Optimizers should not change the code semantics to me. Unfortunately with gcc it's impossible to rely on optimizations, so the only safe option is to turn them off entirely (-O0).
There Is No Unmarked Woman (1993) [pdf]
i have partial aphantasia (I think) and I am quite good at recognizing faces, but I couldn't necessarily visualize one to describe it if not looking at the face
I don't have a rigorous method here, but I'd say a builtin sort is cheating a complexity count while "for each" is fine.

> If we take Perl golf as our measure of "code complexity" you can't use a for-loop for dumbsort, because zeroing the ostensible loop counter doesn't reset the loop; there's a hidden loop counter you can't alter. You have to use an explicit while loop, which makes the cantbelievesort much simpler. Smalltalk and Python are the same way.

I think it can be reasonable to say that manipulating a loop counter is more complex than a strict loop over elements. Though you can get around that issue by using tail recursion for dumbsort instead of setting i to 0.

> But of course in a different machine language the answer might be different. For example, I haven't seen an instruction set with dedicated looping instructions that support nested loops, but make it inconvenient to clobber the loop counter in the middle of the loop, but it would be easy to design one, and there might be some advantage to doing so.

Maybe not nestable ones, but that's just a quirk of trying to have an especially compact instruction encoding. If the common case can be a single opcode like LOOP, or only a couple opcodes in a RISC architecture, I think it's reasonable to call it "one line of code".

> I think the i-=2 tweak you suggest converts dumbsort into gnomesort, which is just a sort of pessimized insertion sort. As your "saturating" comment suggests, gnomesort needs an additional operation to avoid running off the beginning of the array; some instruction sets do provide saturating arithmetic (it's often useful for DSP and graphics, even if it's not as often useful for indexing arrays), and many others provide a binary "max" operation (SSE's PMAXSW and friends, as well as, say, APL ⌈) which could convert an ordinary subtraction into a saturating subtraction.

Is there a way to write gnomesort that only has two simple conditionals? You're right that my suggestion brings it a lot closer to gnomesort, but I'm definitely not suggesting anything that checks if you're at zero.
Others in the space do ask for copyright assignment though, eg. FSF.
Agreed but definitely must be quite a few orders of magnitude less crashes than a rPi for a fan controller.
> The compiler should optimize without changing the semantic of the code, even if it contains undefined/unspecified behavior.

That is what it does. "Undefined behavior" is a lack of semantics, so it is preserving semantics when it leaves those paths out. You can make a "defined C" with `-fsanitize-trap=undefined`, but C was never a high level assembler, and performance is critical for C users too.
Actions speak louder than words. If she were truly sorry, she would’ve reverted the PR and have it go through the normal process. Instead she wrote a really long message about how the .NET Foundation owns your project.
so how would it become worse than the current situation?
This is just a troll. I thought it could be an interesting criticism, but its just some kid knocking down strawmen. Not worth reading.
Who do I call when it’s not taken down?

No doubt Jen Psaki has Andy Stone, former Democratic PAC Communication Director, now Facebook Director on speed dial?

Hell I doubt Jen clicks anything when a quick call will do.
Is open source a valid business model?
I'd like to start a discussion on how viable is open source as a business model? How does it stand against a closed source model?
I think Jane Street is a big exception. It's like when PG espouses lisp. Back in the 90's[1] language ecosystems were very sparse. An ecosystem was a few big libraries and a syntax highlighter. Now stuff like IDEs, linting, packages, etc. have made people's standards quite high for ecosystems. On the flip side, back in the day languages like OCaml and Lisp had stuff other languages could only dream about. Functions as arguments! Macros! Type inference! But now, barring macros, these features are all in mainstream languages.

If you were to do a similar company now, you'd have to recruit people who still write code like in the 90's: emacs/vim hackers who can write their own libraries and don't need no stinking IDE. Except you now have a significantly smaller advantage because a lot of the languages have caught up and while your god tier programmers can write their own custom serialization library, that's still more developer time than using serde.

Which is why a lot of people are moving to Rust I suppose. You still get the hip factor but responsibly. It's the Foo Fighters of languages. Cool, but not irresponsible.

[1]: I was in a very famous tv show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBw-Z8ULwcc
They did, I made the same mistake here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28779659
The only way to control the shit I see on the Federated feed and ensure Local isn't full of spam, SJW bullshit, and alt-reich foolishness is to run my own instance. I can't be bothered. Christ, I can't even be bothered to run my own website.
I was also struck with commenter’s swift label of her apology a “non-apology.” I’ve seen this on Twitter and elsewhere. It’s basically a proxy for “I don’t think you’ve suffered enough to be forgiven.” And that strikes me as honestly a little bit terrifying.
Sometimes Hanlon's razor is in tension with Occam's. If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, maybe it is actually a bad actor. Or something like that.

Either way, I think the idea of "the banality of evil" is more useful here than Hanlon's Razor. Claire Novotny may well have simply not thought about her actions. Is she still responsible for them? Should we care that she meant well if she continued her bad behaviour after it was pointed out to her?

And what if somebody makes a habit of not thinking about their actions despite having it pointed out to them repeatedly that their actions cause harm to others? (It sure seems to be an effective way to climb the ladder.) Can they still hide behind the defense of "meaning well"? By analogy, what if somebody makes a habit of getting behind the wheel while intoxicated. If they hit a pedestrian, how much do you care that the drunk driver meant well?
that's great, I developed multiple succesful products and have 25 years of experience and told several "no" recently and they all decided to not interview me.
In general I've long been very skeptical of removing optimizations that rely on undefined behavior. People say "I'd happily sacrifice 1% for better theoretical semantics", but theoretical semantics don't pay the bills of compiler writers. Instead, compiler developers are employed by the largest companies, where a 1% win is massive amounts of dollars saved. Any complaint about undefined behavior in C must acknowledge the underlying economics to have relevance to the real world.

As the paper notes, there are plenty of alternative C compilers available to choose from. The reason why GCC and LLVM ended up attaining overwhelming market share is simply that they produce the fastest possible code, because, at the end of the day, that is what users want.

If you want to blame someone, blame the designers of the C language for doing things like making int the natural idiom to iterate over arrays even when size_t would be better. The fact that C programmers continue to write "for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)" to iterate over an array is why signed overflow is undefined, and it is absolutely a critical optimization in practice.
Well, except why someone be reading it if they were not?
Surely there was C++ and Java.
Yeah, it's very hard to see the context, and maybe this really is management being horrible, but yeah, don't know, seems like small stuff to me: A PR that got pushed through, and moving to Github enterprise. Obviously, there was a breakdown in process and communication, but I'm sure Linus has done much worse with Linux.

Yeah, from an outsiders perspective, the apology felt pretty heartfelt (and humbling too, especially for issues that seem somewhat routine), but as mentioned, maybe there are other details we're not hearing?

... btw, these roles on community foundations/boards can be hell, because the community begins to vent at every mistake (and there will always be mistakes). Devs of .net, maybe give the person a break? She's a person.
It didn’t sound like the .NET foundation did so ahead of time
Yeah, we can see that in this post today. I saw two issues implemented and fixed while reading it.
This still has to be embedded inside a native Windows app though, right?

I'm betting that one day desktop OSes will agree on a standard for shipping a raw web app directly (manifest format, etc), that can be spun up and run in the local webview without all the ceremony of a wrapper app
of course they did
The commit was reverted (see https://github.com/reactiveui/splat/pull/779)
I think it's the opposite: compiler writers under pressure to produce fast code assume that the programmers are smart, not morons, and that they understand the rather complex rules.

For example: the compiler is assuming someone isn't ignorant and knows, for example, if they want to write a variable as one type and read it as another, they need to consider two things: they are now in implementation-dependent territory (big endian vs little endian effects, for example), and they need to use unions, not just casts, if the same data can be interpreted as two different types and neither is array of char. Failure to use unions properly triggers aliasing problems.
> That's interesting, can you elaborate on your qualms with ABA?

You mean aside from thinking that I shouldn't have to change my behavior for the convenience of others as long as I'm not breaking the law or making a public nuisance of myself?

I'm not interested in pretending to be "normal" for the sake of neurotypicals who don't give a fuck about me. I do more than enough of that at my day job just to be seen as "employable".

Never mind masking because of COVID; I've been masking because of autism my entire life[1] and I'm getting sick of it.

Autistic people don't need a cure or treatment that only makes life easier for neurotypicals. Neurotypicals can go fuck themselves.

[1]: https://www.tiimoapp.com/blog/masters-of-masking-autistic-me...
No proof that private data of 1.5B Facebook users is being sold
That sounds grueling (and stupid) , but I don't think you need a PhD in math to be a mathematician. Presumably, if you make your income doing mathematics, then you are a mathematician. Many professionals with bachelor's degrees sometimes publish in academic journals.

For example, many amateur haskellers have published in academic journals (oftentime in mathematics). I myself have been cited in academic publications despite not having ever gotten a PhD (again related to functional programming). Presumably, someone (And his peer reviewers) thought a blog post I had written about various things in pure FP land was academic enough to qualify for inclusion in a journal.

However, based on my reading of the CEO's profile, blog, etc, it doesn't seem like he fits that definition. In fact, he claims to be a mathematician without as much as one serious blog post or any published content remotely related to mathematics of any kind. I'm not an elitist by any stretch. But to claim to be a mathematician without publishing or speaking on anything related to mathematics, despite being seemingly outspoken on several publishing platforms is incredibly disingenuous
The Aussie politicians have made it very clear who is lining their pockets.
It was many months ago and I no longer remember the full details, plus it's proprietary code, so I can't tell them to you. But the gist was that after optimisation, some floating point arithmetic was done in different order by different compilers. This particular expression really needed to be computed in exact order and, since nothing else worked, we had to just write it in compiler-specific assembly. IIRC some language extensions are coming to better specify float semantics on a per-function basis that might help one day.
This support for CloudFormation across AWS services is crazy bad. For the longest time you couldn't have an ALB rules with it. To fill this gap you have to create dreaded custom resources... which can get suck for 4 hours.
I remember becoming curious about Pony because of how much they talked it up, though I never got around to trying it. Feels weird to see the pivot, though I've felt for a while Rust or Rust-inspired languages will become a larger and larger part of the future of software so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
amazing? years ago you could buy a house as a single person for cheap, you could save for retirement easily, no college debt, blablabla. what are you talking about? current and previous generation have it much more difficult than the boomer generation. without insanely high salaries you won't be able to buy a house in the bay area and pay for everything else.
Nice, need to forbid things like grants and setting owners that are being handled by a centralized routine.
Twitch, the popular game streaming service, confirms that it has been hacked
I've seen this argument everywhere. If this is the web, people would say "use the platform", because aparently any abstraction made on top of that is automatically worse, if this is .Net it would be "use Azure". If this is desktop applications... use C++?

That's just not how reality works. First class citizens can suck, because guess what, they're designed by mortals
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse_by_UN_peace...

Edit: Who flagged this article?
If you read the entire post, it quickly becomes apparent why people are reacting poorly.

The opening paragraph is an apology. Other parts of the post undo any goodwill that might have been garnered from the apology itself.

One example:

> There is a pattern that needs to be resolved. Projects might not fully understand what joining the .NET Foundation means. We share a checklist with project maintainers on project changes they accept as part of becoming part of the .NET Foundation. That’s obviously not sufficient. We will post a new document that describes what you can expect when your project joins the .NET Foundation...

To me, this says "sooo, even though I screwed up, I'm technically allowed to do what I did and you probably should have already expected that based on the agreement you signed, but we'll make our materials even clearer so you don't make that mistake again".

It turns the problem back around on the community. I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with the rest of the post after the apology...if it was posted separately. When included in the same post, it's hard not to take it as "sorry, but I still wasn't technically wrong".

I do think the whole culture around public apologies and the hair-splitting and analysis that comes after is concerning and often unhelpful. But I think the backlash here is understandable.
Let's say you have the account johndoe@icloud.com. You use that email as your backup email at your bank. You cancel the account. Now someone else opens a new icloud account with johndoe@icloud.com. They can now access your account by "recovering" your password with the backup email.
Israeli Mobility Company Goto Global Takes over Scooter Sharing Startup Emmy
was anybody harmed here, or are egos just being egos?
facebook helped me stop visiting, by insisting on showing me absolutely everything from one acquaintance (who is a fine person), all the dog photos from another friend, and effectively nothing else.

no idea what sort of failure mechanism that was, but it made things really boring.

i’ve still got my account, there’s just no point. i know what i’ll see already.
That's a lot of words to apologize for something that could be fixed with a force push
I’ve stumbled across this in databases I’ve inherited before and while I appreciated that I could easily do filtering and stuff without joining across tables (and based on the comments here, more easily shard when things scale), it seems to denormalize the data.

Is there a specific term for the trade off of denormalized vs more easily query/shard/etc?
no doubt vastly inferior to the community version

like all their others
People talk about how boring Facebook is, but two days ago, when it went down for a few hours, it was all anybody talked about. There were multiple "Facebook is down!" threads here on HN, including a 1200+ comment thread about it. You can say "well, that was just morbid curiosity..." but then I'd ask for a pointer to another equally urgent response to an event. Any event. If all the smart kids find Facebook boring and not-at-all addictive then why did it suck up all the oxygen on the internet when it disappeared for a couple hours?
Often, these single-vendor technologies are thin syntactic and nomenclaturial veneers over actually-quite-general abstractions. E.g. it's very easy, if you want or if you need, to rewrite a CloudFormation stack as a Terraform project, or a even a set of Kubernetes custom-resource-controller resource manifests. They're all analogous technologies; the and the "hard part" of an implementation in any of them isn't to do with the things that make them different, but rather the things they share in common — the formal modelling of a digraph of dependent declarative infrastructure resources.
Setting aside any impracticalities of doing this, I've always wondered what an operating system would look like if it was tightly integrated into a specific virtual machine. Something like Java or Racket (or blub if you would like), to the point where only languages that ran on those platforms could run on the operating system.

One of the biggest issues people bring up when someone asks "Why can't the OS handle garbage?" is that the OS doesn't know what is garbage and what isn't. But if you only ran languages that ran on the OSes virtual machine, then it would know the memory model. Java and Racket both have histories of languages being built on top of them, so if you don't like the base language you could create your own.

I'm not saying this would be practical or useful (other than maybe as a proof of concept) but it could be fun!
I don't see any copyright notices being changed in the PR in question: https://github.com/reactiveui/splat/pull/778/files

Legally, copyright notices can only be changed by the copyright holder or their authorized agent. If someone from the DNF were to make an unauthorized, illegal change, it would be very surprising.
Supermarkets and other larger stores by now have them pretty universally, as do fast-food chains etc. (which is why I haven't really needed cash anytime recently). I'm honestly not sure what the causes for the rest are, it could be that the debit card terminals are harder/more expensive to get for a small restaurant/bar and credit cards alone just isn't worth it? There is not yet an underlying cultural assumption that you'll accept cards as such a place, it mostly just catches tourists off guard, so they don't loose that much by not having it.

What I can't remember ever seeing here are these readers that attach to phones, but I don't know how common those are elsewhere in small shops.
This!! when you stack get stuck in error state is the worst!! Hello kinesis stream rollbacks.