skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Black Lives Matter is a slogan used by disparate groups for a variety of causes. The slogan "Black Lives Matter" is necessarily one focused on the human rights of black people.

If we can agree that this slogan is controversial, then it seems like we should be able to agree that the Go project could make its points better by avoiding a controversial slogan and instead using an unambiguous statement. Certainly this should be open for discussion.

Moreover, I could make a similar statement about "All Lives Matter", which is necessarily focused on human rights, but most people steer clear of the slogan because the media has worked to associate it with right-wing groups and now it is only used by right-wing groups--good faith people strive to make their points in ways which are unambiguously good faith; bad faith people use motte and bailey rhetoric which is what the Go team appears to be doing (they are certainly aware of the controversial nature of the slogan and refuse to discuss it).

> The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s in the US also involved violent riots by some actors

Right, and we collectively rebuked those actors and raised up non-violent actors as exemplars for social change.

> there was public debate between sides on whether segregation was intrinsically a cause of inequality, similar to how there is debate today between sides on whether our criminal justice system is intrinsically a cause of racial inequality.

Public debate is fine. Burning and looting neighborhoods, attacking innocent people, etc is not.

> If one didn't view segregation as intrinsically unequal, they might claim that the Civil Rights Movement (though focused on many other issues as is BLM) had "little to do with human rights."

Right, but through public debate and other non-violent means, we made the case that segregation is intrinsically unequal. With respect to BLM, note that there was an enormous effort to punish people for criticizing BLM.

> Supporting the Civil Rights Movement, a movement that contained numerous groups, goals, and actors (both violent and non-violent), was still a position that doesn't seem to have harmed organizations of the day, and may have even benefitted them.

We supported the Civil Rights Movement because it largely emphasized non-violence. We supported the movement in spite of its violent elements, and the violent and nationalist figures remained controversial right up until BLM folks made them popular.
> A reminder that no one's making you use Amazon, especially the Alexa stuff.

What happens when you kid's friends use and they visit? What happens when everything is "Alexa enabled" and comes on by default?

Voting with your wallet doesn't work against sufficiently large vendor who's willing to lose money to achieve their goals.
A rover can do that too. In fact, Perseverance already has the ability to collect samples and prepare them for a future pick-up mission.

It is just that we are not found of sending people and letting them die there, so a human mission implies a return mission, and if there is a return mission, of course you want to bring back souvenirs.

In fact, a sample return mission can be seen as a step towards a manned mission. First you try to bring back a pile of rocks, then you consider bringing back humans.

And yes, humans are far more efficient than robots at space exploration today, but robots keep improving, and I think it will take many years before we put people on Mars, so by the time we are ready for a manned Mars mission, we will probably have much better robots. Not as good as humans, but digging lots of rocks and moving faster than a snail will probably be well within their abilities.
> The animal rights argument is entirely subjective (…). What that means is, the opposite position has as much validity, it's also subjective.

The subjective aspects of a difficult question doesn’t mean all takes are equally valid. That’s the same as giving up and saying that nothing means anything.
It's coming at the problem from different directions. The documentation gives you the general bottom up approach, but lacks details and examples. SO shows what it should look like at the end, and adds details on edge cases that the documentation just glosses over. But you can never find exactly what you want, so you combine those two, a working end result, then modified using the documentation, to get what you want in the end.

If you already have a working pattern that you're just modifying, you might get away with just looking up documentation. If you already have a strong foundation and know exactly what you want to do, then you're just looking up the syntax.

Maybe another analogy might be, learning vocab to better express your thoughts, vs looking up the exact spelling of a word you already know.
At this point when I receive a note from a recruiter, I let them know I need to know the name of the firm (not "top firm in your field"), the full job description, and the compensation range. If they do not provide that, we are wasting each others' time and I will not correspond further. I understand that third party recruiters don't want to give away some information so that applicants won't end-run and apply directly to the firm. But, look at the job market. Games are not going to work right now.
For me, the desire to avoid ridiculous commute times is the most relatable issue.

A two hour daily commute is like adding an additional day to your work week.
They aren't trying to outlaw math. They are trying to make it unpractical. If the app stores don't allow E2EE apps, grandma isn't installing her own toolchain to compile her own copy. Then they can also outlaw public github repos that contain the "open source". This is scary stuff. We know the watchers can't be trusted.
Yes but so what? Since the virus is now endemic and can't be eradicated, all of us will be exposed multiple times throughout our lives no matter what we do or how many people are vaccinated. Vaccination provides good protection against severe symptoms, but over the long run it won't prevent others from being exposed.
I'd wager this is because there is one outright leader in the field (the Contributor Covenant) who's author has at times been a controversial figure in her views on enforcement and scope of codes of conduct, which can lead to people being apprehensive of just adopting the popular example.

You can see similar with licenses. Stallman was initially controversial for his views on software licensing, and so in the early days there was a proliferation of licenses like the eclipse public license, mozilla public license, microsoft public license, CCDL, etc.
Sadly Germany, a country that should know how bad it is to have the government have access to everything, is pushing for this.

Just about 32 years ago the Berlin Wall fell and shortly after the Stasi files were proudly presented as an example of tyranny. Now the German government wants to do the same.
I wish Australia much good luck with this approach, I am going to take a stab at the eventual outcome: history will have a chuckle at them.
It really shouldn't: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29308714
> Python's type annotations are formally part of the language

> Python's problem is that there is no equivalent of @types/*

Yes, this is exactly why I asked:

> Microsoft to make a good type system

Operative word "good". A type system that loses types for libraries has, to say the least, extremely limited value. More to the point, whatever typing Python has is wildly unpopular amongst Python engineers, and when I talk to my Python-using colleagues they seem to have no clue they can even use types. Perhaps it's also a community problem in this way.
The basics of database normalization with TypeORM and PostgreSQL
> They don't want new powers, they want their old powers back

I don't agree. They want both. They want more!
The commenter above just said "But aren't all problems just due to a lack of technology?"
I find myself wondering whether a useful testing step between mice and people might be the community of small dogs with IVDD. French bulldogs, dachshunds, and corgis seem particularly susceptible and many of them wind up with rear paralysis. https://www.thedogsdown.com/how-can-ivdd-cause-paralysis/
Is there a reason you don't want to do a web app and insists it must be a desktop app?

Separately, from a business perspective, a one-time fee might make this difficult to sustain unless you plan to charge for future updates (it's not clear from the current landing page).

Can you clarify your thoughts here?
I mean, I think ReiserFS deserves an honorary mention.
Back-to-the-office movement continues to be spurred by those whose employment depends on productivity theatre, and those who are dissatisfied with their home life and use the office as an escape. Very sad we can't compromise with an agreement where the productive remote folks can show up to the office when absolutely needed, without some arbitrary x days / week requirement. Hopefully this continues the brain drain out of companies that can't get with it due to their large RE holdings & extensive use of PMs.
As pointed out by another user, I was actually referring to compiling Python _directly_ to Wasm. Porting the C++ _implementation_ to Wasm is obviously possible.
I for one love to get the news blasts about Librem 5 USA shipping while waiting for my Librem 5.
Right. It's like saying you can't allow a plant. You can outlaw anything you want no matter how dumb it is. It doesn't mean people will comply. All it means is you created criminals.
http://web.archive.org/web/20170829180041/https://www.reddit...
> The element is cobalt, Kobalt is a brand of tools

Kobalt is the name of the element in German; @jillesvangurp's profile says he is based in Berlin, perhaps he also speaks German. (German also capitalizes nouns.)
It clicked for me that the real danger posed by encryption to these governments is that it can guarantee truth. When everything is narrative, even something as simple as a commitment hash for a document removes discretion from the sovereign body because it encapsulates a non-repudiable truth. Irreversible processes (like blockchains) constrain the effect of rule by fiat. The people who write these censorship and anti-encryption regulations aren't worried about secrecy or even crime, violance, and abuse, they just fear being accountable to truth.

The real danger of encryption, and in particular blockchains, is that it can subordinate the legitimacy of the state and its policies and actions to a test of truth, and this is why they hate it. The abuse and terrorism arguments are red herrings for this to distract from this fundamental dynamic.
Discipline vs. Motivation (2018)
I love nix as a concept. I have a couple concerns in practice.

* I don't want to learn nix, nor do I want to learn apt, brew, pip, npm, crates etc. beyond a handful basic commands: install, remove, list all, list package (version & deps), update (at version). A one page cheatsheet would be fantastic.

* There is a ton of QA work sunk in standard package manager workflows. Is there a way to leverage this work? You allude it is possible, hopefully there is a one page cheatsheet explaining how.

Regarding obscure command syntax, I use bash aliases to give names to the most common 7 git commands (which constitute 99% of my daily usage) and never have to remember any git command flags.
> They present a facade of caring while crushing dissent.

This is a rampant tactic on Wikipedia usually employed by experienced gatekeepers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CRUSH and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SQS
Very high DPI is mostly a marketing gimmick, like it happened on megapixel count on cameras.

Humans simply cannot see with such clarity without using a magnifying glass.

Plus, it uses more energy and require more expensive GPUs.
Tutanota is now free for open source projects
It would be more appealing if the title was not so alarmist. "Outlaw encryption" Really?
The problem with this theory is that the moderation team has been entirely supportive of Ms. 'Kill' so far, and actively works to silence dissent about her position in public Rust spaces. (Maybe not so much as the unofficial mods, but I personally was on the receiving end of llogiq's overreaction in /r/rust to any dissent.) I believe they would take her side in the dispute which Klabnik vaguebooked about a few months ago.
Sorry, who said “respect stuff?” I don’t see what you’re quoting. And who is “complaining?” I will just restate the warning, admitting that you’ve auto generated terms, didn’t know what was in them and forced everyone to sign them invalidates all terms of the current contract and gives ground for future disputes on completely new contracts. So… I’ll reiterate my recommendation to delete the post. This seems to have stuck a nerve with you so I’m not looking to get into it beyond that.
Had a chat with a remote friend, talking about .. problems in life, I guess. Talking a bit back and forth, some questions asked, I went for the easy route first and talked about MY problems and MY solutions/mitigations.

Turns out his problems are entirely different and the solutions therefore too. So, going a step backwards, for the gained overview, I tried talking about identifying problems and inventing some tricks to mitigate them.

While doing so, I got reminded about this article. While many of you probably know it already, or at least the message, there is always someone who hears for the first time about X. So here is my todays' X :)
I think you wanted to use the adjective reverse.
We already have a de-facto national privacy law. It's the CPRA and it takes effect 1 Jan 2023.
I did offer feedback whenever it came up, but it was just to whomever I was talking to via support. They acknowledged the feedback but they kept repeating the same problems over and over so it was clear it wasn't going to improve in the immediate term. Some of it was simple, like, "please just use the right snippet, or if you need separate snippets for this, make separate snippets" and some was obviously more complex, like "if you are going to say something, like that you'll refund me, you should stick to what you said, rather than back out of it and not stick to your word."
The closest thing I can think of is recurse center: https://www.recurse.com/.
I disagree with this statement

I don't want to go back to the office not because I want to WFH. It's because COVID is still a big threat. I'd go back to work in the office in a heartbeat if there isn't a pandemic around. The office is cool, and the in person interaction is great, despite me being an introvert.

Unless we have data on how many people choose to work remotely due to COVID, I would not hastily attribute those people to the camp of "only want to work remotely".
You say each letter separately; it’s an acronym and stands for Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
It should be “Many people repeat facts written online without understanding it.”
Not that I know of, but there are plenty of celibate dudes writing software that makes little to no profit!
That's definitely something that should be taken into account, especially on newer "consumer" CPUs which may actually not even have enough lanes for a GPU and NVMe drive [0].

In my case, the CPU has 40 PCIe lanes, and all PCIe 16x slots on the motherboard are electrically 16x.

---

[0] For example, the i5-8500 only has 16 lanes total: https://ark.intel.com/content/www/fr/fr/ark/products/129939/...
Work at FAANG. The stock gains in the last 10 years alone would've allowed me to FIRE
Both sides of the aristocracy only care about hypocrisy on Main Street: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/02/us/politics/elaine-chao-c...

While I get the sentiment, western working hours are the lowest they’ve been in the industrial era, but we sure have a lot of nice tech. Your experience is subsidized by nation state brutality.

Spare us the high minded criticism and go do something about your own cognitive dissonance.
While it is true that directives require implementation, it is not true that the EU cannot directly create legislation. EU regulations do have a direct effect, meaning that no implementation law is necessary. GDPR is an example of this (General Data Protection Regulation).
> "this company is someone else's property, you have no rights to that property, we do what we want, so play nice and don't piss off the wrong folks unless you're ok leaving."

> so play nice and don't piss off the wrong folks

"Play nice", "don't piss off" and "the wrong folks" are open to interpretation. I think having these at least somewhat codified is very helpful. Cultures differ a lot, and what may be considered "a useful, clear, concise and honest code review" in one is "blatant non-constructive shitstorm from an arrogant a-hole" in another.

However, such codification probably requires specific examples rather than "please be respectful to all people regardless of X, Y, Z" or "don't piss off people". For example, I really like how Recurse Center's "Social Rules" are described: https://web.archive.org/web/20211117232710/https://www.recur...

> Most of our social rules really boil down to "don't be a jerk" or "don't be annoying." Of course, almost nobody sets out to be a jerk or annoying, so telling people not to be jerks isn't a very productive strategy. That's why our social rules are designed to curtail specific behavior we've found to be destructive to a supportive, productive, and fun learning environment.
Thank you for explaining to me how Berkley sockets work (though you forgot about the protocol identifier, you can absolutely have two sockets listening on 127.0.0.1:8000 as long as one is using TCP port 8000 and the other UDP port 8000).

> There are various ways to handle this, but a typical one is that servers do a hand-off during connection initialization to a temporary port assigned to that connection.

I don't think this is right. Servers don't normally use additional ports. Instead, a process can actually create multiple TCP (streaming) sockets with the same local address:local port combination, but different remote address:remote port combinations (each TCP socket is uniquely identified by a four-tuple).

The point though was that once Flask realizes that it can't bind the address:TCP socket, it shouldn't just give up without even telling users about other options.
Yes, you will see comments from friends on posts like these. Even if they have a million comments it will come into your feed with a friends replies visible.
I did the same in the last few days, although I run everything on a single-node k3s cluster.

There are some caveats when trying this that one should be aware of. For example there are some bugs with the iptables binary that result in megabytes of duplicate iptables rules after a few days, slowing everything down to a crawl (k3s issue 3117)

Also, lots of software on Dockerhub etc. still don't supply arm64 binaries, which means you will have to build your own containers for them if you want to use them.

Other than that, RaspberryPi 4's make excellent Kubernetes nodes (at least if you get the 8GB version, since even though k3s is reportedly a lightweight Kubernetes alternative, it still needs a couple hundred megabytes of RAM just for the k3s-server binary)
SO is a great place for finding that one little code snippet that plugs a hole in your understanding of a problem. Many times you're 3 layers deep in a dependency chain of problems solved, and the question addresses some totally unrelated problem, but the question's answer uses that special argument to the framework's / language's library function in just the right way where it unlocks your understanding and lets you continue on your merry way.
and your comment shows, again, how little ability you have to comprehend what you're reading
The problem for me now is my mental index can suffer from link rot. For programming its okay because this doesn't happen often. But for other topics when a site or blog with the details of how something works disappears from the internet its very disorienting. Like you unlearned it. I guess this is why people get into archiving content.
> A growing community needs healthy management

Like this person being the executive director? https://archive.fo/f10KK
Proof of Work is not resilient to a sufficiently large 'cartel' either in this case. If your cartel is 51% of bitcoin miners by hashrate, they can agree to let each other spend their bitcoin twice. Of course, this is sufficiently hard to do with proof of work, as with proof of stake, as to make it infeasable, perhaps even moreso with proof of stake.

As an example with bitcoin specifically, it would probably be cheaper to buy enough mining hardware to constitute 51% of the bitcoin network than it would be to buy 51% of all bitcoin.

Of course, both would be very expensive endeavors.
That's a very healthy amount of selfsteem.

[Grabs needle]

POP!!!
To offer a counterpoint, doing a basic calculation in your head is faster than reaching for a calculator - remembering 7*3=21 is faster than punching it in on a keypad. It's the same with facts -- having some fact committed to your own local memory is much faster than searching a global computer network for it every time.

For somputer systems, the speed at which data can be accessed has a transformative effect on the algorithms that deal with it. I think this is the case for humans as well.
It goes much deeper than that.

For example, again referencing Erlang since that's the only FP language I'm well-versed in, immutable data + pattern matching means that there are assertions on practically every line of code in production.
Those are all reasonable arguments which would have made sense to include on the product webpage. That said, are there really that many people who are unhappy with the 5-7 years of support that a company like Apple provides? And is it really such a great strategy to emphasize a target audience of "people who want to keep their phones indefinitely instead of buying new ones"?
There's also just straight up demand for worse products at a lower price. To wit: many luxury goods 'outlets' now sell lines produced exclusively for the outlet market rather than unsold merchandise from the primary retail channel. If there isn't product in the outlet stores, that segment's demand is met by a competitor.

Of course, there's an argument that this is just to protect the exclusivity of the primary retail channel, and that increased prices in that channel cover any losses from destroying, rather than down-binning unsold merchandise. The same argument might also apply to HEDT processors :)
> Auto updates are a big security risk themselves, it is a matter of time before someone manages to hijack a major distribution point like that (Windows, Chrome, Firefox?). Once that happens we will probably review this.

And as some lower-hanging fruit: The repos of common programming languages and things like Docker Hub.

Python PIP, NodeJS NPM, Ruby Gems, we pull in a lot of stuff from people we don't even know. Every python project installs a gazillion of stuff from its requirements.txt. At least the OS updates come from a party we at least chose to do business with.

And it's not like this is not yet happening already. But I think it'll take a major Wannacry event before we'll stop doing this because it's just so damn handy.

But if you think of it, imagine you're coding and some random 'willywonka2586' on a public slack group says "Hey I wrote a handy library for that, here, go and install it and use it in a project for your customers!". This is kinda what we're doing.
Knowledge doesn't "enter" us, that's the point. It's an emergent property of (many, many) memorized & networked sensations, which do enter us through our various sensory organs.

It is virtually impossible to teach an abstract concept like "cup" without a) providing real, sensory examples of what you mean by "cup" or b) relating to analogous concepts that the student has already learned through personal experience (like "bowl" with "handle") and is capable of communicating.