skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I believe the opposite.

Recall the Battle of Carrhae? Recap: Crassus was at the head of a Roman legion inside Parthia (meaning "Persian"; modern-day Iran). Totally flat. Then they started getting shot with arrows. Crassus and his legion would march toward the archers, but as they got close, the archers would stop shooting long enough to take vehicles drawn by horses away from the Roman soldiers, until they were far enough they could resume shooting arrows. The battle is well-known, but the detail I'd like to call attention to is that in Suetonius's "The Twelve Caesars" (IIRC) it says when the soldiers figured out the heavy rain of arrows would never stop, the soldiers ordered Crassus to surrender. Screaming at him and threatening him! So that's what he ended up having to do. Mutiny is no joke.

That is my thesis for the Japanese surrender. Perhaps the military leadership was too nicely tucked into safe bunkers near anti-aircraft turrets (I don't know what Japan had, but Berlin had four of these and they worked great against bombers, really scared the birds away quite nicely, guaranteed Killed-in-Action if you got too close). Whatever, the military leadership could relax if all they had to fear was conventional warfare, whatever the hell that meant by that particular month of 1945.

But nukes changed everything. Wrath of GOD, basically. After one bomb, Japanese leadership I imagine asked their internal Manhattan Project--they were working on the atomic bomb too at the time--what was happening. Presumably they were told it was a one-off thing, because uranium was too difficult to make. What really changed the game was the second bomb, which meant America could mass-produce them--thanks to Hanford, in particular--and then it was like, are we going to get another one of these new and cruel bombs every three days indefinitely? Where are they going to drop them in the future? What are the consequences of the starburns on the survivors, are the ones that lived going to be recover their health...ever? Are they dropping the next one on the Imperial Palace in Tokyo, and killing Hirohito as promised to the people of America? WHY ARE THE GODS SO ANGRY AT US, WERE WE WORSHIPPING SATAN THE WHOLE TIME? WILL THE PEOPLE OF JAPAN MUTINY WHEN THEY SEE A STAR ABOVE TOKYO? WHAT DO JAPANESE PEOPLE DO WHEN THEY MUTINY, IT'S OBVIOUSLY GOING TO HAPPEN EVEN IF IT'S NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE, WHAT WILL THE PEOPLE DO TO US? WHY DIDN'T WE CAVE IN TO THAT BEAUTIFUL ULTIMATUM THREATENING TO BRING ABOUT OUR "PROMPT AND UTTER DESTRUCTION," WHAT A BEAUTIFUL GIFT, why didn't we listen and surrender like they asked?

(I claim writing in all caps like this is justified. That is the literary freedom I ask for, and the site allows it in theory. Not doing so does an injustice to the degree of alarm imminent destruction brings about. The inner monologue when that destruction makes itself known sounds something along the lines of "OH FUCK OH FUCK OH FUCK!". All caps in your inner monologue. That's just for your personal reference, haven't seen it well-portrayed in movies much. It's not like anything else, maybe someday you'll see for yourself, dear reader. I hope not.)
That is not what capitalism is, according to wiki: "Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit."

There's nothing in here about allocating wealth, or promoting productivity. It's all about private ownership. The owner decides how to make money, and what to do with the profits. If they decide to use it for non-productive goals, that's the freedom of the owner.

Capitalism is to opposite of a society consciously allocating anything for a specific purpose, it leaves it up to every individual.
And those promotions should be a cost of Amazon, not the authors. Weird how Amazon can take your product, sell it for a quarter of the price, and then claim they now owe you no money.
Don’t forget that the core of elastic is lucene, the full text library that is also the core of solr and that has an Apache license, without lucene elastic wouldn’t exist.
Serious "get off my lawn" vibes.

These might be ok heuristics, but it's pretty limiting to not use some tech just because a big company uses it.
I'd say it agrees with me, we firebombed Tokyo and the war didn't end.
Oh nice! Tauri is super close to 1.0 so it'll be interesting to read the resulting blog post about the switch.
My (100% non-tech) gf thinks "duckduckgo" is cute (she calls it "duckduckgogo", she's Vietnamese) and asked me how to make it her search engine. Actually, she didn't, she said, "I want duckduckgogo too". XD
don't agree that e is huh. e is often eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee but huh is never extended. Further, e is used for confirmation unlike huh
While I agree that this error message sucks, I would like to point out that it could be improved greatly by adding a type annotation.

Prelude> :{
Prelude| result :: Int
Prelude| result = 1 + [1,2]
Prelude| :}

<interactive>:3:10: error:
• Couldn't match expected type ‘Int’ with actual type ‘[a0]’
• In the expression: 1 + [1, 2]
In an equation for ‘result’: result = 1 + [1, 2]

Now I agree that this might not be an ideal thing to do when showing someone Haskell on a REPL, but I will argue in favor of annotating types at least for top-level declarations in a file. Especially for beginners, as learning to follow the types I feel is helpful to understanding the language and, in turn, its error messages.

I am told that well before I learned Haskell, type inference was the Cool Thing. However, I am of the opinion that a strong type system like Haskell's is best used with guidance (annotations) from the programmer. The more powerful your types, the better a specification you can write. And with a better specification, the type checker can give you better insight into what's wrong when it gets stuck.
I've worked quite a bit with OCaml and one of the first stumbling blocks was its strictness when it comes to number literals and even operators. In OCaml, 1 + 1.0 is not well-typed. Surprisingly, even the lack of overloading doesn't hurt too much in practice, IMO. In essence, I think that Haskell went to far with its polymorphic literals, even though it's a nice idea at first glance.
The layout of this website makes the content barely readable.
Reader mode fixes it though.
The bank is Nubank based in Brazil but publicly traded in the United States under ticker NU[1]

Although it is one billion, it still only makes up less than 1% of Berkshire's total portfolio[2]

[1] https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/nu

[2] https://last10k.com/sec-filings/brka/0000950123-22-002973.ht...
This may or may not be a disagreement with what you said:

They're the same on an instrument that can only play a defined set of notes, e.g. a piano or fretted instrument. It has nothing to do with the piano being in equal temperament.

If a violinist is playing an F#, his finger isn't necessarily on the exact same spot as when he's playing a Gb. As he explained answering my question, it isn't even in the exact same spot for the same F# every time in the same piece. The string players have very slight variations that they can describe precisely to each other so they sound good together.
> In those 12 years, Google did not launch a single new product that they didn't shut down a year later. 115 thousand people, most of them college graduates, did nothing useful for more than a decade. Their primary accomplishment was to inflate house prices in tech hubs.

This is just like...obviously false. Google photos (initially part of G+, but spun off into its own thing) as a sort of obvious product example. Not to mention any one of hundreds of products in the cloud org, or like an entire hardware business.

It's also kind of silly to imply (as you are) that launching a new product is the only useful thing. I'd expect iterating on and improving existing products to also be valuable? Like so much of the startup focus is on execution over ideas, but I guess not here.
> Maybe it's greed in this case, but in my time at Amazon I saw many teams in "Keep Lights On" mode where one or two people with vague memories of how services are supposed to work try to keep them running

I worked for Amazon as well, and I'd say it is greed, not in that the behavior was purposely designed to be malicious, but in the way they don't properly fund developers to work through their tech depts, and spend proper time and effort to make sure all the systems work, have been thoroughly tested, have lots of test coverage, that the teams manages to keep subject matter expert around, etc.

Amazon doesn't because it's too expansive to have dev resources doing all that, so most projects get released using the bare minimum, and get maintained using the bare minimum.
I didn't like few implications author makes.

> One of the biggest parts of the Free and Open Source Software definitions is the freedom to study a program and modify it; in other words, access to editable source code.

You don't have to have FLOSS-compatible open source license to run security audits on the code. For instance: Microsoft allowed government entities to check Windows security-related source code for many years. Just having access to the code is enough for audits, regardless of the license.

> One such reason is that source code is necessary to have any degree of transparency into how a piece of software operates, and is therefore necessary to determine if it is at all secure or trustworthy. Although security through obscurity is certainly not a robust measure...

If code is not open sourced it doesn't mean security through obscurity is employed. It simply means there's no public access to the code. This is a very common misconception.
That's why unicode published the security guidelines and mechanisms to avoid such attacks. In 2004 already.

The problem is that nobody cared. Browsers invented punycode instead of following tr39, email ditto. But ok, at least something. Java did it, cperl did, rust did it.

Everybody else is vulnerable. Esp. most other programming languages, filesystems and login systems. https://github.com/rurban/libu8ident/blob/master/doc/c11.md
Special? No.

I am a commodity dev. I don't view myself as particular special. However, a starving man is more motivated to get food than one who has food, so I sell my commodity accordingly. That requires switching jobs regularly.

Yes, I am greedy. I switched over the money. So did my boss. So did his boss.

Society just doesn't let me say that publicly with my name attached.

I am not special. I am just a salesman of code making labour who wants to earn market rate.
Yup... Client side decorations is why I don't use Gnome3.
It’s a noisy and expensive filter at that. The low SES folks (anyone who has to work-study really) will be unfairly selected against per degree completion.

That seems like the innate personality trait of conscientiousness, not something trained into a person through 4 years of artificial tasks and goals, at least not reliably at scale.
This would heavily depend on the language. Rust IDE will need different features from Web/JS IDE.
Got this book in the 90s when I was a wee lad...it really got me thinking about the mathematics of dimensions > 3. Still have this book, and some others from RR, on my shelf.
My rules:

- Does it work?

- Can it be explained to coworkers/usable?

- Does it solve the problems I'm having?

- Does it seem like it's going to be around in the next 5 years (weaker version: do I need to worry about it being around in the next 5 years?)

- Can I debug issues with it relatively easily?

Turns out that good rules of thumbs are ones that look at stuff on the merits, instead of trying to find catchy third-order effects that you see in projects that rub you the wrong way.
Journalist’s Otter.ai scare is a reminder that cloud transcription isn’t private
Because its simply not possible. There are too many barriers now. You need to get a static ip for one. Domains cost more. Email for those domains costs quite a bit. And your friends are far less likely to visit since theyre all addicted to infinite scrolling websites
Anyway, there seems to be assumption, that those 92,8% are also streamers. They are not - they are mainly watching others. So, to take a closer look on Twitch monetization, there has to be data only about streamers, that excludes watcher accounts, or those that are not doing seriously any streaming. As a rule of thumb, if they are not affiliated and not receiving income from Twitch, then those 92,8% Twitch accounts are not streamers or as the article states - they are not content "creators". It still is a lazy article for what it claims to represent.
All of the ones I've seen have been under "American Voices". Can you filter on that?
I'm saying private keys are not more secure by default. If your development machine is compromised (which is really easy to do, BTW) they'll steal your keys and probably will have root on your servers and access to your github accounts.

Stealing passwords is much harder in comparison.
If no one is special in this case, then who is your boss and why are you his subordinate?
> Will their requirements ever scale to a point where it actually makes sense

And even that. Let’s treat scaling issues latter. Create something that can be scaled horizontally dumbly, like a monolith you can run on n servers so you can scale without loosing money and then scaling can become your problem.

And that’s probably never if you are b2b like a majority of companies, since your usage depends and can be predicted from your sales team performance.
I thought "metamate" is some kind of polyamory stuff?

Similar to: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Metamour
On Bryan Caplan's Spreadsheets
Without having read the whole page, I understand form your summary that:

A) amazon alone decides when to float credits and their price

B) authors are promised a certain rate (40%) of the price, but in reality this credit system destroys that %% completely

C) in the end amazon makes always a >60% profit off each book, irrespective of the price sold.

D) Their incentive is thus to sell as many units as they can, underprice all competitors with cheap credits, and overall corner the market to make sure producers can't get around them.

Total monopolistic practices with abuse of market power. In a competitive environment no producer would accept this.
I think the incentives are not there anymore.

Before the rise of smartphones a competitor could have emerged and take users from Google. Yahoo wasn't completely dead yet. Platforms were mostly open, a sea change could have happened (though highly unlikely).

Into the smartphone area, other engines became anecdotal (bing just exists in the background), there is enough lock-in to not have to fear against direct competition, and the main focus becomes having users spend more time on the web, search more, instead of staying in native apps. That's were, if my memory is correct, they ditch language based landing pages and start fazing out modifier support and all the "power user" part of their interface.

Fighting SEO scams becomes a waste of time when it has no real impact on wether user will continue to use the product or not.
That’s why you put things like #!/usr/bin/env bash. You can argue about which version of bash supporting which feature, but being afraid to have your own scripts interpreted by POSIX sh is strange in the vast majority of situations. It’s like complaining that a C++ source would not be compiled by a strict C compiler. Or that Python 3 scripts should be valid Python 2 because you never know which version ‘python’ might be. Just use the right interpreter.
Working with smart folks is the best way I know to do better myself.
There's a python library called xeger [0] that allows you to generate strings from regular expressions. I've used this at work to generate large quantities of "valid" test data.

[0] https://pypi.org/project/xeger/
It would be interesting to calculate the probability here. 1/32000 shutter speed is impressive!
Your rules are so vague that I have no idea which languages/frameworks would qualify and which ones wouldn't.

Does React specifically mention big companies, have a young developer base and is a "kitchen sink"? I have no idea.

Is Python a "bad" language? What about Go? C++ kind of seems like a kitchen sink, is it "bad"?

I really have no idea how to figure out if these rules apply to any languages/frameworks.
"However, once Reddit creates a search engine, and once people get to know that there is an opportunity to game the system and create a financial opportunity, people will abuse that system and we will be back to the place where we are now. SEO stuffed websites."

Reddit already has a "search engine" to search reddit.com. People used to call this "site search". As Google became popular, some websites gave up on site search and outsourced it to Google. Nevertheless, plenty of websites still have their own search engine. They do not use Google.

AFAICT, Reddit does not use Google for site search. Let's put the premise in the author's title to the test. Someone suggest some search terms. We will then search (a) using Reddit's site search and (b) using Google search with "site:reddit.com". We can then compare the results from (a) and (b).
> Scale vertically and you're still a single point of failure away from a big, potentially fatal outage. The coding and architecture can often be trivial though. Definitely good for internal systems and more green programmers.

How fatal[1]? Not all outages are fatal. Scale vertically and you'll have some downtime if any node between (and in) your user and your system goes down. For 999 out of a thousand businesses, it won't be fatal.

If your business is so fragile that the first 24 hour outage kills it, then it would have been killed anyway in the near future.

[1] I know, this is liking asking "how pregnant?"...
GHC does do those things when you're compiling code in files. The only reason you aren't seeing it in this article is that these errors came from entering one expression at a time into the REPL.
While I think that a lot of you learned can be transferrable, many of your points weaken your argument. Things like "they show up on time", "they work well with others", "they can take direction". I mean, common, almost anything you do has these.
>chrome

Copy of Safari.

>android

Copy of iOS

>GCP

Copy of AWS.

Cloning an existing product needed, at the absolute most, a staff of a hundred each. If you want to be wildly excessive, add 900 useless middle managers and developer relations people.

Then what were the other 112,000 full time Google employees doing? What one hundred and twelve business critical new products were they engaged in?

"Nothing"? Then why did they need to have college degrees?
The question is why is the sale price $100. If it's 0 effort, you would think it would be cheaper.
> Anything less than 40 and you could more economically pay someone to calculate directly.

Hiring someone to do the math would defeat the point. The idea was to eliminate human error when doing something like printing tables of common functions like sines or cosines.

A lot of effort went into designing a printer, as they couldn't have humans recording the results without re-introducing human error.
Not really, because of the memory, ability to talk publicly and research things. But OP burried those under many absurdly crappy points.
The fail bit is harder indeed, especially for larger regexps, but not totally impossible. The easiest way towards that goal seems to be constructing the DFA first and then generating illegal single edits (insertion, deletion, substitution). Generating a positive example is possible without it.
Yeah, that's definitely a confusing part of GHCi. If you see an error message like the one in the post

Prelude> 1+[2,3]

<interactive>:1:1: error:
• Non type-variable argument in the constraint: Num [a]
(Use FlexibleContexts to permit this)
• When checking the inferred type
it :: forall a. (Num a, Num [a]) => [a]

The "line-number" is found on this line

<interactive>:1:1: error:

Since it's in a REPL, it is referring to the first line you entered.

The more confusing part is that the important error is found here

• When checking the inferred type
it :: forall a. (Num a, Num [a]) => [a]

where it is assumed that you know all REPL statements that don't bind to a variable are bound to a variable named "it". So the error is really saying that the whole expression 1+[2,3] has that inferred type, and that type is bad.

If you load your example into a file and run GHC on it, it will produce a still confusing error message, but it will at least show you where the problems are

error-message.hs:3:11: error:
• No instance for (Num [a0]) arising from a use of ‘+’
• In the expression: 1 + [1, 2]
In an equation for ‘badType’: badType = 1 + [1, 2]
|
3 | badType = 1 + [1,2]
| ^^^^^^^^^

(I've omitted another, much longer error message it spewed out which is similarly confusing)
Yes, I love this idea! It also raises a very important issue for me that goes unnoticed on interviews: the ability to debug/troubleshoot something random.
In this case the code is just above in the REPL. If you compile a source file, the exact spot is always pointed at by the compiler.
VPN is a crutch?? Really?

Do people not realize that for every one "internet server" there are at least 10 servers that aren't connected to the internet and are only accessible via LAN?

What's their solution, just expose all this underwater glacier mass of compute to the public internet??

Lol.
If you run out of credits, you can also buy 3 extra for £18 (I'm not sure what the USD price is). That's significantly cheaper than buying 3 audio books at full price.

Credits with frequent 2-for-1 sales, £3 sales and £1 sales, there is just no reason to ever pay retail price on Audible.
Another thing, never be the biggest users of a framework. Then you will encounter all the edge cases. Let others find/fix it first.
But then your source is probably not something called “Pure Bash Bible”.
Update your resume, start interviewing, and find a job at which you work 40 hours/week.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/15/well/live/burnout-work-st...
It's apparently not very SEO'd. But it's a debugging technique.

http://coreygoldberg.blogspot.com/2008/12/wolf-fence-debuggi...

It's universally applicable. I've done it in C, Scala, Go, Java, Haskell..everything.

Perf-debugging wise - you basically remove parts of your computation and perform binary search to hone in on the parts that are on the critical path.

I agree that a lot of Haskellers come off as "what's the problem?" (including myself). But Haskell is a small, niche, weird language. You kinda need that attitude to dive deep into it.
Nuclear reactors for electricity production are illegal to build in Australia by law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Australia

So not very surprising they are not being built there.
I've used nodemailer. Thanks for building it. I have similar stats on my personal project and those earnings are discouraging. Any luck with donations? I've used ko-fi with limited success.

Thanks for putting some numbers out there.
Hey samjs, we've been using Oso at Source.ag for a month or so, and we're really happy with it! Precisely the fact that you solve authorization on a resource level and implement filtering on the DB level, makes it super useful!

The biggest gripe we have, is lack of support for SQLAlchemy 2.0 style queries and lack of support for DB & Python enums as role names

We had a chat with Graham who told us about your upcoming cloud offering. Looking forward to that!
It will be interesting to see how effectively the government can reduce access to crypto.
Metaverse means they can bring real world limitations to a virtual world that has no need for them, so they can profit of these limitations.