skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> We've never had a rule change from being beneficial to detrimental

Whatever you're doing is really confusing me (see my prev post). A multi-thousand line piece of the SQL I wrote was tested on mssql 2019 and there was a blatant perf. fuckup from it's previous home on mssql 2016 (or was it 2014). Poss. down to the new cardinality estimator, I dunno.

> For example, when we trim joins from inner queries, we first trim their selections (depending on what is actually used in the outer queries).

If you looked at the query plans you will see this happens automatically. And very reliably because it is easy (indeed, quite straightforward) to do automatically.

Also... 'we just read release notes' - these optimisations are not documented (except maybe in one place which they carefully undocumented after the 1st release) because these are trade secrets. The optimiser is one of the most important and carefully guarded parts of mssql - it's not in the notes and never will be.

No offence but... seriously, wat???
> Thanks, but no.

How does this affect you? It's just another option for people who want to use it.
> If people hire you to "fix their Java app" and you then subsequently bury your head in the sand and insist that this cannot be fixed (or you will not fix it)

To be honest, most of these cases have been what could be called bait and switch. I think it tells something about the language that they can't find employees if they are honest about using it. Other times it had been because recruiters just decided that I'm a Java person and can't work with other technologies.

> It seems that you're trying to write Java as if it were C++. That will not work, so stop doing that.

If you can read my thoughts, James Randi has million dollars for you. I have only contempt, and no you didn't get it right.
wow. is that New Relic monitoring alerts or is that...spam?!
Had this same thing, but then with a couple of my customers.

This is a phishing attack.

After a while I talked with one of those customers and they knew about it. It was "an email that got compromised".

Eg. one of their employees did fall for the phish and opened the email, clicked the link, opened the binary. Got infected and (a part of?) their inbox uploaded to the spammer. That is then used to send out new targeted phishing attacks where the name is spoofed, but send from another victim of theirs. Pretty effective phishing attack it seems. Took me a bit before I realized what I was looking at as the email seemed to come from that customer. It was only because it was a bit weird that I noticed things being off like that the email address itself was different.
> (for example, the demangler is crash-prone so GDB installs a SEGV handler when invoking it)

Yikes.

> There were some helpful comments that I believe were true at one point that explained why this was useful. However, I instrumented GDB and found that less than 10% of the cached DIEs were ever re-used. Computing and allocating them was largely a waste, just to support a few lookups. And, nearly every DIE that was ever looked up was done so on behalf of a single call — so the cache was nearly useless.

It's interesting if this partial DIE reuse is a function of the binary being loaded in GDB - or is it a hardcoded analysis that's common to all binaries?

I'm curious to know more about the test suite that underlies these instrumentations - presumably there's a representative sample of DWARF-containing binaries that represent the majority of use cases, but are there perhaps pathological cases for which the DIE caching mechanism is essential for reasonable startup time? Maybe it's these pathological cases that motivated the caching mechanism in the first place - and perhaps they're just not included in the test suite used for instrumentation.
> day or two

Your code must be quite small.
Just mount your zipfile using fuse and serve as normal. You can also produce and edit the zipfile that way.

https://www.systutorials.com/docs/linux/man/1-fuse-zip/
Aquamail has been amazing for me for the last 6 years or so. Really solid, usable, packed with features and never had any problems.
Being targeted by unsolicited inbound calls or SMS is absolutely dangerous and I could possibly fall in that trap specially when I have some impending business with my bank (say, renewing my cards).

Subject to regulations, banks take all types of precautions to identify you. Would not regulation force them to comply with how can you identify your bank in one of these touchpoints?

My best suggestion would be to have something like reverse 2FA in the mobile banking app: the calling agent should be able to tell you the number you are seeing in a specific screen on your phone app.
Beyond the validity of the statistical methods used.. can someone clarify what is the actual hypothesis we are debating about competence? And what does each article propose?

My understanding is that the hypothesis is "Those who are incompetent overestimate themselves, and experts underestimate themselves".

DK says: True

DK is Autocorrelation says: ???

"I cant let go..." says: True?

HN says: also True?

Is there really any debate here? The "DK is Autocorrelation" article seems to be the only odd one out, and it's not clear if it even makes a proposal either way about the DK hypothesis. It talks about the Nuhfer study, but that seems Apples vs Oranges since it buckets by education level. Then it also points out that random noise would also yield the DK effect. But that also does not address the DK hypothesis, and it would indeed be very surprising if people's self evaluation was random!

So should my takeaway here just be that the DK hypothesis is True and that this is all arguing over details?
If you're working in say automotive industry on a simulator of car tire deformation, you're so far away from the business side that they leave you alone. Whereas in a SaaS business (or, worse yet, unprofitable SaaS Business), the business types have dozens of ideas on how to improve the app, they bombard you with them, often don't care about engineering culture or long-term code viability but only about speed of delivery etc. Then there are large boring corporations which are profitable, but have so much business and manangerial overhead and those people see generating lots of meetings and ideas (don't have to be good) as a part of their job description.
The main goal is to ensure compliance of the setup (like make sure disk is properly encrypted), and to be able to deploy stuff (like corporate ssl certificates)
Work for a small company: 5 to 30 people.

It seems you like your work, but not your working environment. Big companies always have this kind bullshit. Small companies however, care about the work and results. You can really make a noticeable difference when you represent 10% of a company.
where to begin. What would one say if one could speak openly?

* The vast majority of executives are paranoid, risk averse know nothings. They don’t want to take any business risks lest it harm their comp.

* Because most execs don’t understand their business, their customers, their industry, and they distrust their staff — they can’t formulate clear and concise goals and objectives. This is how orgs end up with that blitzkrieg of murky, pointless, meaningless objectives.

* Quite a lot of people in leadership roles got to where there are by making very morally and ethically questionable decisions. It’s largely due to the stupidity of the investor class that these individuals were never caught. The horrible thing is because these individuals are loaded to the gills with malintent they assume the same of everyone else. They tend to structure their organizations around mistrust.

* This is why management practice, especially in the US, appears to be a bad case of Munchausen syndrome by proxy. All of management’s bureaucratic nonsense and irrational separation of duties creates self-inflicted wounds. management salves wounds (they never get at the root cause). And then management rewards itself with big bonuses for fixing the problems they created.

* The US Federal Government functions way more effectively than most large companies. The reason is that in the govt policies, procedures, and controls are well documented and maintained. In most orgs all three are usually in flux at all times. This makes unity of effort pretty challenging on a good day.

* If orgs cut a lot of their senior leadership they could pay everyone a lot more -and- see a productivity improvement whilst preserving their margin

* Investors think they’re so clever.

And of course one last thing

* most people have no idea what they’re nattering on about
I think nobody noticed the most controversial Onion bits because YouTube wasn't big at the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb5rHthCXoA
>> Bank as a Service

So, banking?
Wait what? The person with the stolen credit card will report the fraudulent charge causing a chargeback for the seller - how is that “business as usual”? If the business is getting hit with chargebacks they sure as fuck have a financial motivation if not moral one to report it.

This relies on churn and hoping that a percentage of the fraudulent charges go unnoticed. But if it’s oversight then it’s not really that party “seeing” anything.
I'm happy enough to live in a country where this is considered so inhumane that this is very obviously a scam.

I understand why you'd (almost) fall for this. I think it is wrong to assume you never will. So put safeguards in place, it may be good to start thinking about how those could look like. I have no idea... I'm very afraid my parents will someday waste a lot of money on a scam like this. Or, you know, me.
> "I was suspicious, but the bank’s systems could easily be a wasteland archipelago of isolated micro-services that used different phone lines."

Anecdotally, I've found that the frustrating thing is that real banks/financial institutions tend to also commit a bunch of super sketchy (security wise) behaviors. I've encountered the following when applying for a credit card issued by a certain four letter bank:

Applied for the card online, but instead of getting a card in the mail, got a letter about "suspicious activity" on the card. Mind you, the card had yet to be issued to me and I didn't even know what the # was going to be so the card referred to in this letter may as well have been anything! Since it was my first card with them, I'm thinking "okay they probably mean that they want to re-confirm my ID and just used a weird template". So I call the phone # in the letter, making sure to first confirm that it matched one of the service numbers listed on the bank's website.

I get rerouted to a customer service agent after a bunch of automated prompts and the agent tells me they'll need to call me instead of me calling them. Weird, but, OK, maybe they want to confirm my phone number is real. So I hang up and promptly get a callback from a completely unrecognized number that was not listed on the bank's website (and turned up no useful search results). Again, sketchy, but hey maybe they have different outgoing phone lines.

The agent is then like "I need to confirm your identity for the credit card. Do you have some checking account with another bank?" Ok, again weird but whatever, so I go "yeah, I have an account with *** bank" "Ok we'll have you verify your account with *** bank". Then proceeds to _forward me a call they've made to the telephone banking service of *** bank_, which prompts me to enter stuff like my user ID and _password_.

Knowing how telephones (and authentication systems) work, I'm like "uhh what... no... I'm not comfortable entering anything here because you'd be getting my full login info for this other bank..." and subsequently had to work out a different way of doing the verification. All said and done, they did end up happy with the ID I provided and the card arrived a week or so later. But still, super sketchy interaction throughout...

tl;dr: A real bank's credit card dept. essentially tried to MITM my login credentials to another bank's phone banking service as a part of verifying id.
IMO hiding the stars is the most useful feature here because I never understood why stars are public in the first place.

People just use stars in completely different ways such that the information that someone starred something ends up being basically pointless. E.g. people star stuff just because they want to look at them later and having a public link to these profiles isn't really reflecting their relationship with them. I know multiple users (myself included) who were pretty surprised when they first learned that this is all visible.

Of course instead of hiding the stars it might be better to add a private similar feature instead...

Anyway the whole "sharing the development experience" features in GitHub are IMO mostly weird. I'm using GitHub to develop open source software, not because I'm looking for another social network.
Well, you tried something, next time try to make something that can't lose ordinary people money unexpectedly. A few notes:

- The links didn't work in my mobile browser.

- What I've seen similar platforms do is let users create strategies and then let other users invest in those, for a share of the profits.

- Are you actually accepting investments already?? I hope that's just your family, but you might be in deeper legal trouble than you realize. Take that feature out asap until you talked to a specialized lawyer.

- If you get a job offer, I'd take it if I were you. And take down the site, and pay out the investors (in full or above that; I'd cover any losses by the algorithms out of my own pocket).
Not that anyone cares, but noticing that this song is a cover rather than a Sergio Mendes original, I was curious whether the earlier recordings had the same tricky structure or if Mendes (being a Bossa Nova guy, among other things) added them in.

And they do! The Dionne Warwick and Stevie Woods versions have the same chords (and nearly the same arrangement); so it comes from the original songwriters (Cynthia Weil and Barry Mann), although it’s a perfect fit for Mendes’ style.

That reassures me that the chord structure is really integral to the song (as I’d like to believe) and not just tacked on afterwards to make it sound cooler.
Just wait for the law suit.
Failed to double-opt-in, many (wildcard, v. short domain based on a finger-roll on the keyboard) - budget being my favorite because it let me cancel peoples reservations without authentication for a long time.

auction.com - absolutely resells your email for years to come, thanks whoever subscribed to that.

The RNC is way worse than the DNC, but both resell their lists quite a bit for political purposes. Voter registration similar, but I think that's just open records stuff.

But a lot of failed double-opt-in. Massive amounts of it.
Ask HN: Do you think a Postgres pooling service with gRPC support is needed?
Hi, I'm working on a pet project: https://github.com/mrrabbitte/pooly which is a postgres connection pooler and a gRPC adapter.

Similar tools would be: pgbouncer and pgpool. Pooly would also offer a lightweight gRPC client, much like vitess (not comparing maturity of those projects ;) ).

Wondering how far should I take this project, so:

do you think this is something you'd use in your architecture?
1. The autoupdate disable feature is essentially "echo snapcraft.io >> /etc/hosts"

2. Opening them is slow once per boot.

3. It's mystery meat to the highest degree. Might as well use windows.

Real shame because Ubuntu has things going for it that no other distro has. Namely the beautiful font rendering and sane desktop defaults.
I love the gradual typing approach, and have found it makes codebases better to maintain, even if some libraries like pandas are a total pain.

My biggest gripe is the conflicting warnings between mypy and pyright. Language servers use pyright by default in the editor, but I strongly believe a Python project shouldn't require nodejs as part of its required CI toolchain. So all my projects use mypy in strict mode in CI. Basically this means that mypy is the standard to meet, and that there are persistent warnings in the editor which I have to ignore.
Spam has a legal definition:

Unsolicited commercial messages.

If the actual receiver didn’t solicit the message, it is spam. It doesn’t matter if the business is legitimate or not, if anything it makes it worse because the FTC occasionally does fine companies for sending spam.

Legally, you have to verify the email address before sending any further messages. If you don’t, you open yourself up to some serious fines if and when the FTC or whomever decides they want to make an example of you.
> This is going to prove wildly unpopular but I just reset the password using the email

As someone who has done this too, I wouldn't be surprised if it violates some misuse of computers act - but I'd rather that than be responsible for the security of someone else's finances
Storage cost is still falling very, very fast. When you finally finish building your nuke, lo those many years on, you would not be able to win any bids selling at cost; so could not service your debt. (This is easily predictable, so you will not get the loan.)

And anyway, all the money tied up in it during all that time would be unavailable to displace coal, so you would additionally need to pay for coal that whole time.
I wouldn't be suprised if it's just a handcrafted spagetti of condition blocks in PHP .
Credit card department of a bank would be a great place for a malicious actor to operate from.
TypeScript also lets you create subsets of infinite size. For example, a string template literal type can be a type with (theoretically) infinite string values matching a string template.

I've created a proposal for doing something similar with the number type that uses the relational operators (<, >, >=, <=) to narrow the types [1].

It may be not as useful as template literal types (which is why one could argue to not implement them), but it's interesting nonetheless.

[1]: https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/issues/43505
I get mere units of spam yearly both on my email and phone, and I don't really keep either secret. The weird thing is that I know someone whose work address gets lots of spam. Both our addresses are publicly available on the Web.
I would always start with Scratch

https://scratch.mit.edu/

It has build-in collision detection etc. but to me turle graphics is the way to properly understand programming. Most other environments help with getting people interested in tech (and perhaps game development), but visual configuring event handlers is not programming. When I taught programming I often got people from other courses with an visual environment. They knew how to build forms and save data, but they could not programm: (to me) Think about a problem, make the problem into smaller problems until you can write code for them. Many were happy when we did switch to turle graphics and said "We should have started with that".

Scratch helps transition from the event handler configuration (which is fine if you want to write games, many environments don't make you write code) to coding (write code in a programming language) via turtle graphics.
Firefox "Sandboxed for improved security hardening for this critical app" feature sounds like a good improvement. Anyone have the details on how this interacts with access to files on your desktop, mic/webcam, etc?
I think ICat | IDog is perfect. It means exactly that, the value can be of type ICat _OR_ IDog, so in that sense, we can only access properties that are in both of them until we know for sure if we are dealing with a ICat or a IDog specifically.
IIRC the AFL docs recommend compile time instrumentation when the source is available. Binary-only fuzzing is possible, but it's a lot slower. My last binary-only attempt was years ago at this point, but I recall it being clunky to configure to the extent that I just dropped it in favor of instrumented source.
Do you really think someone is going to read that, start ignoring their doctors, throw all their medicine in the bin, and become some kind of natto evangelist?

It’s a common Japanese food and he just said give it a go.
I didn't know they open sourced their code.
especially painful if the wrong thing gets jitted with full optimization... only to be not executed
What Happened to Chat Bots?
There was so much hype some years back. Yet, I have not seen one good implementation of a proper chat bot out in the wild. Does anyone have an example of a great chatbot? In fact I see that many web sites now have "chatbots" which don't even allow the customer to chat. They can just click and select an option.
https://twitter.com/nutanc/status/1517392323784572928
Yeah, I dont mind plastic as a material, it has lots of interesting uses. Anything that funds fossil fuel extraction though is best avoided whenever there's an alternative. They're going to use those profits to try to continue to destroy human society.
Adobe getting hacked
You can hear/see Paul Davis talking about the history of Linux audio in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk2AMwc4e2k. It's a lengthy video though :)
There was. A long time ago. After OS X Snow Leopard, starting with Lion (in 2010) "macOS Server" was just an app, with an increasingly shrinking feature set.

The current version of "macOS Server" really didn't do much more than extremely basic MDM and Directory.
MSSQL plan cache is something you need to be aware of, it will work against you if statistics change but the plan remains the same. this is especially true if you start with a small amount of data, get a plan cached and then bulk load lots after testing. foot = shot
Heh, they made yet another new box, but my digitakt still can't transpose tracks.
Does that improved energy efficiency outweigh the energy costs of replacing perfectly capable existing chips?
I'm not American, but I ran into this issue while discussing with some people living in the US (foreigners no less) and it's crazy how much they bought into the ISP propaganda. They're not stupid people, but they got convinced that they can't check their email because their neighbour is on Netflix and this is all Netflix's fault. When you hear the same argument repeated in the same way, it's always an indicator that the people saying it got brainwashed.
We’re saying the same thing really. You want to blame every self-interested elite for manipulating the narrative, which I think is a pointless, thankless exercise in outrage farming, despite it. Whereas I think the onus rests on the media outlet to publish the news they want to publish regardless of who might want otherwise. When this process breaks down it is the media outlet that has failed. Part of this of course involves publishing news you think it is worth suffering for.
> I'm working as a data analyst/scientist for two years and I'm already tired.

One of the things that I dislike in data science specifically is the initial stages where you have to prove that there's a use case, or (in some companies) to convince people that they need your work in some way. It's very frustrating and demotivating and I just don't care enough.

Once you get to the building stage (if that's even part of your job), then it's much more satisfying. That's one of the reasons why I want to switch to software development at some point.
That would imply that twitter becomes a nonprofit
A question: Who has multiple github profiles and why, or why not?

Do you separate work commits from personal/oss/hobby commits?

Do you have different github accounts per employer you've had?

If so... why?

If not... why?

I personally use only 1 profile, but it has occurred to me that this is perhaps unwise and mixing work and pleasure together is a good way to create a diluted and messy situation regarding IP and who owns copyright on something. Not that I delude myself that separate profiles would solve it, only that separate profiles would mitigate a lot of the risk and make it a lot clearer when I'm acting on behalf of my employer vs just as a lay person.