skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
aka Premature process optimization.

Dont make work upfront, that is rarely important. When it is important, find the commit and split it up (as necessary) at that singular point (instead of across all PRs). You have now cut down how much time it takes to make PRs while retaining the same end result.
> 4. use `git add -p`

I strongly recommend tig
I went through this earlier this week, to pay estimated taxes. Fortunately the automated process worked for me, so I didn't have to go through the writer's additional verification. It was a bit tedious, but not a difficult process, all performed on my Mac laptop.

The only thing I didn't like was having to download their authenticator app...and I'm still not sure if it was required, of if I could have used the Google authenticator I have for my other 2FA tokens.

Of course, the level of difficulty here is that you have to have your ID documents scanned or in a scannable form, that you have to do a video selfie, etc. My wife, for example, has the hardware and software needed to do this, but not the flexibility and patience I've gained from a few decades of digital frustration to actually use all her tools to see this process through.
Just tried this on Firefox on Linux. It finds "fi" instances in a word like "first", since that's rendered as separate characters on my system, but not when wikipedia specifically uses the fi ligature.
Definitely rural. The cities, especially Basel and Zurich, are very left and open minded.
My email provider doesn’t have control of my domain. In my registrars settings I just put my email providers server addresses where they told me to and I’m under the impression that if my email provider ever jerked me around I could just go in there and change those server addresses to someone else’s with no input needed from my email provider.

Did google do something different with these accounts? I didn’t even think they offered a registrar service when they stopped letting you register free custom domain gmails accounts.
Seems like then you're at cross purposes where you want an expensive gun on an inexpensive, vulnerable/disposable vehicle.
> Solution: Make the USA passport card free and compulsory.

Great! All that's left is addressing all the challenges I brought up around making obtaining one simple for everyone (no, drive 40 minutes to your nearest post-office doesn't count), and making voting universally easily accessible to everyone and you have my support!

Given that as far as I know not a single lawmaker who has been pushing Voter ID has backed your suggestion, much less put any effort into addressing my other concerns, I don't think I'll be supporting Voter ID anytime soon.
> That’s the only illegal thing they do

What about the cookie popups, with the "accept" vs. "more info" choices? Is that legal, then?
Check out how Erlang/Elixir/BEAM deal with this. Stateful processes write a state-migration function that's run (new code, old state) when hot reloading the process. Requires some forethought, especially when processes can be updated in any order, but it's really amazing. Of course, when doing hot-reloading in a local development environment and not in production, it doesn't make as much sense.
Really? How do you see it? For example, I need some stream of new jazz/electro-swing music - what should I do? Just entering it into the search engine and manually checking every given result (which will not be songs, but some articles and playlists) will not work.
> Unlike its competitor, ranked-choice voting, approval voting doesn’t require new machines, ballots or hardware. ... It’s a sensible, intuitive and tested approach that every voting machine in America could execute tomorrow.

I understand the desire to be pragmatic and accept the reality of voting machines as they exist in America today, but I also think that any proposal which entrenches a dependency on voting machines is potentially a dead end for democracy.

Even if you could guarantee that all the software and hardware used in voting machines was open for security researchers to audit, and there were no bugs or vulnerabilities, you would still be introducing the attack surface of people being able to lie and claim there are vulnerabilities and that the election had been stolen.

Once we accept the premise that votes should be cast without using a machine (at least for 99% of voters who are physically capable) and counted by hand, consideration needs to be given to what that counting process looks like. Certainly approval voting is vastly preferable to ranked systems, since approval ballots can be split between different counting stations whose sub-totals can be easily summed, but the actual management of those physical ballots can be tricky, since counters either need to keep track with a tally system or group ballots into one of 2^N different piles (given N different candidates).

An alternative system, which has all the benefits of approval voting (same ballot design, solves the spoiler problem, summable sub-totals), is Asset Voting. Basically it works the same as FPTP, except that after the initial count, candidates are eliminated (from least to most votes) and they can choose to redistribute their votes to another remaining candidate. In terms of counting, this can be done by hand using only N piles for N candidates, the way that countries have done it for hundreds of years and many still do to this day.
FHA loan let's you put 3% down. Most lenders can set one up for you.

Don't buy near vacant land: your house won't appreciate in value ("You should buy land, they're not making anymore"). Don't buy a townhouse/condo either.

Check local demographics of nearby elementary schools.

Assume your real estate agent wants to screw you over and don't trust the buyer nor seller agent.
Microsoft: Definition of an Economic Moat
https://archive.is/jczlT
My favorite example of a Zettelkasten in Tiddlywiki is this one: https://zettelkasten.sorenbjornstad.com

The author also has a site called "Grok TiddlyWiki" that helped me tremendously when starting out with TW: https://groktiddlywiki.com/read/

I use TiddlyWiki and love it. Because TW's UI and functionality is based on individual "tiddlers" within the wiki (just like your notes), adding functionality becomes part of the wiki itself -- a fusion I like compared to other plain-text note tools that keep the note-taking and note-storing separate.
Recheck the frame tv. I wanted one until I realized it's just a thin tv thats motion activated to stay on/turn on and show a static image.
Next Level Bullshit
I as almost able to get a K3m locally a while back, but no... :-(
One product I'm truly happy to pay for
>air power is in support of some objective, not "just because".

Thats called "air superiority" which then trickles down to "ground support."
> The way that the value floats through the system is checked statically, and the program can (and should) be designed so that the value with the appropriate type cannot be constructed unsafely.

Except that in the first example from the first link you sent me, there is no static guarantee that the inputs to the constructor are valid, thus the error branch (it would be unnecessary if static guarantees could be made regarding the use of the constructor). And that was my point, that you still end up with dynamic checks on the values which is where pre/post conditions step in to cover what static typing cannot (or, again, cannot easily in mainstream languages, which would not be Haskell).
My 1910 player piano nods smugly. This trend has taken a long time to, as it were, play out. Many of the things that are a mess about music reproduction copyright today are actually artefacts of that era too...
Even ABBA had multiple vocal tracks mixed together, with subtle phase/pitch effects done with tape, to achieve richer/fuller/sparkling sound.

Meanwhile, breakdowns of Billie Eilish mixes show that Finneas, the producer, is using mostly techniques in principle reproducible on tape. Today's equipment and DAWs save time and space, but they are not what is creating the magic. It's easy to see.
Maybe it's just the activation energy. Until you have the setup for making a microservice, you're kinda limited to a monolith. Once you pay the setup cost though, making incrementally more services is trivial so you end up on the other end of the spectrum.
“discover weekly” will consist of rap by 90%, even if I never “liked” any rap song. “If the majority of people love it, you should too - swallow”.
Google could trivially re-domicile to Ireland if they wanted to. Just do a reverse merger, and have the services within the US provided by Google LLC, which becomes a subsidiary of Google Ireland Limited.
Barnardo's is quite well known.
I will do the politeness of responding, as recompense for the passion of my dismissal.

> I want to ask, what about the book was so offensive?

I would be dishonest not to admit my dislike's passion was conceived in frustration with the book's fans. "Offense," though I don't affirm the label, arises on interaction with Objectivists.

Atlas Shrugged eloquently explicates Objectivism's fundamental lack of empathy - its denial of carnality, passion, humanity, animism, pleasure, pain, misfortune, fate: all sense, no sensibility. The plot, finding its villain in democratic government and indeed all society, and for its heroes a set of selfish, sexless, and statuesque Scrooges, is the denial. So is merely the style: the stodginess of conversation and thought, the relentless rationality of the action. It has no scene containing a believably real corner of society, be it a family, a friendship, or civil society. All argument is intellectual, all triumphs transparently ideological.

It is a badly-written novel for precisely the same reasons Objectivism is a poor philosophy. To see someone read it and embrace it as wisdom maddens.

And such someones abound in America! One might conclude every man (indeed, this is man's ideology) fancies himself a temporarily embarrassed John Galt. Rich Americans too love Rand's ideas - and are surely delighted so many of the citizenry affirm their own superiority. Rich objectivists mock openly their noblesse oblige, and have no qualms in setting the Republic against itself in pursuit of continually lower taxation.

Human social projects are not clockwork systems, but each, since the time we first surpassed the society of apes, is an idiosyncratic novelty. Humanity itself is a singular species, exceptional in our power of rational understanding but roundly unable to apply the talent when considering our own teleology. We overestimate the utility of our pattern-matching and are easily seduced by just-so reductionism.

Not incidentally, Marxism shares Objectivism's flawed empathy; the two philosophies are fastidiously symmetrical. That Rand's intellectual rebellion would reject her oppressor's dogma, but not its mode of analysis, seems unsurprising. We all struggle to escape the modes of critical thought we first learned, even as our conclusions mutate.

Rand might have been hoped to see this in herself, but then again, such self-awareness she implicitly rejected.
Well, we could have just as well. That's just like my second example of "the Balkan nations".
I’ve heard about how music is written by labels these days. They get a bunch of writers in a hotel for a few days and brainstorm song themes and lines, then mix and match what works. Writers will get paid for a couple of words.

It’s no wonder the songs these days say nothing, to anyone, unless you’re a brain dead teenager or emotionally stunted adult. The tastes of which have driven the industry for decades now. I just want something that’s relevant.
Or are we dancers?
I have used Fastmail for many years and recommend them for their quality product and service. https://www.fastmail.com/ They offer a free 30 days trial.
It costs more for a single user on Google Workspace or MS365 than it used to cost for shared hosting that came with 50-Unlimited email accounts. Small businesses that only need email are getting royally screwed by big tech. Everything is more complex, has no additional features, and is a solid 10x what it should actually cost once you have 10+ users on email.

And before anyone chimes in about needing to deal with backups, etc. on shared hosting, go check out all the backup products for MS365 and Google Workspace.

And before anyone chimes in about deliverability issues, those are caused by Microsoft, Google, etc., not solved by them.
Just curious, why sell your model if it's working so well for you?
Yes, I think that's what the GP was trying to say. The post doesn't qualify "insecure" meaning "not best practices" vs. "insecure" meaning "your password is an extremely common one."
Has anyone tried Dendron and Foam is willing to comment on the differences?
I wanted to let you know that I find your approach to future features refreshing, in contrast to the typical over-promising you typically see.
The function doesn't do the comment says it does.
The code to "Swap the bits." just turns the bits on.

>>> def swap_bits(x):
# Get the bit at position 6 and 17.
bit6 = x & (1 << 6)
bit17 = x & (1 << 17)
# Swap the bits.
x = x ^ (bit6 << 17)
x = x ^ (bit17 << 6)
return x

>>> x6 = (1 << 6)
>>> f"{x6:b}"
'1000000'
>>> s6 = swap_bits(x6)
>>> f"{s6:b}"
'100000000000000001000000'

Here's one that correctly swap bits. It could be made more concise.

>>> def swap_specific(x,i,j):
def get(x,p): return 1 if x & (1 << p) else 0
def set(x,p): return x ^ (1 << p)
def clr(x,p): return x & ~(1 << p)
bi, bj = get(x,i), get(x,j)
x = set(x,j) if bi else clr(x,j)
x = set(x,i) if bj else clr(x,i)
return x

>>> f"{x6:b}"
'1000000'
>>> b6 = swap_specific(x6,6,17)
>>> f"{b6:b}"
'100000000000000000'
Social Media Bans of Scientific Misinformation Aren't Helpful, Researchers Say
In my opinion implementing strong interfaces and good modularization is something, that we should talk about more, than doing Microservices. In the end it might be easy to rip of a Microservice, when needed, if the code is well structured.
The EU Wants Its Own DNS Resolver That Can Block 'Unlawful' Traffic
There's a great 2004 documentary called Kill Yer Idols that explains it all.

It follows the bands that inherited the mantle of seminal New York bands such as Sonic Youth. For the most part it's what you expect, with some great historical cuts, interviews, the new bands reflecting on and praising their predecessors, etc.

*SPOILER*

But it has a surprise ending. Suddenly there's a different tone from the old bands. They disparage the newcomers: The older bands completely rejected what their predecessors did; they destroyed it. The new bands that copy their music completely miss the point; what they are doing is antithetical to the art.

And I agree: We still have people playing rock'n'roll and hip-hop generations later. Are you kidding me? How shameful! How boring! Heck, someone play big band at least. Rock and hip-hop were revolutionary artforms; they didn't try to sound like Frank Sinatra or (for hip-hop) the Beatles - in fact, they tried to sound completely different, to demonstrate their rejection of the prior generation, to throw it in everyone's faces. Until I hear someone completely reject rock and hip-hop, burn them down to ashes (artistically), and piss me off, it's all bullsh-t. (And I mean it; I haven't listed to this crap in years.)
I think what you are looking to do is find the amount of biomass stored in the earth's surface, crust and oceans, and then apply a value of stored energy for that amount.

This is part of the carbon cycle.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle
https://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/global-carbon

One factor that must be accounted for is the large amount of energy that ends up locked into fossilized life, basically a percentage of life is transformed into minerals and stone (Like seashells, petrified wood or limestone) and although the energy is still there it is in an unusable form at this point in time.
It seems to be axiomatic there that all employers deserve this treatment. Literally, "all", there is no wiggle room for any company or manager.

My concern is the bleedover into /r/jobs where I like to answer with advice on how to handle a situation/search/interview.
My wife was diagnosed with lymphoma and brain cancer last December and passed this October. I watched her weaken, spring back when a therapy worked, descend into near death when a therapy failed and eventually see her mind and body destroyed by cancer. I hated the illness, the workload, the stress and then unending anxiety of knowing there was little chance of a recovery.

I never thought of leaving or not caring for her, just as I am sure she would have never left me if I was in the same situation. Was this because of a deep love, a result of thirty years spent building a life and habits together, civic and marital duty or some combination of all of these? The thought of not caring for someone in her situation so close to me is anathema.

Concerning diseases that reduce ones mental acuity; every time she would lose the ability to speak or understand, it was crushing. She would often regain some functionality, but each time something was lost. In her final days, she would sometimes regain consciousness and speak to me, but couldn't understand what she was saying. This is/was one of the most distressing things for me to experience. I often sit and wonder what it was she wanted to tell me and how I will never know.
> So the problem isn’t a lack of good new music. It’s an institutional failure to discover and nurture it.

These days it seems investors are focused on rent seeking, they are not looking to build. Why nurture new talent when you can sell an NFT of some classic music cover art. Please don't blame the young artists, they are doing what they need to do to survive in this situation, we should blame our own greed.
> I think the message is more nuanced

I thought it was more nuanced too as they were explaining how integer types can be derived, until I finished the article, and they really did just seem to be complaining that there's a mismatch between compile time and run time.

Dynamic types don't really solve the problems they mention as far as I can tell either (perhaps I am misunderstanding), they just don't provide any guarantees at all and so "work" in the loosest sense.

> otherwise wouldn't lisp with its homoiconicity and compile time macros fit the bill perfectly?

That's a good point, I do wonder why they didn't mention Lisp at all.

> we don't have a solution yet

What they want to do with print can, as far as I can see, be implemented in Nim easily in a standard, imperative form, without any declarative shenanigans. Indeed, it is implemented as part of the stdlib here: https://github.com/nim-lang/Nim/blob/ce44cf03cc4a78741c423b2...

Of course, that implementation is more complex than the one in the article because it handles a lot more (e.g., formatting and so on).

At the end of the day, it's really a capability mismatch at the language level and the author even states this:

> Programming languages ought to be rethought.

I'd argue that Nim has been 'rethought' specifically to address the issues they mention. The language was built with extension in mind, and whilst the author states that macros are a bad thing, I get the impression this is because most languages implement them as tacked on substitution mechanisms (C/C++/Rust/D), and/or are declarative rather than "simple" imperative processes. IMHO, most people want to write general code for compile time work (like Zig), not learn a new sub-language. The author states this as well.

Nim has a VM for running the language at compile time so you can do whatever you want, including the recursive type decomposition (this lib isn't implementing Peano arithmetic but multiprecision stack based bignums): https://github.com/status-im/nim-stint and specifically here: https://github.com/status-im/nim-stint/blob/ddfa6c608a6c2a84...

func zero*[bits: static[int]](T: typedesc[Stuint[bits] or Stint[bits]]): T {.inline.} =
## Returns the zero of the input type
discard

func one*[bits: static[int]](T: typedesc[Stuint[bits]]): T {.inline.} =
## Returns the one of the input type
result.data = one(type result.data)

It also has 'real' macros that aren't substitutions but work on the core AST directly, can inspect types at compile time, and is a system language but also high level. It seems to solve their problems, but of course, they simply might not have used or even heard of it.
Pitch correction (in the non-Auto-Tune and non-vocoder sense) is used in literally all commercial vocal recordings. There's nothing really subtle about it.

EDIT: This guy is right about both of those tracks using Auto-Tune.
Forage (YC S21) Is Hiring a Software Engineers
The totally unnecessary restrictions on the freedoms of people in Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland look really egregious now. England basically did nothing and it was fine.
A nationally required ID is constitutionally questionable, meaning this would need handled at the State level. It would require involvement from all parties.
This debate about 'new' vs 'old' music can be approached through many angles, just a few on the top on my mind:

* Extrisic quality: does it sound "better" as a production, autotune, analog vs digital recording and play-back means, etc. -- I personnaly have mixed feelings about this one, as autotune and programmable drums are probably the worst thing that happened to contemporary music by taking away their human components (but that's mostly an unsubtantiated opinion), and on the other hand, so much progress in the recording and play-back hardware/software that reduce the gap between live and recorded performances

* Intrisic quality: is the music "better" in an absolute sense, covering mostly philosophical questions such as the nature of musical beauty, its objectiveness or subjectiveness, the existence of music as abstract compositions, etc. -- I'm firmly of the opinion that there are such things as 'beautiful musical compositions' and 'well-written music', and though I'm barely able to describe what that means in words, I can certainly say that I have heard less and less such pieces in mainstream music as years have passed, and that in non-mainstream music, most attempts to create original things end up in pieces that may be well thought but rarely in 'beautiful musical compositions'.

* Discovery bias: a topic that is well covered by the OP

* Acquired taste: despite everyone claiming that they look for something new and exciting and original, tastes do become ingrained with age, and I believe this is all the more true with music given the kind of physical feelings that it generates, which can sometimes be very powerful -- the 'feedback loop' that also ends up in the discovery bias above is probably reinforced by the fact that our tastes in music vary little after a certain age, and that we rarely seek something that is 'that much' different from what we like.
Rebase is great, but it's usefulness really depends on the commit history.

If your branch consists of 10 commits of trying various things, then the sum of changes in all the commits can easily become significantly larger than the final branch diff. In that case resetting is orders of magnitudes faster than fiddling with rebase.
Do you think that Beethoven would feel the same way about rock and roll, or 1900s folk feel the same way about vinyl killing sheet music and so on through the history of music.
I'm so confused by your stance here. You essentially say "type systems are not useful" and then "oh but this most recent advance in type systems — that one is useful." Do you find type systems useful or not?

Not the original author but it seems like they're saying that type-systems are non-specific invariant enforcers and so have costs without necessarily having benefits whereas a user-specifiable invariant enforcer is more guaranteed to have the benefits.
> - Learning to Speak the Microscopic Truth

I first encountered this idea from the Conscious Leadership Group (Gay Hendricks works with them), and now I can't help but notice that it seems to apply to HN comments (and the result of a given thread), as choices in the words and grammar of each statement.