skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
And yet the guidelines suggest you use "the original title":

> Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.

I don't think that ends up being confusing even though "the original title" could mean HTML element or biggest heading on the page, it works out, we know what you mean. (I think it's usually the biggest visible heading on the page, rather than mostly invisible HTML title element).

Since the guidelines literally do say to usually, if there isn't a reason not to, use, or at least start with, the original title... I agree it would be helpful if the submit form had an option to pre-fill the "title" field with the original title scraped from the article, like reddit does. You can always edit it before submission, it's just a pre-filled convenience. Which is how reddit UI works.

I think this would be a convenience to those following the guidelines (which totally tell you to start with the original title!), plus perhaps increase compliance with the guidelines by making it the path of least resistance.

On the other hand, it may reasonably not be the highest priority for development, I know you have a backlog. But I don't follow the argument that it would be counter-productive or impossible.
I'm pretty sure all non-profits are in the business of obtaining money.
3 second would be fine; but I’ve heard of people with 45 minute compile times.
>Almost no inflation, and yet wages were growing

and all it took was a global pandemic that killed "30 percent to 60 percent of the European population"[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death
I'm kind of surprised there isn't more interest in this article.

Any big change like this would seem to me to hint at some large effects later on. In Russia alone, the changes have the potential to be huge.

I guess it is still kind of "New Year" and people are hunkered down with COVID all over the world.
I think it's much simpler than this. The more employers can get you to tip (maybe setting the machine default) the less they have to pay the employee.
The original article isn't substantive. I mean, c'mon, the entirety of the argument against Electron apps is

> They eat up all the memory you have and still ask for more. They constantly crash and has no value over a native desktop application what so ever - well, perhaps with the only exception that now a 2 year old baby can make something shiny that you can click on with your mouse.

I'm kind of a curmudgeon about Electron apps, and I'm still reading that and going, "I can't think of a single time I've had an Electron app crash on me, what kind of genius two-year-olds are out there developing in React Native, and what kind of juvenile complaint is 'make something shiny that you can click on with your mouse' (as opposed to native desktop apps, which as we all know are matte black and only take keyboard input). Also, for Strunk & White's sake, 'whatsoever' is one word, and 'they' goes with the verb 'have', not 'has.'"

And the whole article is like this. He goes on to complain about PHP templating systems because PHP itself is a templating language, and sure, yes, argument to be made there! Just…not this argument. Most PHP templating systems compile their templates to pure PHP, so if anything is making "the application load four times as slow" it is not that. Then he goes on to tell us "all web servers has a build in router" -- there are either two or three syntax errors in that seven-word sentence, depending on whether you count "build in" for "built-in" as one or two -- and rails against how web frameworks are eschewing web servers' built-in routers (by which we mean…URL requests?) and instead insisting on implementing the revolutionary new (checks notes) front controller pattern. Yes, you're right, web development would be so much easier without that, wouldn't it? Also, while we're here, let's talk about line numbers. Why aren't we still using line numbers? Named functions are for wussies. In my day, we used GOTO both ways uphill in the snow and we liked it!

Wait, sorry. Where was I?

Anyway, it's actually pretty hard to make "substantive counter-arguments". The article is badly argued and badly written. I would not normally be quite so much of a jerk about the numerous syntax errors, except that this ends with a suggestion that people, you know, pay for this writing. I don't expect perfection (God knows I make tpyos all the time), but the closing paragraph starts with a sentence that literally has no verb. If your entire thesis is "IT people need to do better," well: engineer, heal thyself.
Yup, and didn't this exist pre Google Fi? Maybe it was just certain android phones, but I remember messaging one or two friends from hangouts in Gmail while at work, and they would respond really quick because they got the messages on their android phones. This may have been back before iPhones had SMS handoff built into iMessage on Macs, so in a way Google was more advanced than Apple's solution then.

Of course Google has killed all that many times over. They made their own bed.
I just started my Brave browser adventure. While it has more explicit controls for many privacy-related settings still how-to guide is something highly recommended.
This is why we can’t rely on technological progress alone to stop global warming.
There are a lot of disks in a Netflix content appliance. The latest slide says 18 drives, each with PCIe 3.0 x4. There are 4 PCIe 4.0 x 16 nics, and there's all your PCIe lanes. You could get PCIe 4 drives, but it's not the bottleneck at the moment.

But, RAM needs at least twice the bandwidth as your network, because you can't have the NIC read from the disk directly, you need to have the disk DMA to ram, and the NIC DMA from ram, and (normal system) ram isn't dual ported, so reads and write contend. If you need to do TLS in software, you touch ram 4 times (disk read, cpu read, cpu write, nic read), so ram bandwidth is an even bigger bottleneck.
This was the first article I ever heard about this theory. I think its original form was longer, and the link is sadly just an excerpt.

“When Bandogs Howle and Spirits Walk” in Smithsonian Magazine - from January 2001!

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-bandogs-h...
Programming and Software Engineering are related but not the same thing. There is yet another thing - coding, which is also something else. Yes, software engineers do program, and programming involves coding. But someone who has come up with, say, a computational algorithm or a formula may ask you to implement it in a form that a computer (or, more likely, a compiler) can understand. That’s coding. Programming, on the other hand, is what we do when we need to solve a specific problem, or a part of a problem, by writing a program or a library of modules, which involves several steps such as choice of data structures and algorithms that make it possible to solve the problem efficiently. Finally, software engineering is building software from various, potentially many, pieces which include custom program modules as well as those written by third parties. The degree of “engineering” involved grows exponentially as we go from mere coding to programming to, well, software engineering.
A USB4 peripheral interface is $15 and a 10g ethernet IC is like $80 at least, plus a little box, SFP+ thing, other physical items. Seems hard to get the price down that low and still make a profit. Plus the buyer still needs an expensive cable on both sides.
There’s no such thing as PoW pollution. Think of solar panels, wind power and fuel burn offs, all power at the edge, made efficient by PoW, not socialistic PoS nonsense.
A few things are true at the same time:

1. It was statistically extremely likely a virus like COVID would come along soon, and models have predicted such viruses arising naturally for a long time.

2. It is at the same time perfectly possible it was engineered.

3. It is a plain stupid move, politically, to outwardly entertain the idea that COVID was engineered - unless you've got proof so damning not even China could ignore it. Unlikely to exist. And even then it is only going to score you a few feel-good points with the plebeians at home.

4. Either possibility has no impact at all on shorter term decision making. It is stupid to burden people whose immediate goal it is to save lives with even more political minefields they have to navigate.
So, the "solution" for having a gradient go from yellow to a blue (via a gray region) is to have yellow go through green and then blue? Color me unimpressed.

I remember years ago using non-linear functions to avoid a similar problem in a different field. I bet the same solution would work here and wouldn't look so "wrong". You could pick some non-linear fun to interpolate between values. And you could interpolate different RGB channels at an offset. The reult would be less gray in the middle.
Does anyone know of a programming or even dare I say, leetcode, equivalent blog post?
One way or another, the individual gets thrown under the bus.
> If they don’t want to interoperate, why should they?

Because it's the right thing to do. They are intentionally degrading the privacy and security of their own users every time an iPhone user opens the Messages app and sends a message to an Android user. They do this because they want a competitive edge, and value that over the privacy and security of their users. They're contributing to the problem of proliferation of various messaging apps, which makes it harder to contact people, and harder to evaluate what method of contact gives the most security and privacy.

I'm not claiming Google is any kind of saint here. They are the definition of message app proliferation (and message app graveyarding). But at least Google, with RCS, is finally trying to do messaging in a way that's open to interoperability.

I'm also not claiming that Apple "must" open things up. As you say, it's their prerogative not to. But I am also free to judge that decision as a net negative for society, and demonize them for it.
> If you think lambdas with GC are a good idea then you would not use C++

Lambdas with GC are an extremely good idea, because of the silently shared environments and what not. Whether C++ should have lambdas if it can't guarantee GC is a completely different thing. C++ doesn't have to include everything to be fashionable, after all.
Can you imagine if PoW cryptocurrencies hadn't of existed, that the climate change narrative would have been adapted to apply as "the world really needs to ban triple-A gaming" instead?

This story reminds me of an urban legend that the Sony Playstation 2 consoles almost hit a snag on an export ban because of "potential military applications". Different era, different context I suppose.

https://www.pcmag.com/news/20-years-later-how-concerns-about...
Catholic fundamentalism exists, and is remarkably similar to protestant fundamentalism despite having theoretically different theological arguments - they're the ones arguing that Pope Francis is wrong about things, and more generally they are the ones who disagree with the changes of Vatican II.

https://religionnews.com/2019/11/19/the-rise-of-fundamentali...
Good to know, thank you for the reference! Disappointed to learn that E2EE only works for 1:1 conversations, not group chats. I wonder why they chose to limit it in that way.
Those other languages were able to contribute under the old names, when they couldn't publish elsewhere.

Where do the Lispers go now?
What? That doesn't put any pressure on the situation for better labor laws.

The only people who would be shafted are servicepeople, not owners. Even with a successful boycott servicepeople would still be getting paid less, even if from the owner's pockets.

What pressure do you imagine would reach those in power? Why are you trying to shove market-based thinking where obviously no reason exists?
Range requests. Hmm. That would lead to some interesting semantics.
yes! That was the post, thanks for finding it. I definitely feel there's some need since so many people ended up posting
“Please wait while GunOS updates…”
And now the hyper-individualist "there is no such thing as statistical tendencies nor homogenizing feedback loops" take-haver rears its head. Welcome home, HNer.
> There's no standardized HIPAA/HITECH audit at all.

HITRUST is the standardized audit for companies that care about HIPAA/HITECH, but your argument certainly holds there as well (everything you can say about SOC2 is just multiplied by an order of magnitude or two for HITRUST).
We have a well-funded national security 'state' in the United States, and a decreasing appetite to impose our will abroad. Looking inward/domestically seems like the natural response by organizations that want to stay alive and continue doing what they do.

I'm not surprised that there is increasing rhetoric of the 'domestic terrorism' threat from our officials/traditional media, that doesn't have to be tied to increasing objective harm to the public by such threats. I would not expect this rhetoric to die down anytime soon, unless there are sufficient opportunities abroad for our security state/military to invest in.

I know partisans want to hop on the bandwagon when their political opposition is being lambasted as the 'domestic terrorists' by the media/our officials, but they should really think hard about the precedent and power that they are bequeathing our security state. The application of that power will not just be limited to be used only on those YOU don't like.
Not to say that what you're doing is wrong or unappreciated by the people serving you but I think you're basing way too much of your daily life on a movie.
Modern high end serdes have very complex signal mgmt and monitoring tools built in. You can detect the link quality, pull eye diagrams/etc from them.

So a lot of the reason for using some of these high end scopes/analyzers is bypassed by the testing/diagnostics functions on the serdes itself. And then of course there are a ton of signal tuning parameters which get programmed during link training.

Even modern analyzers have problems with this, and I've seen vendors that instead of even trying to reconstruct the signal at the endpoint use virtual transmission models and require one to probe at the source.

This is one of those areas that I bump into every couple years, and its frequently quite educational.
The issue is cross comparison, not reading from the manual of a single board. In the past you could look at the physical motherboard layout and could compare it with another motherboard. Today, it's merely a suggestion. You take the physical layout with a huge grain of salt because it's nothing but lies. Which means going to the website of every single potential motherboard you wish to purchase, downloading their PDF, and digging through enough caveat fine print documentation to make your eyes bleed.
> Is there something illegal about being far-right or being in a militia?

If they are participating in domestic terrorism, which is defined as (18 USC § 2331(5))

> activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

* https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331

I'm not aware of (m)any active (far-)left militias in recent years, though in the past there were some, e.g.:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground
That's a fair point that I hadn't considered. I agree that's a negative, but for me, personally, I don't consider it a showstopper. I do get that other people might, though, and am understanding of that position.

On the flip side, most people using RCS would otherwise be using an @gmail.com address as their identity if that was how it worked. I'd say that's probably better than the carrier owning the identity, but it's still not ideal.
> I am paying for it. If you don't like my use, either raise the price or, well, leave me alone.

Residential miners are using subsidized electricity. We do that so Grandma can afford to be warm and run her dryer.

If we forced miners to use commercial electricity plans then they would in fact pay a whole mess more.
Indeed. And ideally everyone would get a third party to do a fit test. Or at least do their own self test. But either way Im happy for both datapoints so consumers can filter out obvious junk and then focus on their best available option insyead of starting tabula rosa.
Lots of tools are better as websites - however underhand motives often mean mobile apps get pushed more and have done for years. Inevitably someone pops up to say "but what about essential feature X that you can't do well on the web" even though it's rarely genuinely essential or it's a worthwhile trade-off.

My GP surgery uses a fantastic website for streamlining comms where you'd never want to install an app that would be rarely used. It's so well integrated that they could ping me the link during a call and I had details back to them seconds later so I got a decision there and then as we spoke rather than breaking flow state and delaying it by days as they used to.

Funnily enough my dentist has a similar kind of app relating to pre-appt preparation - perhaps there's a fight back for common sense in these slightly more serious fields?
It is a hard idea to correlate since you can't unwind knowledge. I think your idea around giving a person X time to come up with solution could work if the patent office could afford that.

Maybe take a 3rd party who is unaware of the patent/novel idea and then asking them how to solve for some generalized version of the problem that a patent states it is solving and see what happens.

Similar to black boxing that companies will do with tech that may have been shared under restricted terms.
Who cares about early beliefs? We have everything we need to explain a natural origin (see linked thread), and only a bunch of circumstantial evidence spun into a conspiracy theory narrative to prove engineering.

https://virological.org/t/tackling-rumors-of-a-suspicious-or...
I remember learning Smalltalk. Or rather, beating the crap out of the bloody machine it ran on. This was back in 1989...Carleton U in Ottawa. The CompSci faculty was all-in on the glory of Smalltalk. We had to learn it on old (even then) Apple Lisa machines running some sort of Mac emulation to run Smalltalk-80. Occasionally, the Lisa would eat your diskette...and you had to rip the case apart to pry it out. We were told Smalltalk was the future...seemed no one was offering jobs in Smalltalk though...just a whole lot of dBaseIV. Must admit, it was fun, and cute...but it had no chance of paying my bills at the time.
That's part of why the capture list is explicit in C++. Automatic by-reference captures should only be used for lambdas whose scope is strictly lexical (ie, passed down the call stack, aka "downward funargs"). Otherwise stick with by-value captures.
Do you think web development is anywhere near what it was 20 years ago? Or even 10 years ago? It has definitely advanced a lot. We're now able to do things we were never able to do back then. Now the browser can run a whole cad application, Photoshop, advanced 3d games and complex UI that we weren't able to compose before.
You have it right. The covid pandemic has exposed some of the flaws in the 'old way' of instruction. Students are not 'peas in pods'. Quite young children can vary greatly in intelligence - yet they are shelled like peas. A substantial number of children deserve to be taught to their degree of intelligence. This means granular assessment coupled with a teaching regime that matches that assessment. Many kids are capable of computer aided education in an 'enhanced auto didact' method of teaching. Many people can be given a book and can progress to learn a topic.
Of course, we have a lot who can not, so the first thing to teach is the auto didact process. You have heard about give a man a fish - or teach him how to fish - which is best. Our teaching system seems geared to getting large numbers of the same fish and giving one a person forever.
People like Kevin Mitnick took their innate interest and intellect and became well(if narrowly educated) quite well. Sure he went off the beaten track - he lacked anyone with whom he could engage. He ended well, AFAIK.
How to we granularize education and teach this? AI has this potential.
I can see a well designed system that engages people, assesses them and guides them to follow various paths. In the lower grades this will be mainly in read/write/calculate skills to establish the basic skills the student will use to progress as the educational system needs this at least. Once past this, why not get into math/science/languages/etc as that student wants and is capable - with boundaries as parents demand, but once past that the student should be able to progress into high school and college level courses as capable. The AI will draw upon historical courses and lectures, with drills/tests etc as warranted.
This would need some test milestones that would be met for accreditation purposes, but as an engineer, I can see no reason why the entire undergraduate course base can not be turned into an AI mediated system.
There will be points where a student gets stuck and a prof gets into the loop. The student AND the AI progress higher. Future students will find this sticking point is now in the AI repertoire. The MIT courseware is a step in this progression and could be expanded.
A natural fear is that by reducing the amount of work each employee tackles at any given time, it might reduce the total amount of work an organization is able to complete, making it less competitive. This fear is unfounded. As argued, when an individual’s work volume increases, so does the accompanying overhead and stress, reducing both the time remaining to actually execute the tasks and the quality of the results.

The real question is whether these conditions produce a 20% reduction in productivity that would equate to the productivity of a 4-day work week. I'm not convinced, and have not come across compelling studies that quantify productivity increased of a 4-day work week.

In particular, my own anecdotal experience where my organization works 4-days a week during the Summer is increased stress due to fewer hours to complete a set of tasks that do not decrease with the the decreased office time. I instead often find myself feeling nervous about tasks unfinished and often end up putting in time during the 3 non-work days.

Alternatively the author implies that simply assigning less work could be the answer, but to address that and related issues:

I am not saying that a 4-day work week shouldn't be considered, but I am skeptical that it could be implemented without increasing employee headcount accordingly. That complicates things then as increased salary costs impact product prices-- a regressive increase that impacts lower paid workers more than others. So increased wages could also be necessary, but that (hopefully to a lesser extent) feeds back into those same increased labor costs. Working out these issues is a package deal.
it is an interesting point though. Like I've tried to think of elegant solutions where we can get the customer's browser to preprocess work for us so we can reduce our total lambda/ec2 time. for example one could have their browser generate the thumbnails for an uploaded photo instead of just uploading the single image upload. After all, 1000s to millions of browsers can make short work of something that might be heavy on AWS.

Sadly I've yet to find many FE engineers that are all that experienced with WebWorkers

Someday this could be a good use of all those free CPUs
Google needs to stop complaining and make RCS web accessible like hangouts was. messages.google.com is not it. that requires your cell phone to be on to pass through the texts.