skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You are correct that the Court did not issue a writ. But it was not that "it did not have the power to order the executive to do anything" point blank. It this was on a technicality regarding equivalently either who could issue it, or under what jurisdiction SCOTUS could do it. SCOTUS did not have jurisdiction, as the case was not an appeal from a lower court, and the matter was not one SCOTUS could decide in its original jurisdiction. This last bit about the scope of its original jurisdiction is the famous bit, Justice Marshall got there by asserting SCOTUS could strike down legislation as unconstitutional, including the section of Judiciary Act that would have given them the power to issue the writ. It's quite funny.

Other than that, Marbury was entitled to the remedy of mandamus, so he should have filed in a lower court instead. If he had, that court could have issued the writ or declined to; so too could SCOTUS have heard an appeal and either issued a writ or declined to. (I can't remember if he subsequently tried this.) My reference to Marbury v. Madison sits in between the 1st and 3rd parts of the decision: we (1st) pretend we've ascertained a similar statement to "having this legal title to the office, he has a consequent right to the commission; a refusal to deliver which is a plain violation of that right", and then ignore the (3rd) jurisdiction problem because it's not relevant, simply assume we're filing in a court that does have this power in its original jurisdiction (most of them do, basically only SCOTUS does not).

Bearing in mind that I mainly brought it up to emphasise that this is a problem we've seen before and has better solutions than this guy's idea of getting people to comment on the Board's Facebook page, this is the part (the 2nd part of the decision) that best reflects why I think it's relevant:

> It has already been stated that the applicant has, to that commission, a vested legal right, of which the executive cannot deprive him. He has been appointed to an office, from which he is not removable at the will of the executive; and being so appointed, he has a right to the commission which the secretary has received from the president for his use. The act of congress does not indeed order the secretary of state to send it to him, but it is placed in his hands for the person entitled to it; and cannot be more lawfully withheld by him, than by another person. [...] This, then, is a plain case of a mandamus, either to deliver the commission, or a copy of it from the record; it only remains to be inquired, Whether it can issue from this court.

There is clearly an analogy here, not one that is actually a precedent, but an analogy nonetheless. Focus on "an office, from which he is not removable at the will of the executive", which is what this guy has.
square footage per capita is a misleading metric, coz it assumes that each square foot is equivalent in each country - and that a higher area equates to a higher spending and cost.

I think profit per-capita is a better metric. It's harder obtain that metric of course...
>> It is simple, not clever. Effortless to follow.

This is the crux of it for me. I want to read code not solve code. If I have to "figure out what's going on" then it's not great code.
I'm sure you are familiar with Conway's Life?

He also had this theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem
Nice article. You can read also from Titus Livius, in his work *Ad Urbe Condita, that in many occassions, if not all of them, when an army won the battle they stripped all their defeated army clothing, leaving them only with a small underwear back to their own cities. That was the price of defeat.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

But, I think there are cases where it's quite obvious that one solution is "cleaner" than the other. Sometimes a refactor is just strictly better in all ways.

I once had a service that wrapped a core algorithm in our code, but the code for the server and the code for that algorithm were all jumbled together. It became hard to write tests for the algorithm because the server wanted sockets and a specific protocol and blah blah blah.

So, I simply separated them - the server instantiated the algorithm and called simple functions in it. Tests could do the same - it was strictly better in every sense - it made each part easier to reason about, test, read, understand... And with no real performance difference. "Clean"
Thanks, will try them! :)
Well, I would say smartasss :D But thanks!
I'm using more and more grid elements on my website. I'm surprised by how easy it is to make them responsive. Small features like grid-gap are also very useful.
Majority of the world has mobile phones now, so Mobiles are the general computing devices now. Its the PCs and macs which have become specialized devices.
iOS Market Shares in Japan 66.5%,

Tim Cook: Apple doesn’t have a ‘dominant market share’ in any of its market.
US Administration amicus brief Epic Games vs. Apple 9th Circuit antitrust case
Thank you! :) Just downloading! :)
The only clean code is the one that doesn't do anything.

Apart from that you can only hope to avoid adding too much dirt.
> The West Coast experience seems to be a singularly restrictive experience.

Unless you go to a bar. You just have to wear your mask when you walk in and go to the restroom. Otherwise, nursing that pint is "actively drinking."
>You never, ever want a court to define the landscape you wish to operate in. it ties your hands and could easily go against you. You are almost always better off seeking settlement to avoid those outcomes.

I agree but I really think Apple has backed themselves into a corner now. Their App Store revenue is such an enormous chunk of their income (direct and indirect) that to remove their monopoly on distribution and payments now would cut their profits by double digits. Their stock price would plummet. I don't think they have a choice but to drag this out for as long as possible, in every country they can. I think it is inevitable that many countries will order Apple to unbundle the App Store and allow competitors, but many will not, and the process will take years or even decades. In the mean time, Apple stands only to gain.

In terms of strategic calculus, I think this makes sense, even if it means they will eventually receive worse strategic positions in certain countries.
It's important because planes are expensive and have operational lives measured in decades. So, even though companies like Boeing and Airbus are looking at alternative forms of propulsion now (e.g. hydrogen and electric), it would take well into the second half of the century to replace the existing fleet with their newer, more sustainable versions. Realistically production for that kind of plane won't even start until the 2030s at the earliest (and probably in low volume initially).

Synthetic fuels will allow the existing fleet to be operated in a more sustainable way during this time. It will probably have a higher cost though. Long term, the low cost sustainable alternatives will probably take over. But as electricity production cost drops in the next decades, so will the cost of using electricity for producing synthetic fuels.
In my work history, I've never come across code like this, especially "effortless to follow". All the codebases I've worked with have been head scratch causing balls of mud.

Am I unlucky or is what you are describing the rare exception?
If the US flag is 2 special symbols saying US, why doesn't reversing it just produce the flag of the Soviet Union?
It's interesting to read about people who build things outside the Bay Area scene. It would be interesting to just learn about your job and its challenges.
I agree with you too.

We live in a world with lots of risks (cars, guns, drugs, people), but we mostly manage with rules and guidelines instead of strict nannying. Software can be dangerous, but there are lots of guard rails and safety nets for banking, dating, and the other sharp areas.

Software systems are getting safer, too. There's sandboxing, fine grained permissions, vuln scanning, central command and control to remove known malware, multi factor auth, and so on. Lots of tools to leverage.

I wouldn't be opposed to Apple monitoring the software that runs on my device and having an (opt-outable) automatic means of killing it remotely in the event it should violate heuristics or be reported as malicious.

Apple's interests in protecting consumers aligned really closely with their interests in protecting their platform economics. While it seems risky, I think both Apple and consumers will do fine with an opening up. It won't preclude protective measures, and it'll make Apple leaner and more focused on new products and features. They'll still make a killing selling their best of class hardware.

I want Apple to succeed. Just not at the expense of everyone else, consumers and small businesses alike.
Anecdotal evidence but I use plenty of websites where native apps are available.

EG Social Media, Google search, news websites, Youtube.

> web apps on Chrome on Android

I don't bother installing the web apps, but access them as websites through my mobile web browser (Firefox Android).
Do you test every line of code you write separately? Probably not. You test a function that has 5 lines of code.

Same for anonymous functions. You test the functions that use them and that's usually enough. If not, then that is a good indicator of separating them out into named functions.
Apple uses Chinese child slave labour.

Is this how we play this game?
Vision therapy for both presbyopia and myopia relies partly on neuroplasticity: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16194580

There is a sizable incumbent revenue stream from expensive progressive lenses for those with presbyopia, which may or may not influence investment in alternative solutions.
I was surprised to find out by Googling that by “Joel”, you actually mean Joel Spolsky: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2022/01/27/making-the-web-bet...

I think that link is worth reading because it offers a more concise write-up of the project’s motivation.
I'm was in this boat too. But the more I look at fastmail the more I think: fuck these bell-ends, I'm outta here.

I still maintain a legacy gmail.com account which I'll keep and move all my android purchases over to but as a matter of principle if they said "free forever" and then renege I'm not just gonna roll over and take it.
The Corporate B.S. Generator
Funny thing is I know it's BASIC and not DOS but I still wrote DOS. I blame lack of sleep, caffeine, and... something. But yeah my mistake there.
Imagine someone messing with your car. Might be an easy fix if you are a mechanic. Most people are not.
So here's some TypeScript code I just made up, with a lot of lambdas. It's somewhat typical of code I write all the time.

books
.join(authors, book => book.author, author => author.id)
.filter(([book, author]) => author.lastName === searchText)
.map((book, author) => `The Book ${book.title}, by ${author.fullName()}, has ${book.chapters.count()} chapters, totaling ${book.chapters.sum(chapter => chapter.pages.count())} pages.`);

There are 5 lambda functions in there. Can you tell what the code is doing? Is it correct? Yes, and yes. This is the kind of code that, in my opinion, doesn't need tests at all, nor comments. You can look at it and understand what it's doing and know that it is doing it correctly, as long as it compiles. If it's mission critical, you should test that the join really should be on book.author and author.id, but you need to know the correct answer to write the test, so why not just look at the code and verify it's correct? If your answer is "because another change might break it": no, it won't! Given the preconditions, that code is correct, and no other code can effectively break (and still have your code compile) it without lying to the Type-checker. If someone breaks that code, it's because they're intentionally changing it to do something else, so they'd redline any tests you wrote for it anyway.

It sounds like you're suggesting this code should be more like:

/// <verboseDocs purpose="Verbosity">
/// <purpose> Gets the author of a book
/// <returns> The author of the given book
/// <inputs>
/// <input param="book">The book to get the author of
/// </inputs>
/// </verboseDocs>
function getAuthorOfBook(book: Book) {
return book.author;
}

@testMethod()
function canGetAuthorOfBook() {
const mockBook: Book = {
author: 'Test Author',
title: 'Verbosity',
...
};

Assert.areEqual('Test Author', getAuthorOfBook(mockBook);
}

...

/// <verboseDocs>
/// <purpose> Takes a last name and returns a function that returns true if the given (Book, Author) tuple contains an author whose last name matches the given string of the outer function.
/// ...
function getBookAuthorPairPredicateFromAuthorLastName(lastName: string) {
return function(pair: [Book, Author])
return pair[1].lastName === lastName;
}
}

And on and on and on, still needing the original code, but just a lot more obfuscated:

books
.join(authors, getAuthorOfBook, author => getIdOfAuthor)
.filter(getBookAuthorPairPredicateFromAuthorLastName (searchText))
.map(describeBookAuthorPair)

Now I have no idea what the hell this code is doing and whether it's correct or not. Note that to avoid lambdas in the filter (filtering by a value in the closure) we need to write a function that returns the predicate we want to test on, instead of just sticking the right thing in the right place to start with. All to avoid a single "=>".

What circle of hell are we in!?
Has this changed in recent years? Back in the days the consumer devices were faster but less reliable ( noone cares if two or three pixels are off in a 3d game). Cards based on the same hardware sold to industrial customers were just from better silicon bins run more conservatively. If you're running serious simulations you want accurate, reproducible results. Otoh, aerodynamic and seismic simulations can also be one or two "pixels off" and industry started to realize they can get faster equipment for cheaper by buying consumer grade...

This was all ~10 years ago, though, I think nowadays they just fleece everyone.
uBlock Origin on Android.

And it doesn't tie your browsing history to your account with an advertising company.
You can calculate the prescription you need for a distance using simple optical physics (inverse diopter is the focal plane in meters. E.g. if your prescription is -2, then uncorrected your focal plane will be 1/2 meters. If you use a +1.25 add (so wear a -0.75 net lens diopter), then your new focal plane is 1/1.25 meters). That would be a good start if you usually wear full-strength for close work.

It's said that -0.25 diopters is not noticeable by 50% of population, and especially for base prescriptions <= -2 ish the scale of distance quickly becomes negligible (e.g. a +1.25 add would give 31 inches and a +1.5 add is 26 inches, so only a 5" difference which is basically negligible. Also note that as one commenter noted, I've found my focusing ability changes throughout the day and also based on stress, sleep level etc., so that on a good day I might not need the glasses at all to see up to 32".

A final point is that if you end up going too weak you might find your posture being affected as you inch your neck forward to try to adjust. You could consciously try to prevent this, but I'm sure involuntary habits will kick in, so I think it's better to just choose a prescription precisely calculated for the focal length you want.

In principle the stressor explanation would hold for astigmatism as well, and you could try the same of reducing the cylindrical power as well. N=1 but I've found astigmatism is more easily corrected by the brain, such that you might not even need correction for a -1 cyl power whereas you'd definitely see blurriness at -1 sph.
That's a lot of words just to say "investment scam"
> There’s no such thing as clean code.
> ‘Clean’ isn’t a measure of anything useful. Code can’t be clean simply because ‘clean’ doesn’t describe anything about code.

Ehhhh. There is absolutely such a thing as clean code. But yes; what there isn't a way to measure code cleanliness (although there's lots of surrogate measures; see every linter) which means there's also no way to render it into a dogma...

...and to (perhaps) stick my foot in it, that's something that gets harder to grok the less important subjective human experience is to you. IMHO, this is part of why Ruby code has an easier time being cleaner (and can reach high levels of "clean") - subjective human experience is baked into the language.

(note: yes, you can absolutely write dumpster fires in Ruby, arguably easier than you can in Java; and you can absolutely write very clean code on Java and any other language)

> I’ve come to the conclusion that often when we describe code as ‘clean’ when we think it’s good but we’re not entirely sure why. It just feels like the right solution.

Yes, absolutely. There's a lot of things in popular wisdom that are signposts for "there's more here if you pay attention".

> absolve you from having to justify that with more concrete rationale.

...Why in the hell do you need absolution here in the first place?! What are you being absolved from?

(shameless quote: justice only matters to the just)

> you don’t really need clean code, you need _____ code

No. That's the trap of Goodhart's Law. You need something outside of your metrics so that your metrics don't become your target.
It would actually be pretty interesting to see how you use Bison and Flex with utf-8.
Most resources say to not bother due to lack of support for Unicode, but they're so ubiquitous
Sunlight alone does not explain it. Another possible factor is diet. It can be that eating a lot of carbohydrates with high glycemic index like white rice trigger slightly excessive growth of eye balls in children sufficient to trigger myopia. That also explain why moving to Australia affects this due to diet change.

But this hypothesis also has problems. For example, less refined carbohydrates apparently do not lead to this. Also it does not explain how adding more meat to refined carbohydrates affects the mechanism.
I certainly read the whole thread in an un-logged-in incognito tab.
App Modernization: Tips When Migrating to Kubernetes
So the rise and fall of the surface of the planet above the center of the mass of the earth/moon system is just big enough to slowly make the surface want to drift a little slower than the rotation of the earth itself. It's hard to reason about intuitively, but would indicate that there should be less activity at the poles.

I wonder if that is the case.
Most large software projects have some bad code in it. If it’s all bad, then there is probably an architectural problem, poor code review practices, and/or corners are being cut to meet deadlines.
I'm of the strong opinion that there simply does not exist, as you say, 'a huge chunk of problems around delivering updates and clients on old versions.' It's certainly not a win for users, but for lazy developers. Good software engineers are much more than fast-churn developers. In fact, they are different people.
> I will come to Russia some time, buy a cheap laptop and take it home and use it for a week, then bring it back to the store for a refund because it doesn't work. How will that conversation go?

Consumer protection laws aren't as strong in Russia as they are in the US and Europe. But generally electronics come with 1 year warranty from the manufacturer. So if it's legit not working, they'll probably replace it with another that is working.

Returns are complicated. IIRC stores are required to take a return if the item is in a condition in which it can be sold again (sealed box, or all tags intact in case of clothing). But anything further than that is their own concession and thus varies. Some places like Ikea have a policy of "return within one year from purchase showing the receipt and your internal passport (ID), you get a refund, no questions asked". Some don't. Some electronics stores would let you test the thing in the store before you take it home, some would say "you have N days to test it at home, bring it back if it doesn't work".

I also know a guy who bought a phone to test an app he was making, then tried to return it. Wasn't a painless process, but he did succeed in the end.
This is a surprisingly salient point and I'm surprised it hasn't occurred to me until now. When market forces are operating backwards this is a giant flashing neon sign that healthy dynamics are long gone.
Both. Head-scratching balls of mud is, IMO, below average; but that lofty height of code described is an extreme rarity.

100% recommend having your own hobby project so you can reach it.
You might be onto something. e.g. compare:

A bored person in a car with the radio on, stuck in traffic, in 1970, imagines the freedom, the sheer dopamine rush of escaping by soaring away on a full-throttle personal jetpack, like "the right stuff" had finally trickled down.

A bored person in a chair with a podcast on, stuck at home, in 2021, refreshing their social media. Watches a jetpack video on TikTok. Shrugs and moves on to the next distraction.
The fact that everyone can come up with his own definition of what "clean" is supposed to mean regarding code, tells us something very important about it:

It has no intrinsic, defined meaning in the context of code.

Saying code is "clean" is like saying food is "tasty"...its a personal opinion, not a defined term.
Happened to me a few times, lost all mail accounts (I didn't have too many) because I cannot login from old ISP IP (it probably doesn't even exist anymore).
People don't realize what dystopia they're signing into until it's too late (
Android forces people to create G-accounts without real need, that's why their user base is growing. (
YES. An older Rubyist once told me: "Code is programmers communicating with other programmers."
There definitely are codebases that are easy to follow.

But it requires a team that is committed to aggressively refactoring even the smallest of code smells, usually before even committing it. It also requires a team that is dedicated to its professionalism and not bend into a manager's will of refactoring being a time waste.

But when your team is committed to code quality, holy hell is it satisfying, easy and fast to work with. It really is like night and day. If you have not experienced the difference - I'm sorry to say - then you've just not worked with a high-quality team.
> A large number of retailers fell not to online shopping, but instead to lowering quality of service and goods. Sears, Circuit City, JC Penny, and Kmart each have analogous stores and former competitors that remain and are doing well.

Online shopping decreased the demand for retail but not all the way to zero. So it makes sense that some should fold and others should stay.
Same even for code base my only job was to cleanup, it would be clean 1 week then split back into mess, sometimes by my own doing. The problem is always the same: there is money for result and result is time-sensitive, no money for form and form takes time. If I have to sacrifice a bit of form to reach a result on time, I'm afraid I'll do it rather than fire a colleague because we can't pay him and do beautiful code :s
Nearly every other one?

I'd recommend The Moon is a Harsh Mistress which is a romp imho, and also happens to be a better insight into his personal politics.

Also, Have Spacesuit Will Travel, Farmer in the Sky, Stranger in a Strange Land and mostly everything by Heinlein, though there was arguably a bit of a drop in quality towards the late end of his career.
They have the pointy bits forward AND treat down as a problem as well. Gravity applies equally to Roombas and Cessnas and Soyuz, but only one of those is built on planar symmetry rather than radial symmetry. Don't you agree with that and isn't that interesting, that humans seems to have something about having a forward facing Cartesian plane.
Judging by the list of backers, it looks like everyone who matters anyway.