skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I actually do entirely ignore it because I think it's purely a creation of the author for the purpose of making his point. Caste society is not a symptom of modernity, in fact the opposite. It's an anachronism in the book, sort of like putting your ideological opponent into a Nazi uniform and giving him a tiny mustache and making him speak with a scary German accent.

Slavery (which is really what it is in the story) you are more likely to enounter in the Antebellum South than in a modern metropolis and high modernity. Limiting the intellectual capacity of your subjects would never be the point of the kind of society that Huxley envisions, and it's one example of how he does not take the thing he aims to critique seriously.

A society so advanced it could realize Huxley's fears is not at the same time going to build itself a medieval army of slaves. Even at the time of Huxley's writing Taylorism was already well past its peak and criticism of mechanized production was everywhere.
TalonWork – Security Hardened Chrome Alternative
One of the core strands of postwar feminism has been examining how much uncompensated domestic labour women are expected to perform, not just for their partner and their children but also for other family members. Especially in the context of care for the old or sick.

The term "emotional labour" is the more common used one for what you've described as "emotional services".
Just let me f**ing pay for it, it's the last usable user agent on the internet that's actually user agent and not owning-company agent.
Any language that had an institutional patron would be a good candidate for this category of language. e.g. I don't think we would say Go targeted a niche and then got big by that. Go was promoted heavily by Google, and that's why people took interest.
What an absolutely slime ball, sleazy, patronizing way to say what they're doing.

I trust Mozilla these days about as much as I trust career politicians. It really is a damn shame that this organization has become what it is.
List of things I have to do on new Firefox install is getting ridiculous. It's probably time to look into forks or one of the WebKit browsers...
I don't see anywhere that Automation fits into that list. We can create value by automating many of the other items on the list. Relevant today is the automation of serving information (web developers!), but automating transformation (factories) was a game changer for industry.

Also,
> Google makes money via 9a, not 9c.
I don't think that's true. Google makes most of its money on ads, not market making. While there is an aspect to ad serving that is market making, I think it's fair to characterize their primary revenue stream as money-for-eyeballs, which is very much monetization of Information.
Irrespective of their contributions to tech, I’m referring to all minorities
I was curious, so I looked it up: the missing category is energy.

https://blog.rongarret.info/2009/10/wealth-production-mechan...

> Producing, storing, converting, and transporting energy is what I had in mind as the missing top-level category.
can i pay for firefox to.have this and all other ads disabled? i would. 10 bucks a month. deal?
> There are also payment apps from both Apple and Google, why do I need anything else?

Why would I need these in the first place? I don't want to share even more info with these companies. These companies suck and will bow to any regime as we have seen countless times. Why would I trust them with money?
> Why is a browser expensive?

Read this: https://drewdevault.com/2020/03/18/Reckless-limitless-scope....

To quote,

--- start quote ---

The total word count of the W3C specification catalogue is 114 million words at the time of writing.

If you added the combined word counts of the C11, C++17, UEFI, USB 3.2, and POSIX specifications, all 8,754 published RFCs, and the combined word counts of everything on Wikipedia’s list of longest novels, you would be 12 million words short of the W3C specifications.

--- end quote ---

This is why. It's currently impossible to start a greenfield browser [1]. And even forking an existing engine and trying to keep up is almost impossible [2]

[1] There's Flow browser, https://www.ekioh.com/flow-browser/ I don't know if it's truly from scratch

[2] Microsoft forked Chromium and is still almost 2000 APIs behind, https://web-confluence.appspot.com/#!/confluence
pacing... not because there's any evidence that it improves

In the limited experience I have in this arena, it does improve performance. Hitting someone a second time about t+2weeks had the biggest bump, and then the next biggest another month later at t+6weeks.

I don't know if it's universally true, and the optimization may vary depending on the context and content, but pacing can definitely make a difference for some.
> For example, I saw one where a maintainer politely declined to give the Foundation access privileges required to enforce the Code of Conduct, instead saying that the maintainers would enforce it themselves. Sorry, but I don't think any foundation could accept that. One of many reasons for joining a foundation is that it gives contributors confidence that there is a CoC backed up by an independent organisation, and that can be enforced even (especially) against powerful members of the community such as project maintainers - potentially even all of a project's maintainers. This is one of many ways that Foundations help build contributor confidence, which is one of the major benefits for a project of joining a foundation, and all of them rest on the credibility of the foundation to act as a circuit breaker and assert some kind of control should dire circumstances crop up.

Which is why those people in your hypothetical rightfully see CoCs as poison-pills meant to silently transfer ownership from themselves as owners/founders/copyright holders to corporate "contributors."

To which the obvious response is "if you want to own my assets, buy them, stop tip-toeing around contracts and trying to get them on the cheap."
What if that person is Hitler? What if you work at Dignitas? What if you're Linus Torvalds, working at Dignitas, and the person is Hitler, and Hitler wants to merge a particularly bad pull request to add an NPM leftpad dependency to page_alloc?
> attractive for world-class leaders

You're equating greed and competence. It's an oddly common mistake.

NGOs and benevolent societies are attractive on the basis of their values.

If monetary compensation were correlatory with quality products, we clearly wouldn't be in this position with Firefox: Mozilla's current leader is clearly world-class by your own definition (where world-class==well remunerated), and is yet demonstrably failing the company on every possible metric.
You claim my favorite mode of production has the same potential, but do not describe what "my favorite" is or how that potential is expressed. But if you believe that, whatever it may be, then how do we get rid of it?

Do you not believe those "safety" measures can be implemented into a mode of production?

If the monopoly on force is dissolved and the private property of socially productive assets is dissolved. Will it not be in the interest of everyone to organize and stop that corruption and exploitation?
Hey now, it's not Bielefeld. In Ohio at least, the word it's concealing is taboo enough that nobody who does know wants to explain to their more-sheltered coworkers why the situation is funny. (Clearly the filter wasn't designed in Australia.)
What is "intrinsic"? Nothing has intrinsic value.
With cheap labor, the cost also has to be put on someone, and labor is that someone.
On that theme, have you tried cool-retro-term?

It's nostalgic.
Except they only need money because they frittered away the massive Google subsidy on pointless projects rather than building up an endowment while sticking to core goals.

… which, in fairness, is itself a species of selling ads! But setting a search engine default is far more benign than what they’re planning here.
yeah but I actually miss bonzibuddy. I can't rage-shake firefox and get a reaction out of it. At least in that regard bonzibuddy understood the nature of our engagement as a give and take arrangement.
Also note:

> When you see or click on a Firefox Suggest result, Mozilla collects and sends your search queries and the result you click on to our partners through a Mozilla-owned proxy service. The data we share with partners does not include personally identifying information and is only shared when you see or click on a suggestion.
Yes this reeks of someones KPI needing to be hit.
>x86 assembly doesn’t have to be scary

...just ugly.
Microsoft chose to create Windows as an open platform where they didn't get a cut of application sales.

Microsoft chose to create XBox as a platform where developers who didn't pay them a cut could not sell software.

Microsoft attempted to convert Windows into a platform where developers who didn't pay them a cut could not sell software with Windows RT, but it failed in the marketplace.
And that's your choice, and you're free to not enable this feature. I trust Mozilla with what I'm searching for more than I trust Google though
That’s what we know. NSO’s PR has a reason for everything…
There's a followup: https://blog.rongarret.info/2009/10/wealth-production-mechan... - in reply to the first time this was posted on HN!
> A lot of websites that work in Safari were broken in WebKit last time I tried it.

If you used it in the past from the Debian repos, they didn't use to do security or feature update servicing for WebKit in their repositories. That's no longer a thing nowadays.

You can use both the Technology Preview at https://webkit.org/downloads/ or check if the version is recent on your distribution however.
Maybe just showing more of them in a page?
I think much specifically it’s internal competition. My bet, I have no insider knowledge here, is that there are a bunch of individual product owners vying to look good compared to each other here. Nobody wants to have their weekly numbers look bad because they didn’t accelerate delivery while their peers do, so as a whole the company does something bad for everyone over a trifling amount of profit.
Nitpicking. :)

I know about 'shit' (== Shell Git) at https://git.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/shit from last year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git#Implementations lists JGit (<=2012), Go-git (2015), Dulwich (2008), libgit2 (<=2010), and JS-Git (<=2013).

A five-fold increase means at least 30 new implementations. :)
These aren't sensible suggestions worth debating.

But yes I think it's literally absolutely always wrong to tell anyone to kill themselves, no matter how evil they are. Personal abuse is always wrong.
Total waste of everyone's time. I suspect if the word "Microsoft" were not in this equation, this HN thread would not exist and no one would give a shit.

A lot of people have ulterior motives and 99% of the "toxicity" I have observed to date comes from either trying to hide those motives or pretending like others couldn't possibly possess them.
Just like FaceBook, weasel words and pat on the back phrases . . .
> Isn't this situation a counterexample though? Nontechnical ways to prevent behaviour were attempted, and failed.

Not really. Just like shoplifting isn't a motivator for putting everything behind the counter in a store. The cure could be worse than the disease.

> For distributed software development processes, the only thing that works are hard boundaries.

Definitely not true. Opensource has existed for a really long time without a two-key system. Many projects (besides this one) still have big sets of people with commit bits. I'd go so far as to say that almost all projects with a core team size greater than one has some amount of this, with very very few exceptions.

Not everyone needs protections as if they are covered by Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX).

And these projects work just fine.

In fact, it's not even desirable in most cases. You have to take development velocity into account, too. "It must never be possible to unilaterally commit to the main repo" is not the value the project brings to the world. It's a means to deliver the actual value. And it's not the only one. So there are always tradeoffs.

Having worked under mandated requirements (legal and contractual) such as this, I can tell you that it's not without big costs, costs that opensource projects would rather spend on other things. Especially since it's detectable. Preventable is usually not worth the extra costs.

> No hard boundary -> implicitly tolerated.

Of course that's not true. Not in any context. You don't go to someone's house and flip their furniture, and say that not only was the furniture not nailed down, it wasn't even part of the ToS for entering your house, and in any case the door was unlocked.

A project without a CoC is obviously not implying that you can be a nazi or sexually harass.

"What is not prevented is permitted" has never been true in the whole history of humanity, and there have always been repercussions for what you did.

I've been a sysadmin with root access. That doesn't in any way make it implicitly tolerated that I read people's emails and home directories.

> Merging changes without review shouldn't be possible.

Ideally yes. But it's more convenience than security. E.g. your example about having pre-merge testing decreases the toil of maintainers having to deal with test-breaking code being merged. I.e. having to roll it back, and deal with any merge conflicts during rollbacks.

But by your logic of "no hard boundary -> implicitly tolerated" this means I could change the code to detect if it's running in a test, and do something else. There's no hard boundary, but will obviously not be tolerated.
Contrived Spectacles of “Protecting and Caring for the People”
If you are reaching for assembly, usually that means digging into some optimizations.

Those are highly obscure.
You clearly do not understand what socialists want.
It's weird that the article does not use even once "hard fork". I agree that if most of the community agree to a "hard fork" they can change anything (or split the community, like in ETH/ETC or the ~5 forks of BTC). But part of the advantages of an absent mythical founder is that it's more difficult to get consensus for weird changes.
oh, hi Stallman
I agree, although IMO its not clear Rigetti is poised to capture and realise the value of quantum tooling. In anycase its a company worth keeping an eye on, but I suspect they are closer to IBM Watson than Bell Laboratories.
I recall having 8 MB of RAM and a lot of swap or whatever they called it in OS/2 Warp. It was really beautiful graphically and felt ahead of its time. But, it was not fast and far from warp speed. Thanks for explanation about codename Warp.
Oh, absolutely:

LUI a0, 0x7FFFF
ADDI a0, a0, 0xFFF

is superior to

MOV eax, 0x7FFFFFFF

Except, of course, that RISC-V snippet doesn't actually load 0x7FFFFFFF into a0 because Reasons, it has to be

LUI a0, 0x80000
ADDI a0, a0, 0xFFF

"But the assembler has the LI pseudoinstruction so it will properly do this calculation for you!". Right, so much for "nice assembly language": you need an actual smart macroassembler to write it.
Dowry is a terrible idea. However, turning 180 degrees and putting all financial burden of marriage on the male seems just as bad.
For one thing it doesn't say what she did was wrong by itself (repeatedly ignoring the maintainers rejections and not following submission guidelines), but it just looks wrong because she is the ED (but she's actually doing it as the maintainer)

Edit: on 2nd thought it seems she is also claiming she should be able to make this change unilaterally as Director and the problem is that people don't understand that. Which kind of makes this a non apology for saying sorry while also saying the problem is people's misunderstanding. Which also makes the part about doing the change as a maintainer a lie if that's the argument (she clearly said that in the PR too)
Of course it’s their right to do so, what a silly response. Just because they can, doesn’t mean they should though.

> What you do not see is any deleted messages that already happened before that comment, it can well be that a bunch of twitter/reddit/hn/... users already thought it'd be helpful to invade and post some probably not so well-thought-out nor useful stuff.

And so the solution is to double down and antagonize everyone else? That’s a good way to lose any moral high ground. Ban the bad actors if need be, lock the comments, but for god’s sake communicate that decision professionally.
Yeah the article is just hand waving.
“Suggestions from trusted partners” - the sleaziest statement of the Internet age.
I grew up with 'words can never hurt me', but this variant is my favorite:

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will hurt forever.
Doing this in SQL is absolute insanity. I’ve seen many pieces of code grow in this way and I understand how it happens but still surprises me to see how scrappy things are under the hood at some big-time companies.
My CareCrew: Free Cancer App
https://mycarecrew.co/
Boston Internet startup Starry going public via SPAC
Yes I share the same sentiment.

This “Privacy First Data Sharing Platform” for example

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/take-control-over-your-d...
You need to know none of those things to be a cop in the US. Furthermore it’s one of the safer jobs with pizza delivery men getting killed or injured more often than cops.
It is but it also happens often enough in business that you have to wonder what it is that drives it?

Is it some business school process or management training BS? It usually only happens when "trained" business people get involved that this sort of BS happens.
Technical issues were never the problem with the first product we built at Wallaroo. Pony met all of our technical needs for that product. We never got product market fit with it.

Rightly, around the time I left the company, they pivoted and started a new product that they thought would have better product market fit and they started over with a new codebase as it is a rather different product than what we first built.
You'd think from the messaging that they don't have nearly the funding today that they had 5 years ago, when in reality their funding has grown by ~50% during that time...
This was Zuckerbergs idea - - so much of the hideous evil comes directly from the top . . .
Are you never more than 6ft away from a rat?
That's what asteroid mining is for. And fabricating all sorts of stuff in space by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_vapor_deposition

See http://www.daniel-suarez.com/Delta-v_synopsis.html
for a fictional and failed 'Ship of Theseus'-like attempt of doing that.

Nonetheless interesting. (If you are in the mood)
z80?
> but I'm not sure if you'd be comfortable

Oh I like this. It's subtle in a way that flies under the radar but still blesses someone's little heart effectively.

On a side note: I love qutebrowser, even as someone who doesn't prefer Vim or Vim keybindings in things. I like it because it is slim up top, and does what you tell it to and not a stitch more. If it got paywalled tomorrow, but everything else remained the same and open, I could see paying 10 bucks a month for it.
What exactly do you think this adds to the discussion?
You’ve missed the point of my post: the right you proposed has arbitrary limits which don’t seem to be justifiable under any logical framework and defending the position is untenable. Why are these limits here? If an authoritarian regime prefers to say take away or add a limit (“well the real human right is a right to love and I want to love as many people as I can with or without their consent”) then how do we morally justify denying their interpretation of a poorly developed human right while trying to advance our own interpretation?

We should be worried about certain societies “discovering” new rights and attempting to impose them on the rest of the world who may or may not share that viewpoint. This is true of “enlightened” societies like in the West just as much as other societies.
To be fair, this issue is also reflected with the mobile upgrade that wiped most of the functionality, extension integration, and good will.

Whomever they have hired to (1) perform UX research and (2) make executive decisions aren't performing, IMHO.
A more cogent and principled response would be that there is an effective duopoly in the phones market, and this creates incentives for and actually realized anti competitive practices on the part of both google and apple. Apple both builds a market and regulates that market in its own favor, and consumers don't have an especially plausible alternative to participating.
>isn't up to a Google/Apple duopoly

Remember the W3C DRM standard and how Firefox implemented it?
It's ironic that the CEO is allowing ads in the search bar then.
Says who? Seems like neo-EEE with their current porfolio of GitHub, Copilot, Codespaces, Sponsors, NPM, Azure, VS Code, and WSL.
> Fusion research is fundamentally good research to pursue, and vigorously.

Fusion research is applied. It is justified by the useful end goal, being an energy source, not by pure science. A pure plasma physics program would look very different (and likely not be able to justify the current fusion budget.)

So, simultaneously advocating fusion research, while suggesting solar will win, is internally inconsistent.
It isn’t even 30% because you can top up your balance using discounted iTunes cards.
This is what gdpr gets wrong. Tons of popups and notifications you shouldn't use email or cookies for x - but sellers collect them and WILL abuse them - apple u avoid this issue by simply not giving the seller your info
Sky Glass – Sky Releases a TV
> That is irrelevant, as most of those companies are keeping their modifications to LLVM closed-source. They are not at all interested in fostering a healthy open-source ecosystem around LLVM.

AMD, Intel, ARM, ... they all have proprietary toolchains built on LLVM, and send and merge multiple diffs to LLVM upstream, every day.

> GCC doesn't really have that. This is just wrong. Just as a single example,

If that's your main example, you are in for a ride. Since asutton branch is over 15 years old almost at this point, and it was by design that no work should happen in LLVM until concepts make it into the standard.

I can give you a dozen examples, from constexpr, metaclasses, coroutines, modules, etc. where things made it much earlier into LLVM than GCC.

> Again, no. There is nothing in the 30+-years long history of GCC that suggests that this would happen.

From 2005 to 2014 GCC development severely stagnated, being much slower than clang, having horrible error messages when compared to clang, etc. It was not until after 2016 where some open source companies, like redhat, started pouring more money into GCC that this started to change. The moment these companies are out, the same thing will happen.
It turns out they were both approximately right about dystopia.
Can't you do that with CLion?
MyBB Captcha-Breaking Bug Affects Multiple Forums
And also, I strongly suspect, because any description of the events is likely to be considered tendentious by some of the upset parties. Much easier to avoid the issues that come with having to write a balanced history of it.
It doesn't matter that much, really. What truly is ugly is interfacing with the rest of the computer, ugh. You can't use the VGA BIOS from x64, so go-o-o-od luck doing it via PCI. And properly setting up IOAPIC?
Americans' Trust in Media Dips to Second Lowest on Record
> The immutability makes it impossible to redact or remove information, even if that information is encrypted.

That's kinda the whole point :).
I think nowadays an easter egg would be a hard sell on a Pull Request...

Most likely back then there were absolutely no code reviews...
The amount the execs negotiated is reflected in their salary, the last year we have the CEO salary was shortly after they negotiated a new deal with Yahoo worth over a hundred million dollars more per year seeing them get a raise. I doubt that Baker is getting anything near Beard's salary given she negotiated it right before the layoffs.