skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The fifth amendment prevents forcing anyone to testify against themselves, but does not stop investigations.

You asserted that the 5th should prevent an investigation, but it will do nothing of the sort:

> Presumably investigating someone over that would violate their 5th amendment rights, no?
What you are describing, is pretty much exactly how it works at every company I've worked at that used PRs. You create a new branch from master, make your changes, push the branch to github/bitbucket/gitlab, make a PR. While the PR is open, you can make any changes you want to the commits in that branch (since it's just a branch).

People look at the PR (which shows the diff) and approve it if they are happy, or request changes. If there are no conflicts, you can merge with a single button. Otherwise you need to resolve conflicts somehow. I normally just rebase the branch off updated master and force push.

> Creating a separate branch, pushing this to your public copy of the repository and then asking someone to pull from that branch into their master branch seems absurd to me.

That's how it works for open source projects because people do not have permissions to make branches in the main repo, so they must fork and have the changes in a different repo. I've never seen this done at a company, I presume everyone here is talking about creating branches in the main repo and requesting review before merging the branch to master.
Supply lowers price. H1bs lower the pay of software developers in the USA, full stop.
I’m not sure about the comparison between a town square and the internet. BLM protests and Jan 6th, are great examples of town squares where civility and rule of law are thrown out the window like a free open platform on the internet would perform.
I don't think this necessitates having that attitude toward owning things in general. Owning scarce natural resources is very different than owning man-made resources that have an elastic supply that can be expanded through production. A coherent moral framework can support the former being taxed, while maintaining that the latter should not be.

Private ownership of the latter is both just, because the original owners comes to own it by producing it, and economically advantageous, because ownership incentivizes production, which leads to its supply increasing. With land, there is no moral justification for private ownership, as no private party created the land, and private ownership does not have the economic effect of leading to the supply of it expanding, since land cannot be produced.
You're not going to be able to short random OTC stocks. While it's technically possible, there isn't going to be a market providing shares for these podunk fraudulent issues.
I can only guess from that description is that it is the cat command.
I asserted that 5th amendment should prevent the government from using this coerced testimony.

Would this not taint any investigation started on the basis of coerced testimony? Why would the exclusionary rule not kick in here?

As far as I understand in a criminal context no adverse inference may be drawn from ones refusal to self-incriminate. How would investigating someone for refusing to self-incriminate to the IRS not be exactly that?

E: Found some related literature which I am reading now https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art...
Twitter has 217 million daily active users: https://www.omnicoreagency.com/twitter-statistics/

I can't think of any other open platform with that large of an audience.

As for its relevance, while it may not host a significant share of the world's population, it enables the userbase to converge on messages very quickly, to coordinate social and political action, which allows them to have an outsized influence on the world. Twitter users don't have to make up the majority of the world's population to be able to give movements the critical mass of supporters they need to succeed.
They want someone to do all the work so they can continue coasting, team effort!
The OP's specific point was based on a misunderstanding: that being unable to pay the land value tax would mean they would have to move to a different city because the cost of living in their original city would be too high. This might be a reasonable concern during a transition to a land value tax system, but once the land value tax has been in place long enough to see more efficient use of land actually happening, the cost of living would be going down. So the premise of their argument doesn't hold.

Put another way, their concern was based on them specifically paying more taxes on land while society stays the same in regards to use of land. But that doesn't make sense because they're not the only person who would be paying land taxes; everyone who owns land would be, and that changes everyone's incentives for how they use land.

If you mean the part about "how could this ever overcome NIMBY" / tradeoffs between people who already live somewhere and people who want to live somewhere, then yeah, that wasn't what I was talking about.
Try ou kotlin coroutines.
The suspend keyword really helps out reasoning.
Actually, it doesn’t. ZQ is the same as :q! which quits without saving with a 0 exit code. So all of your git branches get deleted in this example, since you left the file as it was. You definitely want :cq here.
"[..] and the JVM has limited thread count, too"

I think I understand you point when it comes to the essentially single threaded Javascript runtime, but the thread limit of the JVM is huge, so how does that matter?

Not trying to be pedantic, just wanted to know if I missed something.
So there is that 2017 blog post that said they were thinking of doing something with SGX... Have they mentioned anything else about it after that?
These companies have no real value to begin with and have been fully taken over by the fraudsters.
The answer is that he could still afford to live there just no longer as an owner of that much land. In a city with a land value tax the rental or condo market would be much more dynamic so he would be able to find and affordable option their.
Multiple USAF heavy transports are required to facilitate a single presidential visit, and those flights come at a steep cost.

This seems a peculiarly American way to go about things ... specifically, it's not actually about protection or transport at all: it's about signalling imperial primacy through conspicuous misuse of resources.

I live in Edinburgh, capital of Scotland, about a mile away from a royal palace that is sometimes occupied by actual royals. (Typically Princess Anne; sometimes Charles, William, or the Queen when she's in town to open a session of the Scottish Parliament.)

And as I live on a main road they sometimes drive past my front door.

A royal motorcade scaled for the heir to the throne and his wife, or the queen's sister, or a similar level of VIP, consists of: two SUVs (typically Range Rovers) and 2-4 motorcycles. One SUV for the VIPs (presumably armoured), one for additional security/backup, and the bikes leap-frog the SUVs to stop traffic at intersections so the SUVs don't need to slow down.

The SUVs are notable for not having number plates (that's normally illegal in the UK). And for special appearances the VIP carrier is sometimes replaced with a classic limousine -- I've seen Daimlers and Rolls-Royces used (older, pre-BMW-ownership ones).

The queen isn't a common visitor these days (she's 95, doesn't travel much during the pandemic) but used to rate something not much larger: add another couple of Range Rovers to the convoy and that's about it.

What they don't do is shut down an entire city and have military helicopters and transports flying around the place, signaling what's going on. The emphasis seems to be on being discreet and agile, and able to avoid any possible threats notified by intelligence. If you've got a convoy involving a hundred people you can't simply pick another route.

Now, obviously the rules are a bit different for the leader of the global imperial hegemon: projecting an image of invulnerability and overwhelming might goes with the territory. And a formal parade like a Presidential Inauguration or a state visit calls for laying on the pomp, ceremony, and escort size (a UK example might be the Trooping of the Colours, or the state opening of Parliament and the monarch's speech).

But if the objective of the presidential motorcade is to safely deliver POTUS to a speaking engagement then safely extract him afterwards, with elbow-room for close protection duty, then 95% of this motorcade arrangement is a very expensive waste of people and equipment: it's signalling that the subject of the motorcade is important, not actually accomplishing anything tangible.
Can parents laugh about a joke like this?
Feces with mild Covid can harbor viral genetic material months after infection
Interesting timing on this post, I got stuck on the highway in Greensboro NC behind a police blockade on Thursday for what I can only assume was the presidential motorcade making its way from downtown back to the airport!
The only beef i have with Wim Hof is he says one's attitude matter in following his method. He says a person should be open minded and accept without ego, something along those lines. The problem is its not quantifiable and kind of cop-out, so I don't take it too seriously.
I have seen a deployed altcoin built on SGX. Can't remember the name or if it was even successful.

In my opinion, it's a huge risk.
With a regular blockchain, the fact that someone might maliciously be running the wrong code is baked into the design, and the security model has to handle it.

With SGX, you are relying on Intel's security model to make sure everyone is running the same code. If SGX is ever broken (which it has been, to some extent) and a malicious node is running different code, then your whole security model falls apart and they can start attacking the blockchain.

You might argue that you can design the blockchain to be secure even when SGX is broken. But if it's secure enough without SGX, why use SGX? You risk your security model being broken due to a bug and nobody realizing due to SGX protecting it, until SGX stops protecting.

Plus, you exclude people who don't have SGX from running your blockchain.
> Give better cues that we are in an asynchronous mental model

The `async` keyword(!) is objectively a clearer signal that the code in question is asynchronous. That's why type-checkers use it to prevent you from doing dumb stuff like awaiting in a synchronous function.

> In simple cases express the code at least as cleanly as async/await

It's pretty hard to see much of an argument here. How can the promise version ever be seen as "at least as clean"?

await someTask()
// vs
someTask().then(() => ...);

Even beyond the syntax here, the promise forces you into at least one level deep of nesting, which instantly makes it much trickier to manage intermediate variables, which either need to be passed along as part of the result (usually resulting in an unwieldy blob of data) or the promises need to be nested (pyramid of doom) so that inner callbacks can access the results from outer promises.

> Provides a much cleaner option for more complex workflows that include error handling and parallelisation.

If you've somehow come to the conclusion that `Promise.all` doesn't work with `async/await` then you have probably misunderstood the relationship between `async` functions and promises. They're the same thing. Want to parallelise a bunch of `await` statements? You can still use `Promise.all`!

I do occasionally find try-catch to be awkward, but that's because it creates a new lexical scope (just like promise callbacks do). I also think the consistency from having one unified way to handle errors in sync/async contexts justifies it.
I'd look into what Valve is using.
the whole blog-post seems a little constructed tbh - If I look at
await doSomething(param)
await doSomethingElse(param)

the very first thing that comes to mind is that this can be very, very easily optimised by just doing await Promise.all([
doSomething(param),
doSomethingElse(param)
])

This is something I come across literally every day - why exactly would that be an argument against async/await? much so on the contrary, I find const myResult = await Promise.all([]) significantly more expressive, than Promise.all([]).then(doSomething)

Also, as others have already pointed out - async/await is just syntactic sugar around promises and can be used in addition to 'normal' promise syntax (as shown above)
>I don't see the value in making a racist, sexist, transphobic, or overall bigoted joke made at the expense of innocent people simply trying to live their life.

I don't think the average non-"woke" person sees much value in transphobic/racist jokes either - at least not in public.

That said, I don't think there would be anywhere near the level of backlash if the average activist simply aired their disapproval in a normal way (ie, expressing discomfort at a live show, or leaving a comment online calling a comedian a talentless hack for making shit transphobic jokes) rather than vindictively trying to destroy their entire life.
He didn't physically attack anyone. No violence was alleged nor evidenced.
Show HN: GraphQL Wrapper for Hacker News API
Might be worth experimenting with giving up caffeine. I noticed pretty immediate changes.

www.reddit.com/r/decaf for lots of anecdotal stories
“No one really knows what causes long COVID,” said Ami Bhatt, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine and of genetics. “But our study shows that SARS-CoV-2 can hide out in the gut for months. Maybe long COVID — and the wide variety of symptoms it causes — is due to the immune system’s response to viral proteins in hidden reservoirs throughout the body.”
It would be nice to update to use anonymous files where supported (Linux does). This allows you to open an unnamed file in any directory so that you can do exactly this, write to it then "rename" it over another file atomically.
> resumes have to be handwritten.

Sounds incredibly easy to cheat, but also not something Japanese would do, would they?
> I'm not anything other than a C tourist, and I see that the man page says it returns either NULL or a "unique pointer value that can later be successfully passed to free()."

>

> I'm kind of at a loss about why it can return either of those two things, somebody want to take a shot at explaining it?

Any return from malloc, whether it succeeds or not, is a valid argument to `free()`. Hence, it can return NULL because `free(NULL)` is legal, and anything other than NULL has to be a unique pointer, because if it returns a duplicate then calling `free()` no the duplicate will crash.
All async/await is built on promises/futures/tasks, which themselves are built on yield/generators. Most modern languages have converged on this and they are not different paradigms but rather just newer syntax.

Async/await is better for expressing concurrent logic more tersely and in the common "sync" format, and failure to understand what it means is just that, a failure in understanding.

There's no convincing argument here to use "promises instead async" because it's the same thing.
Hacking an Experimental ESA Satellite
It's awfully generous to give them the benefit of the doubt considering Gravity Diagnostics did not allege violence.
For all the complexity of OAuth, an OAuth token is essentially a free pass for $stuff.

Perhaps we could start validating that a token not only is valid, but also is digitally, freshly signed with a known certificate?

I'd say there's a huge difference between:

* I stole a token

* I stole the token AND am able to keep signing said token with my victim's public certificate

A token can be stolen from many places and is comparatively easy to obtain, while full intrusion into an org's infrastructure is less likely, and even if it happens, eventually will be remediated (and the related certificate will be revoked).

Edit: looks like https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-oauth-mtls-09.html would fit the bill.
See but this is a big flaw in the way most people view free speech. No one wants to hear it, but some views considered extreme or “bad” are considered “bad” based on your point of view.

Currently the majority of our culture feels acting on racist motives are bad. An individual who internally is racist, posts racist things on the internet is only bad when they act racist towards someone.

If a platform blocks someone from posting a non individual targeting racist post and it gets blocked on Facebook, that is similar to someone posting something against a religion and it getting blocked because the moderator is religious, or posting something anti American and the site moderated by an American blocks it because they disagree with the content.

As much as we might all hate it, the lobbying for an open free internet means giving everyone the freedom to post their thoughts without backlash. Imagine If the civil rights movement took place during the Information Age, Amit of people would have compared promoting anti slavery content on posts to anti vax information today.
I wonder if Google employees use Chrome, knowing all this information first hand.
The great game of global public goods provision
The unix shell was designed to optimize for simple pipes. to make pipe networks you usually have to use named pipes, aka fifos.

I once had to use an IBM mainframe shell(cms If I remember correctly) which had pipes however IBM in their infinite wisdom decided to make the pipe network the primary interface, while this made complex pipes a bit less awkward, simple(single output) pipes were wordy compared to the unix equivalent.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Atass.com&t=ffab&df=m&ia=web

vs

https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Atass.com&tbs=qdr%3Am
As long as I'm able to switch inputs and use HDMI-CEC, I don't care about firmware upgrades. I also don't care that the updates might cause the GUI to load a second or two faster when powering on.
A search engine is not easy to do solo, unless you're targeting a specific niche. A better Google is far more difficult than most people realize. Finally, even if you could pull it off, a lot of people are very attached to their search engines and won't switch easily.
Now maybe it’s just my familiarity with Promises, but I look at the third example and I can quickly see an opportunity.

This entire article is built around the author's ignorance and could easily be summarised as "I avoid async/await syntax because I'm more familiar with promises". The author doesn't even appear to understand that async/await is syntactic sugar for promises.
Completely my feelings too. He doesn't actually address this, and it is actually the really painful part about promises which async/await makes infinitely better.

I have had cases where converting .then(...) code to async/await made the code infinitely easier to understand/reason about and made it trivial remove bugs which were present due to the complexities of dealing with control flow logic.

It strikes me that the author is just already "used to" promises and as such is trying to justify their preference for them with examples which they believe "prove" that promises are "better", but actually fail to do so. For every single one of their examples, async/await is no worse, if not better.

For example, their argument about inadvertently serialized work with the the two save calls. They are claiming that ".then()" is more obviously serializing than the "await" keyword, which is a highly subjective claim. If there is a problem here, it's that some developers don't understand/know about all the asynchronous tools which are available and so are unaware of the option of using Promises.all(...).

Another argument for async/await compared to promises is the following:

try
{
await doSomething();
}
catch()
{
// Do a particular error handling for doSomething() failing
}

try
{
await doSomethingElse();
}
catch()
{
// Do a different particular error handling for doSomethingElse() failing
}

What's the best way to reproduce this in promises only land, for example, does the following work?

doSomething()
.catch(() => {
// Do a particular error handling for doSomething() failing
})
.then(() => doSomethingElse())
.catch(() => {
// Do a different particular error handling for doSomethingElse() failing
});

I think it works, but I honestly don't know for sure offhand and to be sure I would need to check the documentation for promises, whereas for the async/await approach, there is no question. And if the above doesn't work, then I would have to call the .then() from inside the first .catch() block, which is awful code to read and interpret.
In the past, I've taken existing code that needed a good refactor, checked the unit tests gave a good working/not working signal (i.e., deterministic pass/fail), set up the candidate's preferred IDE/editor, and asked them to refactor it to be better, according to their definition of better.

Then we talked about the things they did and why that was better.

Probably the best "coding exercise" I've ever done in terms of getting to understand how someone approaches a typical code base.

But sometimes candidates were very unsure about how to approach it, they found it hard to proceed without knowing exactly what "better" was.

I stopped using this, as I realised that my approach was unconsciously selecting for a certain type of person, one who resembled myself and it excluded people who could be amazing devs within clear parameters.

TL;DR interviewing is hard to get right, this reading idea is a good one.
I agree that's a good way to find a problem. However I would add that it should be a problem you are willing to pay to be solved.
The Trouble with Five (2007)
"For example, in 2021, individual filers won’t pay any capital gains tax if their total taxable income is $40,400 or below."

It's double for married filing a joint return. Then add on top the $24,000 deductible (and other possible credit/deductions).

If you time your breaks from work correctly, you can claim almost $110,000 in long term capital gains and not pay a cent in tax.
Oh so that’s it! I use GNU parallel a lot, and installed moreutils yesterday, and parallel seemed to behave a bit… different. Couldn’t quite understand why, as I didn’t expect moreutils to replace parallel when you install them.

I’m using Arch, btw.
Weird ... some link (for me: "basic layout") directs to an eyewear site?! I'm confused.
Interestingly enough, I believe there's now no official way of playing UHD-BR on modern Intel systems (ie. you'd have to use an AACS/BD+ crack), since all certified players needed SGX.

I don't know what this means for 4K Netflix, if anything.
> Everyone in this thread seems to be hung up on sharing code from an employer

Probably because you said “Bring code you've written”
> So fine, this is what I think about that. I will assume the takeover succeeds, and he takes Twitter private.

why is ":" out of use nowadays?
Bloomberg/April 15, 2022:

"Coronavirus Persisting in Feces Offers Clues to Long Covid Cause
Scientists report large study tracking RNA in human waste
Lingering SARS-CoV-2 may provoke damaging immune response"

https://archive.ph/JpHrY
I've never thought of a PR as causing conflict. For sure, you're right now that you've explained it, but as an engineer I've never felt that way.

But I'm okay with the conflict! There should be conflict at work! Ideas should be freely expressed and those ideas are going to meet contrary ones!

What wouldn't be healthy is a place where that conflict isn't resolved or doesn't lead to a better idea winning. Or where only the Lead "wins" because of their position.

There shouldn't be arguments, no one should yell or be hurt. For sure that's a bad place to work. But conflict about where to place a piece of code? Sure! Conflict about if we name it Foo or Bar? Why not?! That conflict is like the sharpening of Iron! It hurts _today_ but can strengthen and make _you_ better let alone the organization as a whole.