skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Philosophy itself, in fact, was born when people took the concepts used in geometry and started using them to build systems of ideas

What? Philosophy and geometry both date to prehistory and we find them co-evolving in the west through many separate ideological movements. It's ridiculous to talk about which one came first. Moreover, when people talk of "concepts used in geometry" as a distinct thing they usually mean Euclidean or at oldest Pythagorean - earlier than that and geometry is considerably more numerical and difficult to distinguish from any other math or astronomy. But philosophy significantly predates that kind of geometric concept - "Know thyself" is hardly a mathematical directive!
It obvious that they are a different relationship than your adult friends.
Enforcing stupid rules without discussion or explanations is a pretty hostile action.
Nobody wants you to treat a 3 year old as child, but a teenage would be pretty upset if some fuckwit turned of the internet when they are want to look some stuff on MDN or commit code to github.
This also teaches your kids to be abused as adults. Excessive obedience is not a good quality.
If you just want to boss them around when they grow up don't get upset if send you to a cheap-ass nursing home.
Don’t follow this advice, it will make it harder to get accept.
I think a major problem is there isn't (last I looked) a clear set of feature tiers or a collection of XEPs that are given names and tests.

Instead of "oh MS teams supports up to xmpp2017" it's just a crapshoot.
Coffee is something like 99% water, though.
Trick to Take Your Web Development Skills to a Next Level (For Beginners)
Budget friendly, low cost, entry level. All great alternatives to the word “cheap”.
You can't blame MS for WordPerfect's failure. This story repeats ad infinitum - WordPerfect had a large body of users who had already memorized the alt-shift-F8 combos and didn't want change. They were in no hurry to alienate their established base. Microsoft gets credit here, they saw the future that WordPerfect and Lotus didn't.

Name one widely used (in the west) website that used Java applets. I can name exactly one, because I worked on the backend for it, but even in 2002 everyone knew it was an odd duck. Flash was still popular, activex still around, but ajax was a thing and everyone knew it was the future. Applets were a joke.

The market doesn't really care about your opinion of what is/isn't a mistake. Sorry.
Because you are robbing a living creature of the only thing that matters...its life...the now.

The next mental step is being able to debase the life of another human and classify them into castes. Aren't we trying to stop doing that? Animal husbandry keeps us ethically within the realm of easily devaluing other humans. You do it without even thinking.
> Could you provide some sources to substantiate your viewpoint?

I cannot as I'm only learning of this now and reflecting on what I've known from before. Trump directing "the EPA to remove statements about climate change" is largely irrelevant (to me personally) when there are active industries apart from politics that are striving for "greener" technologies.

Take for example the transition from Toyota's hybrid vehicles to Tesla's or, solar array proliferation seen from Google Maps timeline.
> In short, I think killing another living being that experiences suffering is wrong.

It fails Kant's categorical imperative. Animals aren't going to believe that eating meat is wrong - and if we tried to prevent animals from eating meat, we'd kill a lot of them - not to mention it'd just be ridiculous. There's simply no way to include animals in universal law and maintain reciprocity. It's an internally inconsistent ethical philosophy, and obviously so.

That's to say - people make fun of ethical vegans for the same reason they make fun of libertarians - clear gaps in the philosophy they refuse to acknowledge.
It's not a free day, by any means. The company is dedicating 2-3 times the hours of the interview, minimum. Determining a good fit is expensive.

On the other side, I've never heard of an interview where the candidate is given real work. Sure, they might ask about a problem the company has faced in the past, or is facing, but it's unlikely the response is used in any meaningful way, other than determining the candidates expertise and methodology for approach that type of problem.
The use cases for digital identity are almost all pernicious. Sure, you can use it for nice things like public services, except we do that today quite expansively without one, and why do we need biometric level proofs for that?

A government digital identity means that every informal transaction in the economy that uses it relies on the state as an inline broker. We can see this today with vax passports, where just this month you have to check-in with the government before you can enter a restaurant. (only temporary, surely) It's designed to manage people like livestock, and we all know that some pigs are more equal than others. Even vax passports and so-called "mandates," have exploited loopholes in our high trust societies and assumed formlessness as to avoid being challenged legally. Digital identity regimes will use the same indirect methods. This is their strategy.

Why do you need to prove your identity unless you there is some intent to prosecute you? Most of the value in the economy is based on people taking on transaction risk on behalf of others, so replacing it with digital identity will destroy degrees of economic freedom and opportunity for your kids and grandkids. Identity does not create opportunity, it limits it.

Civilization doesn't survive malicious institutions that turn inward against the people they serve, and I hope other technologists think seriously about identity and consider the consequences of it falling into the hands of an enemy or evil institution, because having worked in identity, I guarantee it will.
> Finger on the other hand is would be a very narrow API to for a certain service without ANY of the flexibility of HTTP.

That is the point. The flexibility is not free. Every conditional doubles the number of possible execution flows. This brings complexity. To some extent it is mitigated by the economies of scale because now everyone uses HTTP for something, so collectively we get that more complex code more polished. But there is no such thing as the bug free code - so every participant will have to deal with patch cycle and generally preventing bitrot.

For a small well bounded custom protocol which solves a well defined specific use case, one can hope to write a dependency-free implementation that can be tested and work well enough and left alone.

I recently was at an event with a few thousand wifi devices.

About a third of the internet traffic was updates..
99% of the time a stack trace shows the culprit for a segfault straight away. No different than debugging Python.
I was exactly in the same boat as you are roughly a year ago. However I was not interested at all in being a manager - I just don't see myself being good at that. I was able to land in a role of "Technical Product Manager" where I can still code and it is nice. Not sure if that's a possibility where you are, but it worked out well for me and good luck.
> Maynard, Weston, Wellesley all are near Wayland and seem less connected to existing buzzwords.

Weston already exists and is a Wayland compositor. :)
The constructor check would unfortunately not work for cross-frame arrays. Each frame has its own global object, with its own Array constructor. So:

var iframe = document.createElement('frame');
document.body.appendChild(iframe);

var value = iframe.contentWindow.Array();
value.constructor === Array // false
value instanceof Array // false
value instanceof iframe.contentWindow.Array // true

Stringifying the constructor works even for cross-frame values:

value.constructor.toString() === Array.toString() // true

These days though, `Array.isArray` is the right thing to do, available since roughly 2010.
Nor you can assume any sort of effect on curing COVID without a fair and square trial. The default null hypothesis is that it doesn’t work, period.
There's this: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/x-rings...

But no "inside out" version. Seems like it shouldn't be hard to hack up...
Like grandma used to say: "There's nothing combinators can't solve. Except consumption. Rest in peace Grandpa Neddie."

I'm dense: what's a combinator?
That reads to me like a nice collection of red flags.

1 - They all say that, it's a meaningless phrase used to cover candidates in the effluence from the southern end of a north facing male bovine, if you get my drift ;). I'm sure they also pay the highest salaries ever to make up for hiring only the best.

2 - Oh my aching sides. If they really have more money than they could ever spend, they need a visit from a clue-by-four about business planning. If they're raising that much money are are serious about their business, each one of those dollars should've already been earmarked (even if the earmark just says "runway").

3 - Translation - you're cordially invited to work 168 hours a week as a baseline and if necessary, work nights on top. Yes, I would expect that they mumble something about having a say in your side projects (that are relevant to their business) and consulting activities that might interfere with their legitimate business interest, but a lot companies seem to mistake that for owning their employees. This tends to be easier to handle if you're consulting with them rather than become an employee. There is a legitimate need for a compromise here though, especially if you are an employee. But tread carefully.

The third point also brings up another interesting point - if they hire you as an employee or consultant and you get paid by them for working on your project, who owns the IP? I'd be very careful with that, because you don't want to be in a situation where you suddenly don't own a potentially major piece of work that's based on some work you created.
> In Emacs you have control over absolutely everything so, of course, you can mess it up.

That's not necessarily a feature in my opinion, and I don't like the framing that's it's me messing things up and not Emacs or packages. Look, Emacs is super powerful, but people always respond to things being difficult in Emacs with something along the lines of "just do this and then you get rainbows and the pot of gold". In reality, you're spending hours reading documentation and random forum posts on how to do the simple thing you want. Next thing you know you're having to basically write your own features into Emacs.

The thing I balk at is people acting like Emacs is just some under appreciated tool that just has a learning curve. No, it has a learning curve plus the difficulty of understanding its ad hoc design and the multitudes of packages, the way they're written and interact with Emacs, and the millions of ways various people like to do things. I just wish people were more honest regarding its complexity and the vast multitudes of ways that people use it in very individualized manners.

And yes, I have previously managed my .emacs file in GitHub. Not sure why you commented on a bunch of that. It's still not as easy as VSCode automatically syncing via my GitHub account or working automatically through SSH.

> Then try the JetBrains tools. It's leaps and bounds above anything MS has to offer.

That's actually what I was referring to. I use Dr. Racket for Racket, Visual Studio for F#, VSCode right now for Elixir, but I've considered trying out the Jetbrains stuff for Elixir, and if I was using Clojure, I'd definitely use IntelliJ with Cursive.
Sikuli is good for desktop automation. For browser automation an extension based solution (such as this one) is easier to use.
Show me some of this research of Joe Rogan, I wasn't aware that he had ever done any?
Funny coincidence, I'm in the middle of reading of "a thousand brains" by Jeff Hawkins
I think XMPP is too complex for most use cases, I'd be surprised if it doesn't continue to decline in popularity.
I disagree with a lot of this. My perspective comes from reading papers in mathematics and physics, not computing, however.

Regarding "grandmothering": I agree with the criticism of the first example. Explaining basic points of the field in a vague way is obviously not helpful. The second example is not as compelling. The key point is that the "..." after "In recent years, the study of preconditioners for iterative methods for solving large linear systems of equations, arising from discretizations of stationary boundary value problems of mathematical physics, has become a major focus of numerical analysts and engineers" usually contains a string of citations. These citations serve to point the reader to the recent works mentioned in the sentence, which may not be readily accessible to someone who doesn't actively do research in that area but is otherwise knowledgeable about numerical computing.

In particular, the author reasons such introductions are bad because "the bulk of the paper is accessible only to those sufficiently expert in the field to know everything in the first two paragraphs of the introduction cold." But this is just wrong. There are plenty of math/physics papers where I can follow the arguments line-by-line, but I don't know the state of the art in the field or why the problem under consideration might be important. I don't think I am alone.

Regarding, "A table of contents in a paragraph": I think the author is partially correct. For short papers, it's perfectly fine to fold this part into the introduction (e.g. in the outline of the proof). But for longer works where the proof is decomposed into multiple lemmas and sub-lemmas, these can be very useful. If one writes the proof in a very clear and structured way, then maybe such "shotgun summaries" can be avoided. But this is not always possible.

Regarding conclusions that only repeat the introduction: I agree here.
Didn't the CIA fund Haqqani because his group was one of the more effective at attacking the Soviets?

My impression was that effectively, their decision at the time was: (a) fund moderate elements who weren't gung-ho about actually risking their forces to kill Soviets vs (b) fund religious extremists who were a more militarily effective option.

And even given that calculus, they still spread the money around (or even skewed it towards moderates), because even at the time they were uncomfortable going all-in on someone who took his orders from God.
Hi! Really appreciate the feedback and the concern. That's why we labeled the video as being synthetically generated so there wouldn't be any confusion -- more like a novelty like deepfakes used for Messi https://www.messimessages.com/us/index.html and others. We've had a lot of positive feedback from candidates replying to Alexis and talking with him over DM but totally understand your point of view.
Humans lived for like 1/3 the time in the ancient past. Its not clear to me that the diet of primitive people ended up with is somehow an optimal diet so much as a diet of circumstances.

Anyways any diet that doesn't let me eat eggs rolls is obviously wrong.
What percentage of the public thinks in this way?
Why would you pick those two words as the place to make a strong rebuttal? Especially when the following paragraph explicitly states "The core issue is..." which indicates it might provide a more substantive area of discussion. Even if people concede that you proved me wrong on this, it doesn't affect the core point.

The demand you make cannot be satisfied to someone discussing in bad faith.

- Better businesses exist (no metric for "better")

- because of [whatever] (can always be claimed that it was because of something else)

Instead of showing that -- perhaps we could both agree on the following:

- Some companies, like Boeing, have excellent lobbying relationships.

- Those relationships lead to something we could agree to call "regulatory capture"

- This regulatory capture makes it so that better companies have a much more difficult time supplanting Boeing. Even if it does eventually happen, it probably takes longer and several additional other companies fail before one succeeds.
Latency is pretty good on Quest 1 - I haven't tried Quest 2. Looking forward to getting a Lynx to gauge how close we are to something good.
The Wikipedia article describes the various psychological mechanisms people use to avoid thinking about the fact that something they are doing involves something else getting killed. It does not provide arguments for why killing an animal for it's meat (or hide or other resource) is wrong.

A counterpoint to your 'raising humans for consumption' point which is equally extreme but in the opposite direction. How do you know plants do not feel suffering? After all studies show plants can sense surroundings and communicate with other plants even of other species.
Mozilla, I want to give you money and subscribe,
Yet you refuse with this ambiguit error:

The currency of this subscription is not valid for the country associated with your payment.

Try again
You sound like a great parent doing right by your daughter. She's lucky to have you.

The point of school is to learn to think + learn to face adversity & failure....
The big difference is Amazon consistently focuses on the customer. That is their big thing. Notice that the criticism is never about what Amazon does for/to customers, but about other players: delivery partners, employees, rival sellers. Where the customer does suffer (IME very rarely) it is due to a failure (e.g. not keeping up with scams on their marketplace) and not malice (actively spending engineering effort to make the product worse for consumers, see Microsoft Windows, or promoting engagement at the expense of society). Meta is actively thwarting international attempts to hold genocidal regimes accountable, so I think they deserve the hate they get. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-28/facebook-...

It’s frustrating with Microsoft because the bad behavior is completely unnecessary. They are torching their reputation and goodwill for what can only be marginal gains in usage share for a free product, that might ultimately lead to showing slightly more ads.

At least when Amazon screws over business partners, it is on my behalf (in the form of cheaper or better goods and services - Amazon Basics being a great example). When Microsoft screws someone they screw me. When Facebook screws someone, they screw me (or they did, before I deleted my account, good riddance).
>Who: Series B startup with ~$100 million in funding, me open-source developer

That $100 million isnt in your pocket. This isn't 100% reliable source of income. It might seem like alot but it's not established yet.

>In a meeting they explain how they were interested in using my open-source project and want to hire me so i could carry out a similar work for them

Sweet, i assume they want to use your code. Might try to be tricky and get you to sign your code away. Then fire you and keep the code base.

>Then they go on and explain i’d have to do 4 more meetings 1-2 hours each, including a leetcode-style tech interview

Kind of a red flag in my books. If they are coming to you, then it's the reverse. Like they should be offering you equity or something. I dunno. They need to win you over and bureaucracy isn't how to do that.
Technical ability is not the only requirement for most jobs.
it is a sketchy mini-article from an official chinese news site. Who cares about it?
I'm honestly surprised I've never heard of litigation gambling. Considering your comment, it definitely seems like a horrible idea, so I'm not a proponent. My surprise is due to the fact that the degeneracy of the internet knows no bounds.
I'm beginning to wonder:

* how crazy some other company's interview loops are, if they really are coding every single one of those hours.

* if people on HN are actually on interview loops, assessing candidates.
Encryption is indistinguishable from noise. So the difference between a high power encrypted transmission and high power jammer is semantic. Radio transmissions also propagate. Sometimes they propagate in unexpected ways reaching much farther than expected.

If you combine these things you end up with encrypted transmissions raising the noise floor for everyone in a band with no way to know if that noise is a transmission or actual noise. A lot of ham bands are already very noisy from natural sources, a bunch of encrypted transmissions increasing the noise floor just serves to make those bands inaccessible.

The propagation makes this problem even worse because encrypted transmissions can raise the noise floor for hams hundreds or even thousands of miles away. Even if an encrypted transmission uses a very narrow bandwidth (no worse than other digital modes) you're still monopolizing part of a very small band with a private conversation preventing others from using the shared resource.

To make matters worse encryption necessitates some form of error correction. Whether this is forward error correction, retransmission, or whatever it's necessary for a receiver to receive a correct ciphertext in order to decrypt a message. Error correction necessitates a higher duty cycle in order to send the error correcting overhead. So encrypted transmissions last longer than the equivalent unencrypted digital mode tying up limited bandwidth for a longer duration.
Desirable or not is subjective, but what's not as subjective is the liklihood of this technology stack arriving and becoming popular, which seems very likely/guaranteed at this point.
The webpage was written in 1997.
It dit not. UK can choose which laws to repel.
People seeking discontent and chaos?
The relative cost to the interviewee and the employer aren't really comparable.
Precisely. Just observe the discussion about scientific theories and you can see firsthand that the public wants simple and clear black-and-white stuff (and to be told what to do) and not some kind of qualified statement that turns 99.9% certainty into something that can be spun as 50/50.
The uptick in overdose deaths followed the nationwide crackdown on pain meds - which itself was justified by pointing to a pill mill problem that had largely been solved for a decade.

Missing from this story are the vastly larger numbers of people who remain in debilitating, chronic pain (and the accompanying suicides) - which I guess isn't as sexy as overdoses.

ref: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=number+of+chronic+pain+patients+de...
The Rust implementation has it as an experimental extension (https://github.com/facebookexperimental/starlark-rust/blob/m...)
But even not-for-business, I don't want someone else to be able to impersonate others, so signatures/verification still needs to be supported. Otherwise someone who's good at voice impersonations of others could wreak havok.
I like how you declare yourself an subfield expert & then call an experts in your subfield to be worthless.
Well Firefox is largely the default on Linux, so it wouldn't represent a proactive choice.

And linux users are probably more likely to fall into the category of sophisticated user than the general population.

I don't see any evidence in what you've presented that the average computer user cares at all about what browser they're using beyond "I will click until the annoying notifications go away".
Engineering manager vs. tech lead: which is better?
Just be glad my comment didn't consist of a URL pointing to a completed DocuSign.