skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> your are not ready

heh. Ironic.

Everyone makes silly mistakes. Just mildly funnier when it happens in an article about "how to writes good"

While we're on topic of annoying besides-the-point HN pedantry, I find the use of blockquotes in this article to be distracting. What are they quoting? They seem to be more of an aside than an actual quote?
I don't know either of you, so I don't have a dog in a fight. But when you start a post off with " so and so is a phenomenal asshole", You should know that a reasonable person reads that as an ad hominem attack, regardless of how you intended it.
> From the beginning, Mr. Carlson’s on-air provocations have been part of a painstaking, data-driven campaign to build and hold Fox’s audience, according to former Fox executives and employees — an experiment that has succeeded wildly in bolstering Mr. Murdoch’s profit machine against the long-term decline in cable news subscriptions.

Wouldn't any for-profit media outlet, regardless of political orientation, painstakingly use data to build and hold their audience with a view to bolstering profits against a long-term decline in news subscriptions?

I really doubt CNN and MSNBC executives don't pay attention to show ratings, don't care about viewer feedback, don't know what stories get how many clicks, and have no concern over which way the bottom line is going.
At a large enough company you kind of have to... as this situation shows.
There are too many problems with this to count, but I'll point out a few.

First, there is no such thing as a global taxation authority, so whatever carbon you tax in the USA or Europe will simply be emitted by China and other developing countries, consequently boosting dirty economies and kneecapping cleaner economies (Actually making Climate Change worse). The second is that it further enriches the pockets of corrupt politicians and government institutions. The third is that it's a regressive tax that disproportionately hurts the poor and working class who can't afford expensive electric cars or energy saving equipment.
Everything we are judged on - appearance, intelligence, earning potential - is a random dice roll of DNA that none of us control. Yet people take credit (pride or shame) for these traits. Pondering this has left me more detached and unimpressed with the human society game and competition... but what else is there? What am "I", if anything, beyond the randomly assigned DNA-based traits?
there is something wrong with scrolling on website (at least on iPad). If you scroll backwards, the text appears, disappears and scrolls seemingly randomly.
So sexual attractiveness as assessed by women is the best predictor of sexual success with women? Who would’ve thought?
This doesn't make any sense and is an incorrect analogy. Trains don't pay residuals to the people that made the train every time someone rides it. Imagine a different world where the people who made trains make most of their money from train rider residuals. In that case, I would say yes, they are stealing.
This problem in online dating doesn't just apply to the single physical characteristic of height. It's a clusterfuck of ticking boxes and underdeveloped expectations. A 5 year old boy might tick "no girls", while a 14 year old boy might tick "big boobs", and a 30 year old man might tick "good education and stable job."

It's as if we all go into it like ordering at a Burger King, except Have it your way (tm) comes out tasting like crap because we realize we aren't chefs. Online dating is how a bureaucrat decides to choose their life partner. The boxes you tick in online dating aren't important and are there just to pander to users.
That feels like a more or less willful misreading.

Let's suppose that my friend crosses paths with 100 Iowans during a business trip there. Let's suppose that 1% of Iowans are racist or bigoted enough to at the very least yell some abuse at this particular clearly non-caucasian individual. Before Trump's primary campaign and electoral win, social pressure kept the 1 person my friend may have encountered from acting on that impulse, but afterwards, that person felt much freer to just speak their mind (or worse).

Such an analysis says nothing about Iowans in general as people. It says that it's easy to be worried that the general attitude had shifted enough in Iowa (but not, say, in NYC or Chicago) that the tiny percentage of people who might act on their racist/bigoted impulses are now more likely to do so, changing my friend's risk exposure by visiting.

It's not for you or me to judge whether that's sufficient reason to avoid Iowa now. That's an individual decision to be made, and I do not sit in judgement of those who decide one way or another.

But you're also missing the deeper aspect of the point I'm trying to make. You don't have to believe me, but I'm telling you that my friend is a hyper-rational, highly intelligent, well informed individual. The fact that such a person could move from "I have never worried about being brown when moving around the USA" to "I will not visit anywhere outside of large metropolitan areas" - that's the change. You are free to argue that it is is irrational, or even "ridiculous" as you put it, but the point is that the state of American society pre-Trump left this individual feeling safe, and the same state post-Trump left them feeling anxious. If they were a person prone to irrational, emotive decisions or generally over-reacted to anything, then I would be inclined to dismiss the change in their sense of their own safety. If they had always worried about this aspect of life in the USA, I would be inclined to dismiss the change. But they are not and they did not, and so I take this change quite seriously.
This is starting to turn into tabs vs. spaces kind of argument.
If I were editing the article being discussed, I think I’d suggest getting rid of the first three introductory paragraphs. It’s okay to assume the reader already agrees writing is important.
For both we are talking essentially about "affordable options" - and the problem is twofold: they only make sense with economies of scale, and they can end up cannibalizing sales of existing products more than they generate sales.
If I knew I could get a (late model, U.S. market) compact pickup with 2 doors, where the vestigial passenger space most trucks have was converted into an extra foot of bed length instead, I think I would stop typing this comment and go buy one right now.
I don’t see how it’s that different to Swift? All that would be needed is a ? after `dict` and a direct comparison to true.

dict.containsObjectForKey[@"a"]

Becomes roughly

dict?.containsObjectForKey(“a”) == true
It was such a great idea that I couldn't not jump on the Kickstarter. It was a little pricey, but the case, build, presentation and software were all terrific. The team did an amazing job.
Height always seemed like the go to excuse for men with unattractive personalities
Even people I respect use 'short' as some kind of slur against people they don't like.

For example against Putin.

(Doesn't matter what you think of Putin - slurs based on personal appearance are always wrong against anyone full stop.)
ORM frameworks also unify the value domain and the language semantics of the database and the host app, and make it very easy to shoot yourself in the foot with the N+1 query issue and such.

This will suffer from the same issues once you move beyond toy examples.
> plus, even if woman select for taller men, men do not necessarily select for taller woman, and woman are part of this too let's not forget

Men's preferences only matter in a monogamous society, where less attractive women are expected to settle down with less attractive men who will financially support their kids.

But in modern welfare states, less attractive women can still sleep with very attractive men (whom they could never marry), have their children, and rely on the state to financially support their kids.

Which means the rich but unattractive men are, through taxes, paying for the children of the attractive men.
I believe I am being civil. I also think bad faith can be demonstrated, and that it has been.

>As such, treating Black individuals differently is not more or less wrong than treating short individuals differently.

Again, as I have mentioned repeatedly, we agree on this point. Where we disagree is in the assertion that there is "no difference" in effect, precisely because of the historical context.
You’re exactly right it would go a long way. Thankfully people in the comments do call him out on it so hopefully he’ll listen.
Height, weight, shape, pilosity, generic looks, intelligence, education, success, wealth, virility, etc. are all criteria that are used by people to judge other people and discriminate, whether they're purely esthetic or have functional impact. Society also prizes different things in men and women. These are all forms of discrimination but I think it should be clear that they're nothing like the discrimination of black people. Scale, intention, means, effect, all matter. A puddle isn't an ocean although both will get you wet if you step in them.

If your point is that we should eliminate any and all discrimination... sure. Although it's a far too lofty goal to happen as long as we're biological beings. But saying that "there's really no difference" between color and height discrimination is something you could and should really walk back from rather than attempt repeatedly to defend.

Every single decision you make is based on some criteria that you may not even be able to clearly define. But just because you can't verbalize why you like this person and not the next doesn't make it less of a discrimination process. Do you think that makes you the KKK?
We have weird things that are like an interpolation between small trucks and big cars that fill the role of station wagons. Stuff like the Ford Edge. They're not quite SUVs, and they're not quite minivans. They're called crossovers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossover_(automobile)
> I really hate the idea that people dealing with actual problems with objective evidence of being real problems

That's my point. If you're 25th percentile in height, you don't have an actual height problem. Treat the depression.
> ran their own talent out of their country

Or outright murdered them
I'm a tad over 6' but girls are so used to guys lying about their hight that they usually say I'm 6'2". On multiple occasions I've had my date insist over my objection that I must be taller than that.

It's not a stretch for me to imagine that widespread lying by men about their hight has actually collectively made the problem worse for men, e.g. women insisting on 6 feet because they've dating 5'10" guys claiming to be 6" and decided that was the minimum.
> and in fact I would argue they have done much more than I see in my native country (the U.S.).

Is it something about discussing China that triggers people to engage in whataboutism for the US? My post that you just replied to literally just roasted the US for being shitty when it comes to climate change and your defense of China is “it might be better than the US because it’s hard to get a gas car”. GTFO with that crap.
And we might ask ourselves: why can’t Google do that? They just need to sign the binary, Google doesn’t have to host it.
>The female version is equally disturbing but different. I've never met or talked to a man that finds fake boobs, duck lips, botox, fake bums, fake tans, an inch of makeup in any remote way attractive, or a "selector". So the depressing reality is that women largely do this in a competition towards other women, and this perverted rat race knows many victims.

I find everything on that list extremely unattractive, minus that last one: what's wrong with makeup? If it's not used excessively, it can look attractive. (I often tend to prefer how people look without makeup or with only light makeup, but some who are very good at makeup sometimes look better with it, in my opinion.)
It is 100% self-fulfilling. Worrying about height is like a thought-virus, once you encounter it, it infects you, but you can do just fine until you come across it. Then the challenge is learning to not give a fuck. Such is the pattern of every insecurity since time immemorial.
When I am in a store and I can't reach for the item on the highest shelf, I unapologetically jump to get it, not minding what other people think. It's the store's fault for not providing a chair.
Again, not that simple. The customer restore procedure was almost certainly tested(and in active use as customers blow up their own data often enough). It was _not_ tested on 800 customer stacks simultaneously, as that was considered a sitewide disaster by whoever dreamed up the failure modes to test for. Meanwhile the actual whole site disaster restore plan may or may not have been tested, but it was useless for this case since some customers were unaffected and would be damaged by the whole site plan.
That's why they said "compared to this".
> I don't see how the go approach makes anything simpler.

The "append" builtin doesn't "invoke" anything on the nil pointer. It's more or less (in Java-ish pseudocode):

static Slice<T> append(Slice<T> s, items ...T) {
if (s == null) {
Slice<T> newSlice = new Slice<T>(items.size())
newSlice.pushBack(items)
return newSlice
}
if s.hasEnoughCapcityFor(items.size()) {
s.pushBack(items)
return s
}
Slice<T> newSlice = new Slice<T>(s.size() + items.size())
newSlice.pushBack(s)
newSlice.pushBack(items)
return newSlice
}

which is a perfectly reasonable utility function in pretty much any language. See, e.g., realloc(3).

> Value semantics are simply that the value of an object is all that matters. For example, two int objects '5' are the same from a value-semantic perspective. I guess this implies all objects have some value.
>
> Equatability is a requirement of objects in java. Not all types of objects are equatable beyond their identity (some unique identifier) though. For example, how do you equate two functions? To me this parallels the decision in go to make zero values a thing beyond a runtime error.

In Go, having a "meaningful" zero value for a type means that you don't need to initialize the type before using it. For example:

var b bytes.Buffer
b.WriteString("hello, world")

instead of

b := bytes.NewBuffer(nil)
b.WriteString("hello, world")

Or, as another example:

type BinarySearchTree struct { ... }

func (b *BinarySearchTree) Contains(key string) bool {
if b == nil {
return false
}
[...]
}

Go makes this possible by not requiring constructors like other languages do (e.g., Java).
I can't imagine trying to drive for an hour after taking diphenhydramine. It usually knocks me out hard within 20 minutes.
Where did you get your app's privacy policy/TOS?
Paying a lawyer will cost $10k, but I'm not sure if the various paid tos/privacy policy generators out there will suffice.
What's the thinking person's strategy for TOS/privacy policy compliance?
Popular accounts from earlier decades, when fewer people went off to college, suggest that high school used to play this role, as well as being a place where many people met their spouse.

My guess is college itself is less important to lifetime friend accumulation than spending any amount of significant time with age peers when you’re a young adult. In my circle, many life-long friendships were formed by young colleagues in their first jobs or among young post-college roommates.

The typical college years just happen to line up neatly with the part of adult life in which people are most interested in new experiences and new people. You tend to make lots of lasting friendships when you’re interested in making friends, and everyone around you is as interested as you are. As an older adult, most people in the same stage of life simply have no interest in friendship with you.
I am a 5'6 man. I still think a city is much better as I assume the 5'6 man has standards, too. It's not like finding a partner who is willing to settle with you is difficult at all - it is finding one that you feel meets your level of fitness, intelligence, and social status which is considered high (other than your height). In a rural setting you are going to be very limited but a city definitely has options.

I would say be patient. I think as you grow older it becomes less important. And even if 80% of women have fairly strong height preferences I think a solid 20% have close to no preference or would care but are very short themselves.
I’m just dipping my toe into the “expensive Japanese paper” (TomoeRiver, Midori) and I think the experience (while writing, and ink-fastness thereafter) might be worth it imo.
Otoh vehicule maintenance, cost and energy use is smaller.
IANAL but would love a lawyer to chime in. My understanding was that you could indeed get in trouble if you don't cast enough ambiguity around the identity of the person/company you are trashing, but casting some ambiguity is better than none.
Brother do what I did move to south America, the dollar goes a long way and the ladies love their short kings. I'm amazed walking around here in Argentina how many couples where the woman is a head taller than the guy. Spoiled american women won't go for a guy a head taller than her.
> Clothes are always a uniform and a social signal, whether or not they're formally labelled as such.

As a product of the 1960s there was a reaction by lefty columnist Paul Krassner, IIRC. He referred (if it wasn't someone else who popularized this) to grey flannel sandals. A take-off on the standard criticism of "grey flannel suits.
Elon Musk and the Tech Bro Obsession with 'Free Speech'
Both reasons are in fact correct, but only one person here is accusing the other of being wrong and spreading lies. Please be more circumspect in your language.

https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2014/01/ford-doubles-min...

Higher wages were necessary, Ford realized, to retain workers who could handle the pressure and the monotony of his assembly line. In January of 1914, his continuous-motion system reduced the time to build a car from 12 and a half hours to 93 minutes. But the pace and repetitiveness of the jobs was so demanding, many workers found themselves unable to withstand it for eight hours a day, no matter how much they were paid.

But Ford had an even bigger reason for raising his wages, which he noted in a 1926 book, Today and Tomorrow. It’s as a challenging a statement today as it as 100 years ago. “The owner, the employees, and the buying public are all one and the same, and unless an industry can so manage itself as to keep wages high and prices low it destroys itself, for otherwise it limits the number of its customers. One’s own employees ought to be one’s own best customers.”
I'll toss out another vote for Fly.io. They make it super easy to deploy containers. No K8s, no leaky abstraction to an underlying traditional compute service.

You get internal networking out of the box with per-app-region internal DNS entries, and with their CLI tool it's one command to SSH into your container or connect your laptop to the internal network.

As a nice bonus, their pricing is very competitive. You pay about as much as you would for the same size Linode or droplet (minimum is 256 MB RAM for $1.94/mo), which is a welcome relief vs other providers. Great free plan, too - 3 apps at 256MB RAM running 24/7 in perpetuity.
The vast majority of drinkers, and this includes many of the chronic drunks, aren't being punished at all by these rules! Because they don't drive after drinking.
Yeah, around a decade ago this also made the news:

"Valve fires Jeri Ellsworth, who was developing Steam Box game controllers"
I understand the ambiguity you're talking about here, but how often does this actually bite you in practice? There are other context cues that you're dealing with a struct and not an interface, and the nil-ness of a return value isn't how you idiomatically communicate success or failure, even for things like map lookups where it would be somewhat natural in a C API to do that.
Apple shot themselves in the foot with pricing. The 13 mini is $699. While the old iPhone 11 which is still sold is $499. The mini is better in every way, but that’s a big price difference. Even the new SE is roughly the same size just with a inferior screen and it’s only $429.

The iPad mini is in the same boat now too. It used to be the most popular iPad for a while because it was also the cheapest. But then they started updating it and moving it up the pricing ladder. It’s basically a smaller version of the Air except that just got updated to a M1.
The trick is to buy a nice leather sleeve for a standard size of notebook, then buy cheaper inserts.

You might find that you enjoy the quality of paper of other notebooks, but it gets you over that "this notebook is too nice for my random thought"-block.
Build it properly. By definiton of following best practice IT IS or always should be not far from being able to follow this. If its not someone is to blame
> That said I'm shocked devs are playing too since they have a comfy life. I guess it just taps into the same primitive reptilian brain reflexes.

An interesting firsthand view on the dynamics of the motivations comes from HN post from some times ago (https://frantic.im/leaving-facebook). Some excerpts:

> The salary is high. Facebook aims to pay top 5% compensation in the market (we’ll get back to that). This makes a lot of other things very comfortable: you can go to a restaurant without worrying too much about the bill, get a nicer car, a nicer house, better stuff.

> The benefits are top notch. Almost every doctor I visited said “wow” when looking at the health insurance. It’s very comfortable to know that you are likely not going to receive a huge bill for doing an ultra sound for a routine checkup.

> Then there’s the Prestige. Facebook gets a lot of blame in media lately, but in everyday life it’s still very prestigious place to be working at. Getting a mortgage or a car loan is easy, saying you work for Facebook gets you on the fast line.

All the benefits above, in one way or another, are relative¹ ("niceR" car, not "nice" car) so ultimately, it's a matter of aspiring because aspiring, rather than aspiring to reach a certain level.

So unfortunately, being a developer with a comfy life tends not to have an effect on ethics.

Note: the above statements give an unfair image of the author/full article; the extracts are only meant to give an idea of certain dynamics.

¹=with bottom limits; being too poor certainly hurts.
Passport memo from MUJI will be a great value for some. Modeled after passport: small, compact, durable cover. 24 pages of great quality blank, graph, or dot grid paper. Price is about $1 in Japan.

https://www.muji.com/jp/ja/store/cmdty/detail/4550182110340

Also available on Amazon (at a bit of a premium):

https://www.amazon.com/MUJI-Passport-Notebook-24Sheets-Green... ($10 but appears to include 3 notebooks so about $3.33 per notebook)
Once you get over the "don't use them" part, they're exquisite to use. Pens, I tend to agree that I like being cheap on them so I can lose them and replace easily. Notebooks, I don't lose because the value is the data.
Ah... sorry, not sure I followed all the train of thought there.

The marketing page at https://replay.io is built with Webflow.

The data privacy and security approach is described at https://www.replay.io/security-privacy .

The actual client app at https://app.replay.io is a Next.js app, albeit a fairly complex one:

https://github.com/RecordReplay/devtools

If you're seeing a bug in our client app, could you either try using it again and see if it's fixed now? (Or even better, use the Replay browser to record that error happening, submit it, and file a Github issue with the recording link so we can fix it! Seriously, we dogfood Replay to debug Replay on a daily basis.)