skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You can remove it from all sites by installing the uBlock Origin browser extension (available for Firefox or Chrome) - it blocks Google Analytics and all sorts of other third-party trackers.
The reproducibility issue show that your average not peer reviewed paper, is also worth close to nothing.
Self medicating is one of the best ways to become addicted. I think drugs can be useful, but it's also an easy way to escape from your issues, or can make them worse. It depends a lot on the individual and their state of mind.
No reason (to need, in this situation) for the automated program to run faster than a human. The right hours billed to a human instead of the human's computer is.. not quite so fraudulent?
>Over that time Google stock price has gone up 10x.

Based mostly on taking display ads from "only in the sidebar" to "everywhere, including every pixel above the fold if the search term is lucrative". There's not a lot of juice left there to continue revenue increases that exceed general internet eyeball growth. They will still make an insane amount of money, but I don't see how they can sustain past growth YoY percentages.
I have an extension called FakeSpot that I use to detect fake Amazon reviews. To my surprise, it flagged your site as well with the following note: "Please research the seller because:
* Limited Internet presence
* Website is missing common professional website attributes
* Limited Internet presence and history"

It doesn't expand on any of those points, that's all it says.
I don’t trust the nanny state of the EU, or of any nation, to be able to block “illegal content” this way. Today it’s “think of the children” fearmongering to justify it. Tomorrow it’s gulag for anyone who isn’t on board with whatever orthodoxy takes hold of the EU.

Dark times ahead if someone like Macron, for example, can block content he deems illegal. They will strip people of a voice even more aggressively than they’d like to do right now.
I appreciate you sharing your perspective! Mine's somewhat different having worked in another industry.

I worked in semiconductor manufacturing as a process engineer. What counts as bug in that setting? It's completely expected to have defects in the final wafer. They go through a QA process. Some die can be repaired but others are trash. Die also get graded and low quality chips go to customers with less mission-critical needs. There's also a department dedicated to investigating early failures in defective product from customer returns.

Personally, I viewed the product that I delivered as the wafers coming out of the steps I owned. High volume manufacturing is an ongoing process much like software development.

As an individual process owner, I had metrics and goals to meet but my processes fit into a larger system I didn't fully understand. Process development happened by incremental changes much like software feature development. We would convert a small percentage of the production line with a new change at one step like you might use feature flags, but we sometimes had to rollback changes when something unexpected came up at yield or test.

It might be more the nature of semiconductor manufacturing, but I view failures as part of the engineering process that comes up when we're pushing our tools and systems to new limits.
Specifically, no, I'm not giving him credit for violating federal law and I don't dispute that the order lacked statutory authority. However, since a president is the only official tasked with protecting the country, he has certain emergency powers (e.g., the same powers Trump used to take money from the Pentagon against Congress' wishes to fund his wall construction) to ensure national defense, at a minimum. COVID is such a threat. (Was the border?)

While the Supreme Court (which isn't tasked with this same security role) decided against him on this order, as the executive it was reasonable for him to attempt to use this tool to gain control of COVID spread.

Given the divided, political state of our country and seeing that the COVID outbreak has taken an even worse upswing now, I personally feel like he did the right thing here. You'll note that I was not opining on the legal nature of the move. Other presidents have made orders without knowing their legality when the circumstances call for it. Lincoln and habeas corpus comes to mind.

What federal law did he ignore?
Big Amen from me, I was just about to write the same thing.

No pricing page means it’s possible I’ll end up needing to talk to a sales rep or they’ll end up wanting a subscription for any meaningful features.
I'd rather be a dog. So what if I do know some discrete math and I do know what it means for a language to have a formal semantics? Does that make me an above average developer or a software engineer?
Who in this group of people is avoiding taxes?

It serves the interests of the status quo - and it's a well-trodden means of doing it - to attack the messenger rather than address the message.
It is absolutely wildly different. "Evaluating a library", "reading the documentation", etc., is absolutely NOT the same as basing your calculations on a hundred+ years of rigorously proven methods and deeper physical truths. How could you possibly infer that these are the same thing?
There is also huge selection bias, when people are listening to 60’s, 70’s 80’s w/e music they are listening to 1% or even less of the music that was recorded.
Completely besides whether this is possible (I think it is; it's an offline learning problem with huge resources/economic potential and it's getting attention) I actually prefer subtitles...

Coming from Germany, this wasn't always the case, but nowadays watching dubbed content feels so weird and impoverished, I don't even want to imagine what it'd be like knowing that the voice is fully synthetic.
I've come to the conclusion that microservices as usually implemented are simply a Conway's law concern.

We haven't had a great track record defining the semantics of component boundaries, but http is both simple enough that it constricts code flow in a particular way leaving a lot of misunderstandings and bike shedding discussions off of the table, and is the ligua franca for external services owned by other orgs so your engineers can be universally expected to understand those semantics. There is a nice decoupling of letting teams make technology choices though. Letting that drift on a per team basis is kind of nice to allow experimentation with different technologies without having to get the whole org onboard.

Maybe I need to go on the talk giving, consultant circuit reselling a restricted view of DI as "hybrid service architecture! Write your code as microservices but DevOps can colocate your apps in the same process if that's more efficient!" Lolz

It's also quite a nerd trap as we developers love to separate components into as small of boxes as possible, but just like I've seen super deep object hierarchies that didn't gain you anything at the end of the day, it's easy to fall into the trap of spinning every tiny bit of code into its own service.

I'm creating my own backend arch right now from scratch, and really trying to look at each network traversal from a "what does drawing this boundary actually get me" perspective. And I'm only splitting that out because the third party protocol being implemented is inherently separate services in an interesting way.
Where's the pay out for G to keep free Gmail then? I never read that the stopping of scanning was for the free accounts. I had only understood it to be for those that paid for the GSuite. Are we really to believe that Googs is operating Gmail for free with no hoovering of data to offset the cost of the service?
Is there an app this where the editor is WYSIWYG but the storage format is Markdown? Almost like Confluence from a UI perspective but for a personal KB?
I really like the writing style on this. Very practical and readable, while getting straight at the interesting philosophical questions and not using a bunch of vapid filler.

Also here's a take: yeah, software engineering is engineering, it's just really _bad_ engineering which is why we're missing most of the things you'd expect to see in an engineer. We're in the early days of the craft, like 20% of the way to wherever it will end up, and we're doing the equivalent of, say, the structural engineering that goes into building a log cabin.
no there's no charge. there's a credit fee if you use a credit card, and i guess you're saying there's a debit fee for a debit card, but since you pay by check today anyway just pay by e-check instead.
I would much rather we use AI to improve subtitling. Better auto speech recognition, per-word millisecond synchronization, positioning based on speaker/screen content-- all these could improve the subtitled experience and would be way less creepy than deepfake voices.
Yeah, I'm really bad at most of these, haha. For example, I absolutely love to be woken up by the sun (heyo, SoCal!) so blackout curtains are a non-starter for everyday use.
Wow, logseq seems to be exactly what I was looking for. Also detects file changes, so using a different editor side by side works.

Well, that's going to save me a chunk of time.
This is how I was thinking about this as well.

computer programming (e.g. writing code) is not software engineering. Any "software engineering" that took place, if any, would occur before the first instruction is even written for a production system.

a computer program consists of the the instructions to be executed by a CPU to manipulable it's state to hopefully solve some problem. This serves the same purpose as the plans that an engineer would hand to a builder, e.g. place this beam here and use these screws to secure it to that pole. After a builder has completed the construction of the building, the program has finished execution.

The CPU is the builder and the program instructions are the plans. The act of writing the program is the same as an engineering writing their plans; except instead of code they use diagrams or whatever.

the engineering parts came into play in developing those plans. that is, before the instructions were written. this is where the conversation should begin to explorer what is software engineering. we don't know how to engineer software.
Should we just let rich people make decisions for the rest of us, for the country? If you think so, you can vote for them in elections. But power comes from us, not from whoever strikes it rich.

It's not all or nothing, of course; Musk has plenty of resources regardless.
I know sysadmins that did very similar things to what the author is doing and spent their time in the office playing videogames.

It's not that unreal.
That’s what I was thinking of, sorry I got it that wrong. I could’ve sworn there used to be a frontline plan that was something lower than that, but now I can’t find it.
> last few hundred years of western capitalism.

"Capitalism" is just liberty + private property. The idea of a free class of citizens has been around for millenia, and the idea of private ownership of property has been around for longer. Property owners and tenants have existed since the dawn of agrarian civilization.

The radical innovation of the last few centuries was the private, limited liability corporation, but that's not really the problem here is it?

> he’s using his capital to extract more wealth from those with fewer resources than himself.

As every living thing competing with other living things in an environment of material scarcity has done since life began.
In the US, there is a very thorough system for measuring the movement of money, and the tracking of potential income sources. Why not use the system we have, when much of modern wealth inequality can be explained by income tax brackets, instead of creating an extremely intrusive new boondoggle to measure everything everyone owns? (How does the government really know you are eligible for the wealth tax if you are not under some additional surveillance?)

It's a rhetorical question: a wealth tax signals that you are doing something big, as opposed to caring about solving the problem. Someone like Bernie Sanders probably doesn't know any better, but Elizabeth Warren certainly does, and supports it anyway.

The wealthiest pay 20% on capital gains, while the middle class pays an effective 30%+ federally when including social security, and that's just federal.

Stretch out capital gains tax brackets and normal income tax brackets, such that nobody in the previous tax year would have made more than 10x the highest tax bracket. For example, you might have a 65% tax on capital gains above $1billion (which is a 5% discount on normal income of the same amount). Not as sexy, but now you have truly progressive taxes and the problem is more or less under control. This is likely applicable to many other countries. To close some more loopholes, count collateralization of assets as a mark-to-market sale (prevent people from lending against assets without paying taxes) and stop the easy money injections into the economy that aim to prevent a short term stock market recession at all costs. Note that the only times in the last few decades that wealth inequality decreased were during recessions [0].

[0] https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distr...
If you take a look now, the sub is in a pretty poor state. It's full of almost certainly fake stories and what seem to be actual children. A lot of the demands / proposals posted are extremely counterproductive or not useful. And I assume the actual elite thrive on the fact that the general public don't actually know what they need and instead waste time calling for nonsensical change.
> just doesn't slow one's work down very frequently in daily practice.

Well, maybe you don't feel it slows you down, but it is manual work you must do to get a reliable product only because of dynamic typing. Not only that, but you have to then refer to these docs to check you're not creating a type calamity at some nebulous point down the run time road. Static languages just won't let you mess that up, and often have utilities to generate this documentation for you at no effort.

> I just don't buy the suggestion that static typing magically solves a huge set of problems

Static typing really does "magically" solve a whole class of problems without any negative tradeoffs, assuming the language has decent type inference.

Not all problems, but a specific class of them that you should do extra work to guard against in dynamic languages. Whether that is extra documentation that has to be reliably updated and checked, or run time code to check the types are what you expect at the point of use.

Take for example JavaScript, where typing is not only dynamic, but weak. Numbers in particular can be quite spicy when mixed with strings as I'm sure you know. Strong, static typing forces you to be explicit in these cases and so removes this problem entirely.

By the way, no one's saying anyone is a simpleton. The reality is our field is wide and varied, and different experiences are valid.

Dynamic languages can do some things that static languages can't. For example, you can return completely different types from different execution paths in the same function.

This has been something that has confused me when reading Python, but it does make it easier for stuff like tree parsing. In a static language you need to specify some variant mechanism that knows all data possibilities ahead of time to allow this. From my perspective the dynamic typing trade off isn't worth these bits of 'free' run time flexibility, but YMMV! It really depends what arena you're working in and what you're doing.
IMO, Engineering is the application of science.

Software development is the application of computer science.

Using this definition, physicians are engineers, applying medical sciences.
One of the reasons engineers exist is to mitigate a high cost of getting something wrong. That's different to saying "people could die" ... it can be as mundane as, once we've made a million of these widgets there's a very high cost to remake them all because something was miscalculated. When software work heavily incorporates these elements of process and planning, I call it engineering. When it doesn't (for example, when it's built entirely agile style with literally no planning ahead beyond what we do for the next 2 weeks) I don't.
That is the problem it is so difficult to determine whether the negligence is intentional or not.
The fundamental question nobody wants to answer is what is corporate tax supposed to be on? People keep saying "profit," but it's an international supply chain. Is the "profit" attributable to the jurisdiction where the product is designed? Where it's manufactured? Where it's sold? They're all in different countries. There is no principled way to attribute a specific portion of the profit to a specific thing -- they're each inherently necessary in order to make the money.

Nobody wants to say "we are going to tax them in the place where they make the products" because then low tax jurisdictions would have a huge advantage to attract manufacturing. But it's the same thing if you say you're going to tax them in the place where the product is designed or sold or anything else. Making a choice allows them to arbitrage that choice. But not making a choice is even worse because then they get to arbitrage everything.

The best one is to tax them where the customers are, because it's really hard to move the customers. But then "corporate tax" is just VAT. Which everybody hates specifically because it works, and therefore causes lower retirement account returns and higher consumer prices by the combined amount of money which is now going to the government.

And that's really what the problem is. To have it not wreck the economy the change needs to be revenue neutral. Combine it with a tax cut for the working class in the same amount. Because then you might actually do something good. But most of the people asking for it are asking for it because they want to spend more money.
> This is exactly the equivalent of a software bug.

Not really, because you can usually shake or tilt the pinball machine to set the ball free.

> oil spills? Fukushima? Mines that collapse?

These events happen (literally) once every few years or half decade. Software bugs happen (literally) billions of times per hour.

(I’m not normally this pedantic, but felt the need since your comment comes across as knee jerk defensive without a whole lot of substance to work with)
You only have "a right to [your] property" because the voting majority agreed that that right should exist.

Also, if democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner, what do you think would happen in that situation if the wolves abandoned voting?
> Let us say it is not being discussed because it is not feasible. Unless of course we build massive nuclear power plants in Antarctica with all what that entails.

Maybe it really is because it's not feasible, I concede that's not something I can really know. But nuclear power plants are not necessary. As the paper sets out, there is abundant wind energy in Antarctica. Setting up a medium-size (1200 MW) wind farm on the Antarctic coast is actually not a crazy proposal, since the construction can be undertaken by ship alone.

Moreover it's very clear that the energy required to freeze one ton of CO2 is substantially less than the useful energy obtained by its combustion (this is intuitive from the magnitude difference between heat of combustion and enthalpy of sublimation: combusting one mol of pure coal to CO2 liberates 393 kJ, freezing one mol of CO2 out of the air consumes 26 kJ). In no way does that violate thermodynamics; the CO2 still exists, it just isn't doing any harm.

This project would not just ameliorate global warming, it could allow useful exploitation of all the remaining global fossil fuels.
An all new picture converter – free on the 23rd J
Sure, but I think the point is that it's unlikely the bottleneck will be in the web server, but in whatever database you're using for your logins. Just because you have a single program, it doesn't mean it is required to use a single database.

But even if the webserver is the problem, it feels unlikely that you'll end up saving much in infrastructure cost by scaling just the login service rather than just deploying more copies of your webserver.

Not saying it is impossible, but it's unlikely for that to be a good justification to adopt microservices. I'm not saying that there aren't good reasons to use microservices, but I agree that scalability is not a good selling point. I'd actually argue that it's harder to build scalable microservices than monoliths.
That is definitely (and self-evidently) true! Of all managers who rate everyone on their team as having achieved the highest performance standard, what fraction of those cases do you think are subjectively “correct”? In my experience, it’s way, way, way under half.

Further, it’s rare for the managers giving the 100% top performance evaluation to individuals to be leading groups with high overall accomplishment/delivery. (Occam’s Razor suggests that it’s evidence of poor leadership to be squandering the ability and contributions of all these high-performers. An analog might be an MLB Manager with All-Star players at every position and turning in a 0.500 season; they should expect to be fired.)
I had a job that tried to implement a time logging system. Most of IT just didn't. Eventually they explained to us that the payroll guy uses that to cut the checks, and it's a huge pain in their ass if we don't use the system. They compromised by asking us to log in and out at least once each pay period. That was fine, and we did.

But they really did try to get us to go whole hog on it at first.
You could even have a mono-repo that holds services which run as separate processes, if you need that. That way you still get the benefits of sharing code, types, version numbers, build processes, etc, which seem like the main headaches with the usual approach.
An interesting aside is that I was looking through a music history textbook belonging to one of my kids. The book chose the invention of movable type for printing sheet music, as the beginning of music as an "industry." I've also read that as early as the 19th century, sheet music was a huge industry, and had many of the characteristics that we associate with recorded music, such as "stars," musicians getting ripped off by publishers, and so forth.

It was reasonably common for people to have a piano in the parlor (if you were affluent enough to have a parlor), or some other instrument, and to entertain yourself by playing the latest "hits" from sheet music.
> You see, people with real jobs, with every real paper filed, were denied benefits, while insiders were pulling checks with both hands, using certain kinds of identities that would slip through.

What are the 'certain kinds of identities that would slip through'?
I'm not arguing for that at all. I'm arguing that you don't have a right to other people's property just because they have a lot of it.
I notice there's a lot of comments here saying this exact same thing, and it's also what seems most sensible to me. Yet microservices are getting all the hype. Should be hype a thorough modular design more?
If you host your domain with Gandi [1] you get 2x mail boxes of 3GB each included in the price plus a bunch of (unlimited?) aliases. The web interface is sogo [1] which is very decent but you can always fall back to Thunderbird or any other email client.

I just migrated away from Zoho because since I'm already hosting my domain in Gandi, I thought that I might as well...

[1]: https://www.gandi.net/en/domain/email

[2]: https://www.sogo.nu/