skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Faith was always described to me as a belief in something that cannot be proven. In my experience, however, especially in terms of Christianity, faith is a belief in something that cannot be proven, and - crucially - can be disproven. To put it more clearly, faith detaches a claim from reality, and puts it into a realm above criticism.

As a small example, the idea that the first human male was created directly by a deity contradicts the existence of early hominids, cannot account for retroviral DNA sequences present in both humans and apes, etc.

St. Thomas Aquinas was an excellent philosopher, whose contributions to human thought will likely continue to be studied for generations to come; whether or not they are based in reality or abstraction. My disagreement with Aquinas is that the ideas of Christianity that are based in the abstract are expressed as literal fact, even though such "facts" and their origins are deeply contradicted by evidence. There is a name for the inability to criticize Christianity for contradicting with evidence: "faith".

My experience with faith is a little closer to this century: Mormonism. A flavor of Christianity invented by Joseph Smith, who founded his church in upstate New York in 1830. As a decedent of several Mormon "Pioneers", I was raised in that church. I had deeply held faith in its claims, and even "served" a mission; going door-to-door sharing my beliefs with anyone willing to listen.

Later on, I learned a more complete history of the Mormon (LDS) Church, and for the first time applied critical thinking to what I had until then held out of reach with "faith". If you want a picture of what this experience is like, I would recommend this heartfelt letter[1] to a stubbornly faithful spouse. It both expresses the emotional journey of leaving the Mormon faith, and provides detailed information and context on the subject.

I haven't spent as much effort deconstructing Christianity on the whole, but there are no doubt similar resources available to the subject. Suffice it to say, after becoming familiar with faith, I see the same pattern applied with all religion.

[1] https://www.letterformywife.com/the-letter
meh. dude seems to be conflating "don't use RSA" with "don't roll your own crypto."

If we are to believe Scott Vanstone, ECC has security proofs that RSA doesn't. And I found Scott was a pretty trustworthy guy.

So the OP has a point. It's probably easier to mess up RSA then ECC. But it's not easy to not mess up ECC, so maybe the title should have been "for the love of god, don't roll your own crypto."

Maybe look at NTRU. It's supposedly quantum resistant, so that's a plus. But for the love of god maybe don't roll your own.

I contributed to two and a half commercial implementations of RSA and I still got Bob Baldwin to review my code. Bob was hip-deep in crypto research and knew how to avoid even obscure bugs.

I miss Scott and Bob.

Also... I'm using the term "Crypto" to mean "Cryptography" and not a solution in search of a problem crypto-currency.

Still. Don't roll yer own crypto.
Yea, I drove my 914 for 3-4 years before selling it. I didn't remember having trouble shifting until I read the article and your response here, then it all came flooding back. Those first couple of weeks were "exciting" but after that it just became a normal part of driving the car. No wonder nobody wanted to drive my car.
I understand. Sorry if I was unnecessarily curt in the reply. Most of the disagreements I get in replies are reacting to an extrapolation, implication, or association I did not intend to make.

> I think what motivated Bud's reply, and then mine because your followed appeared to entrench the position, is that it's common around here for people to talk as though virtually all software professionals are paid well and can easily slide into great new jobs as and when they want to, when really there's a huge "underclass" of software professionals who feel shut out of that nice world.

I get it. I was once in a similar boat, so I understand the feeling.
Another direction is more automation. Cover more tasks by humans with robots (this union stuff acts as a selection pressure for innovation). Then just staff the place with qualified robot overlords.
Just because they don’t need help getting bad press doesn’t mean other platforms don’t encourage it.
You haven't described what is it that you hate about your jobs so much. Bureaucracy? Office politics? Type of work you get assigned? Meetings? Tech debt? Obsolete tech stack? Hard to suggest something without knowing.
She’s an “ideological sock puppet” because she might vote to Roe, which would simply make American constitutional law the same as … France or Italy (which, contemporaneously with Casey determined that abortion was an issue for the legislature). Madness!
How rude! [RFC9225 §4.4]
What if the package name contained some kind of blasphemy, should that be allowed? Because this could be very offensive in many places.

What irks people is the presumption that the entire world (or at least the entire Anglosphere) should learn American history and then alter their use of language to conform to it. And that it ends up being a kind of linguistic annexation of the Internet where everybody has to make an effort to not offend Americans but Americans make little effort to not offend the rest of the world.
I predict a wave of articles and blog posts about how open source doesn't work in about 5 years, after the new generation of developers that Amazon convinces to use this licence complete the process of being out competed by Amazon using their own IP.
I'm going off the chart shown in Figure 15 of the cited Cornell post about it, which seems to disagree with your assertion
Oh my Dad's old Chevy stepside was a bear to drive. That 3-on-the-tree gave me fits. On the upside, I can drive just about any car on Earth now without too much trouble.
Interesting. We (humans) would not notice the simulation running slower because we are inside it. Only those on the outside would get frustrated by the fact it is running below realtime, I would guess.
The point is that we have, over and over again. We’ve just recently had headlines about poorly chosen p and q leading to keys being broken. There have been issues with p and q being too small, too similar, etc. Then there are people not padding correctly.

RSA sounds easy, but in reality it isn’t. It is super easy to make minor mistakes that make your scheme trivially breakable.
The Newest Bitcoin Diet Trend Is Hating ‘Seed Oils’
I haven't and don't use google services.
I was genuinely hoping they'd respond.
Rule 42 says smooching
(Ignoring the fact this may be an April fools joke.)

> We’re going to put everything in a single file on disk again.

For most small scale projects I'm just reading and writing lines to a file on disk. Sure, I could over-engineer some database, or I could get a minimal viable project off of the ground and worry about scaling later. Most projects run into issues long before scalability.

I found myself recently wanting a lightweight key-value store for random structures. For this purpose, I created a toy single-file key-value store [1] in less than 256 lines of C. It's not quite ready for prime time, but it's incredibly easy to use.

[1] https://gitlab.com/danbarry16/u-database
> black/grey turtlenecks

Jobs bought lots of them for everyone at Apple to wear, nobody accepted, and he kept them for himself.
They apparently care allot (thus try to do it right)
in part because they perform posthumous baptisms
to boost the numbers in their internal scorecards
to achieve a hi-score of some sort.

some day you too could be a mormon.
I started into menswear last year and I find it deeply fascinating, but hard to fit into the very casual tech office culture.

What's a typical outfit look like for you? Do you have a "uniform"?
If the value is small enough, like 1 byte, and you know for a fact that your CPU + RAM will always be able to update it atomically, then yes technically you could get away with not locking on reads.

BUT, for large values (structs) you will end up getting ragged reads if another thread is writing at the same time. And if another thread is not writing at the same time, what's the harm in locking for reads? Modern mutexes lock fast if there's no contention.

BUT ALSO, many operations are actually a read, followed by a related write. If you don't lock on reads, it's easy to accidentally compose multiple small, correct functions, into a large, incorrect function.
> the belief that encryption is just P^^message%N. Which it is not - you must include padding, and doing that padding wrong also breaks the security.

Actually, even that is wrong; you can't[0] securely pad a message; you have to use P^(K:=rand(N)), then use K (or preferably H(K)) as a symmetric encryption key to encrypt the actual message.

0: outside of a handful of special cases, of which `rand(N)` is the only example I'm reasonably confident in
Static initialization?

Does that mean initializing the mutex before main?
That's only for the case where project A depends on project B which depends on project C which depends on project D...240 projects deep. But what if each of them has more than 1 dependency?

Also you'd have to sum up the entire series, since the licenses at every level are included in the folder, not just the top-level one.
Another downside is that ciphertext is also quite bulky.
I was beginning to think posits had been forgotten.

I wonder about the prospects for (maybe 16-bit) posits in AI engines. It seems like a natural fit not so constrained by history, unlike traditional languages.
I guess I'm finally an old out-of-touch gamer since these FromSoftware fights are too frustrating and I'm still happily playing a (heavily) modded Skyrim
Clearly, the way ag subsidies are done is largely down to corruption, essentially politicians chasing votes from farmers/rural areas, as well as being bought by the ag lobby.

I wish to challenge two things you've said, though.

> The EU could decide to encourage organic farming rather than industrial agriculture based on Monsanto seeds and pesticides. The latter make possible high levels of production, but to a huge cost for biodiversity and even climate dereliction.

I hear alarm bells when I hear people criticizing "Monsanto seeds" and "pesticides". It reminds me of activists who are detached from practical trade-offs or who've bought into woo around GMOs. As if organic pesticides are much better or proven to be much safer? And if they are slightly safer, who is to say the current consideration of trade-offs is wrong? What's wrong with Monsanto seeds?

> Cereals are heavily subsidized and the same dependency is organized to keep Central & South American dependent for basic food.

I am almost certain this is false. It's attributing calculating, conspiratorial malice to forces that can be easily explained by the stock standard self-interested behavior of politicians and an industry lobbying group.
“I am not a part of statistics. I am a human being.”
Paying employees is just another cost, paying shareholders (which happens to include me) is the purpose of a corporation.

I buy food at the market price; keeping me alive doesn’t mean the supermarket deserves 100% of my pay. I sell skilled work at the market price; why would I deserve 100% of anything? I’m even leveraging the shareholders’ huge investment and earning far more than I would by myself or in a co-op.
It has been my experience that most folks commenting on this matter on HN have no clue whatsoever what they are talking about. None. They comment based on pure ideology or, possibly worse, a delusion driven into their heads by our lovely universities.

Those of us, like you, who actually have or had skin in the game --real experience actually trying to make real things in the context of the real world-- know better. We know and understand exactly what's going on and where this is likely headed. Nobody here wants to hear about it. The reaction ranges from the most uninformed comments to flagging and effectively cancelling what they don't want to hear.

The worse of it is that reality doesn't care about flagging comments and down-votes, reality keeps moving forward. The path we are on is 180 degrees from what we should be doing if we actually want to have a shot a maintaining a reasonable standard of living for generations to come.

To be fair, at this point, it is almost impossible. The kind of leadership and cultural shift we need in order to do the things we have to do might be impossible to achieve given what we have done to our society. This is the most disconcerting part for me. We have devoted years destroying this nation from the inside. Europe hasn't done much better than this.
> But as the myths are so firmly embedded into popular (mis)understanding, I don’t have the luxury to skip over them, so it is just a sad reality that I have to waste even more of my time to bring many of you up to speed.

As the quote shows, the article is full of sneering, it’s just a sad fact that I have to waste my time pointing it out to you.

Apologies for that but I think directing her words towards you exposes the sneer without any doubt.
I'm pretty far into a project to create a Typescript framework for turn and tile-based (think roguelikes) client/server games: https://github.com/chaos-framework. Mix of entity-component and event-driven design (inspired by Brian Bucklew https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U03XXzcThGU and Thomas Biksup https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGLJC5UY2o4, though looking now I'm surprised I landed on a similar but imo more robust event system as I was only looking at EC pattern at the time). Typescript means entity factories and their components can be fully written in the language rather than XML per the videos above, and people can for example distribute a package that is basically DnD5e or Pathfinder rulesets, custom world generators, or anything else to be plugged into a published game.

Typical Minecraft "infinite" world data structure, handles binding up event system to component listeners automatically, (will soon) handles serialization, listeners are async generators ala Redux Saga for neat inversion of control and advanced patterns as needed. It doesn't have any specific frontends or clients (APIs and react hooks+utils exist but not super advanced yet, and a small WebGL renderer + react component), it's more a collection of objects that recursively process state updates in response to a user input until it finishes (like a classic console roguelike), and produce a serialized stream of events clients of any kind can listen to, completely agnostic to how any client may choose to represent it, so you could easily make a DM interface vs an interface for players connected to the same server, but it's also not something like Unity that is an all-in-one engine that's ready to publish (unless a proper ecosystem gets fleshed out). It's been a joy to architect and program in, and excited to someday publish it and document it (I haven't updated the examples I've written for the new saga-based event system so it'll probably all be gibberish to an outsider still).

Not going to lie, my heart skipped a beat at the headline.. It's selfish but would hate for someone to publish something that covers a lot of the same ground. Sometimes I think to look around again and stop myself.
I concur. You will note that I said “for a majority of”, not “all”. Even online businesses still, if they intend to register as a business entity and enjoy all that comes with registering a business, like business tax ID or EIN, they must register with a jurisdiction. Also note where I said having an attorney “or at minimum a Registered Agent”

So I’m not sure what is being rebutted here.
> FamilySearch has unique records from the Philippines related to my wife's (long lost) family that are indexed but not viewable.

I pay out the nose for Ancestry.com and also come across indexed data that isn't viewable. I suspect this is because the data was literally only indexed and not archived (yet?) photographically. Possibly the digital index was copied from a handwritten index, without access to the original documents. Fortunately for me all such data I've come across has been redundant, except for some Missouri marriage record data with conflicting dates--both sets of data were just from indices; the original records aren't viewable, which in this case I assumed--without evidence--was due to some privacy concerns given the records are from the 1960s.

> FamilySearch is the worst of the 3 big genealogy websites.

It's free! Plus, there's little I've been able to find on Ancestry.com and not FamilySearch. I think in one or two instances FamilySearch actually had better data. And on many occasions FamilySearch's presentation of data was easier to grok, making it easier to sift through data during the initial stages of a hunt.

A big pro for Ancestry.com is definitely non-U.S. databases, but at least in my case those databases are only relevant past 3-4 generations, at which point it becomes very difficult (at least for myself as an amateur) to have any confidence in associations without independent corroboration. (You'd be surprised how often names and dates line up coincidentally. In one case I found two candidate families where in addition to the parents 3 children in each family had the same names and similar birth years. It took me countless hours of sleuthing to be able to confidently rule one of the families out.) If you already have that extra bit of information, though, then the databases lose a little of their unique value. (Definitely worth it if you're serious, but most people aren't as invested as they think.) IME, the best value proposition of Ancestry.com is its popularity. There are multiple connections and facts I never would have been able to discover, let alone confirm, without information from family trees published on Ancestry.com. Specifically, trees from people in possession of physical records, or die-hard sleuths who traveled to tiny villages across the world to photograph religious records not available anywhere else. There are very few people who are willing and capable of putting in that sort of work (almost everybody simply copies subtrees from each other, which is a very dangerous thing to do if you care about accuracy--errors propagate like wildfire). Because of it's popularity you'll find more of those people on Ancestry.com than elsewhere.
There’s no doubt Mackenzie Scott has gained a huge amount of status through how she’s dealt with acquiring enormous wealth. For me at least, she has way more respect than Gates Bezos and Musk combined…
> Closed -> Wontfix, label:not_a_bug

per RFC 9225 there are no bugs
I don't feel BotW was as big a risk as people take it to be - it was basically single-player WoW and was done with the standard Nintendo polish.

I do have to admit it was perfectly aimed at someone like me, who remembers the glory days of video games but no longer has the time or skill to play at a top level.
I didn't know. I guess I am one of today's lucky 10,000 (see https://xkcd.com/1053/).
Knitwear in general (sweatshirts, cardigans, sweaters, even t-shirts) is a good fit for the tech office because it is the quintessential casual-yet-refined garment. I've experimented with different types.

Dark jeans can be fairly dressed up, but chinos are also a good option.
If you only lock on writes rather than reads, it prevents two writers from colliding, but readers can see torn data (a mix of old and new states). Technically speaking, if either the write or read is non-atomic, this is outright undefined behavior, and it's legal for the compiler to generate (eg. reading) code which assumes concurrent writes never happen and misbehaves if they do (for example, the reader thread reading the value twice, expecting the value to be the same, and misbehaving if it's not).

To prevent tearing, you can use a regular mutex (only one reader at a time), or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readers%E2%80%93writer_lock, which allows multiple concurrent readers, but has more overhead than a regular mutex, and when contention occurs can prioritize either readers or writers. If you don't want readers or writers to block, you can use (for <=64-bit values) atomic reads and writes, (for single writers and readers) triple buffers, or (in general) RCU or hazard pointers.
That's exactly what I was saying. The result is exact, but it has lower accuracy.
Alan Smithee learns to code.
The NLRA has historically been interpreted in a way that denies bargaining rights to members-only unions. It hasn't been tested in a while, and it's possible that the current NLRB would view the issue differently, but unless and until that happens minority unionism is not a viable strategy in the US.
This effort started over unsafe COVID working conditions. Not dying at work seems like a win.

15$/hr ~ 30k$/year - That doesn't sound like a lot to be honest.
How long until Bad Apple in awk?
Probably the latter, my guess.
Don’t tell me what your system diagram says, show me your data models.
Me too, although I use markdown todo lists, starting with a minus.

I also record the creation date and timestamped notes on the progression of the task. And I use @ to keep tabs on tasks that I've delegated.

2022-04-02
- [x] [2022-03-30] do a thing #tag1 #tag2
- 2022-03-31 10:30 notes about work being done thing
- 2022-03-02 14:00 completed thing by using X
- [ ] [2022-03-28] @delegated_person: do another thing
- 2022-03-29 09:00 delegated_person reported that Y
Can always get a new job. But if every company has shareholders, can’t avoid that.
Really don’t understand the reasoning to not making contributing to shareholder profit voluntary. Completely illogical. Basically you agree it’s authoritarian but “it’s better than the alternative” which is bullshit.
Most of the programming that happens in the Linux world would be compensated along those lines as well. The trick is that developers tend to be deeply aware of the value of contributing to open source and, well, product managers less so.
At least he's not the Dropbox guy
Those aren’t true believers. Either the executioners or the victims, take your pick.
First one was a mix of all powerful people getting product in a pointless direction, and totally inflexible to suggestions.

Second was waterfall dictatorship, mixed with "talent management" requiring managers to fire people every year, mixed with legacy shit that would never get funding to be fixed.

Third (now) is a mismatch between what I signed up for in scope and manager (both got changed shortly after I joined), incompetence of product management, lack of belief for what we are building, and no interest to our proposal of pivoting to something actually crucial and meaningful. We see the forest in fire with dinosaurs attacking leprosic people, we're volunteering with extinguishers, machine guns, and arm long firefighting/dinosaur taming/medical qualifications, and the only answer I get is "oh cool, throw glasses of water at the fire after work, but please do focus on building the new community center in the middle of nowhere".

There's a lot of admin, a lot of meetings, but I could cope with that if at the end of the day what we're working on was meaningful
Yup this is the #1 annoying performance issue in Rust. It would probably require a few language extensions to make work safely, but nothing insurmountable I don't think.
I think you have opinions, on the other hand judgements need argumentation. You've simply stated that you object "to people who freely talk about negative experiences" because some other people you like a lot don't do that. That's not a judgement, it's just you expressing your personal preferences. It's not very interesting per se to be completely honest with you.