skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> IIRC European bases are strategic for USA's Middle East war operations, I doubt the military would just leave if ordered, there would be significant diplomatic, and maybe economic, pressure to stay.

Are you saying the US would go to war with Italy to keep this base?

The US might try to pressure Italy to let it keep it, but if Italy was insistent, the US would do it.
> I'd love for a shortening service to offer an "unfurl" tool where I could paste in the URL, and it shows me what the redirected site is without clicking it and potentially activating their clickthrough tracking.

For Bitly, at least, you can add a plus sign to the end of a short URL to preview what the destination URL is. I don't know if other URL shorteners have something similar.
I've heard that the definition of "assault rifle" is mainly cosmetic; to what extent is that true?
> Does it follow due process? No. But does it empirically have high correlation? Definitely yes.

The same argument justifies hiring the most privileged candidates - rich parents, white, and has political connections and your boss's wife goes has been at their barbeque.

It does work - people who've been given the best in life are more likely to be competent and less likely to have issues. If something does happen to them or their family, they are more likely to have resources to cope. It's less likely to affect their work

But somehow as a society we've generally agreed that this isn't good enough of a rationale.
As far as I can tell he has made.......2

One of them a couple of years ago, detailing his experiences with using Go to accomplish something, contrasting it with how it would work in Rust.

And then this new one, which seems like a semi-response to that previous article hitting the HN front page again.

I wouldn't say he "keeps making" them, he's made two, and they're not coming out of nowhere. As he said in a comment of the most recent submission of his previous article (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31193260):

> Author here: I wrote this in 2020, have changed jobs twice since. Both jobs involved Go in some capacity, where it's supposed to shine (web services). It has not been a pleasant experience either - I've lost count of the amount of incidents directly caused by poor error handling, or Go default values.

> Because that's the kind of code I inevitably end up being on-call for, and I'm tired of being woken up because of the same classes of preventable errors, all the time. It doesn't matter that I don't personally write Go anymore: it's unescapable. If it's not internal Go code, it's in a SAAS we pay for: and no matter who writes it, it fails in all the same predictable ways.

It's not that it's not his favourite language, it's that he's experiencing actual day to day issues at work caused (in his opinion) by the design of the language. I think that's fair to write about.
As it turns out, Go's spec is 105 pages long, not just one as was claimed upthread: https://go.dev/ref/spec

So the answer to your question is "not that I know of", but that's not evidence that a one-page spec is workable after all.
And Cali. knows that how? This the filing.
To make QR code that's easier to scan.
I’m paraphrasing what the fascists said their goals were.

If you read about fascism, their proponents viewed it as “Marxism 2.0” — where they could leverage the socialist ideas of collectivist authoritarianism without the problems encountered by the original Marxist revolutionaries with total state control of commerce.

A unified populace where “everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.”
Lots of languages have similar async, channel and pattern matching syntax these days. Kotlin, C#, off the top of my head. Probably a lot more.
The main thing that is being handled is how to correctly handle/account for it - a long term rental and a house are basically identical from the purposes of what the government provides, both may have families with children going to school, need stores, etc.

But short-term rentals are basically identical with hotels which are commercial properties and have substantially different requirements - the people staying there will not frequent supermarkets, etc as much as they will restaurants, etc. They will not be sending their children to the local school, and so on.

Mixed use property can be (and should be!) encouraged, but it does have externalities that have to be handled and accounted for.
You're right -- it's a bit harsh. I've been on both sides of the investment committee meetings. As a result of that, I've seen (and delivered) this messaging before.

Matt's an excellent investor and someone I respect and trust. So are the other investors putting up orange flags for their portfolio. It's smart to be prepared early.

But it always seems like investors get giddy with excitement about saying the "sky is falling" and things are about to become far less founder-friendly. This tends to cause a lot of unnecessary panic within the entrepreneur community, especially new founders. And I've seen people make decisions that contribute to manifesting the very situation they're scared of.

I've checked in with a handful of friends with their own funds recently. Most seem to take a cooler tone: deals are still flowing. Things may be slightly adjusted, they admit. Low-quality businesses aren't getting as much attention. But the world is still spinning. And it doesn't sound as bad as one might assume reading this article.

And some interesting dynamics are playing out that are founder-friendly: cash-rich funds from the later stages are coming down earlier. They're competing for the same deals as smaller funds, but they're much less price sensitive. Matt Turck called this out directly. I've directly seen recent deals where this happened. It's kind of breaking the model for some early-stage funds, who need to get their main ownership chunk early and don't have as much capital to follow-on later. They just can't compete with these check sizes and valuations.

So it's also making it a lot harder for investors right now, too.
We could easily grow a lot more food in less space if we had to. To give an extreme example: greenhouses grow about 1000x as much food per acre as conventional farming does, but the resulting food costs about 10x as much.

We use all our land to grow food not because we have to, but because that's the cheapest way of doing so. We could grow food more intensively, but then the price of food would go up.
In practice, it's been a pretty common problem at organizations I've worked in.
> The GND is not about being green, it's about redistributing wealth

No idea what the GND does and what they proclaim, the Greens I mentioned are the ones in my country, which isn't the US. As far as I understand nothing else than Reps and Dems matter anyways.

> AOC is a radical

I don't think so, but that could also be due to me not being from the US.

Lots of things my country does would be wrongfully labeled as socialist, communist or radical in the US.

So its no susprise to me that AOC gets labeled as radical in the US, even though she still seems pretty tame to me.

I do welcome that she's more left than what I usually hear from Democrats.

EDIT: In order for you to understand me a bit better - If I'd be able to vote in the US, I would've voted for Bernie Sanders.
I do think we are stuck in this cycle, where our government/politicians appeal to our basest impulses and urges. Outrage, sympathy, jingoism.

This is rewarded with political support, viewers, clicks on the headline. Even this article “Is everything falling apart”. Alarmist clickbait.

So if you’re society consists of too many people who simply act on impulse, instead of thoughtful consideration, how do you deal with that?

I’d argue less vitriol would help, but you’re incentivized in the opposite direction. Both the person who feels helpless expressing your outrage in the comments, or the media outlet trying to get viewers and clicks.
Also that will prove costly to the existing economic order, companies will resist every change that threatens their bottom line unless and until they find a way to benefit themselves. Look at oil now "energy" companies like Shell that knew climate change was a looming cliff but were so heavily invested in oil they buried the issue in confusion and flak until they figured out how to make money off of green energy.
This seems like it would seriously hamper the ability of areas to give sweetheart deals to companies to attract investment. I'd actually love this as someone who'd prefer that states compete on things like robust investments in their workforce (education, healthcare, etc) and infrastructure, rather than race-to-the-bottom tax incentives...
FWIW free-speech absolutist America already has this kind of law on the books. It's called DMCA 512; it only requires the allegation of a copyright infringement in order to trigger the same kind of censorship[0] as NetzDG appears to do.

If you have been unfairly targeted, you can counter-notify, but that requires doxing yourself. There's also a subpoena process to explicitly request the unmasking of anonymous users[1]. YouTube is chock full of DMCA extortion scams that specifically target smaller channels and demand payment to avoid getting one's channel deleted. Those scams work precisely because Google has an active and ongoing[2] policy of summarily executing rule breakers without explanation or recourse.

Laws like DMCA 512 and NetzDG only have these kinds of censorious effects[3] specifically because social media is itself a kind of scam. Regular publishers actually spend money to fund the creation of creative works that they expect to make a profit off of; platforms create a container and incentives for other people to fill it with amorphous "content". Publishers take on the risk of publication, including defamation and copyright liability; while platforms are set up specifically to shift that liability onto people who cannot bear that burden. The end result is that most people on social media choose to self-censor; even if they have no intention to defame, misinform, hate upon someone, or infringe a copyright.

[0] We are assuming for the sake of example that the targeted content is novel speech and not infringing. America does not consider copyright infringement to be speech.

[1] The Darkspilver / Jehovah's Witness case is a prime example of how to abuse a DMCA 512 subpoena request; we're lucky the courts came to their senses and decided not to unmask them.

[2] As far as I can tell, since the company's founding

[3] For the purpose of discussion I'm not going to argue whether or not hate speech or misinformation should be censored, we're just going to assume that it should.
> IMO Microsoft has put much more effort into a thoughtful x86 -> ARM transition than Apple did.

Given that the Surface Pro X didn't support 64 bit x86 Windows applications at all, I'm not sure how you can think so.

Even after developer channel support was added, it was unlikely to work.

>How did Microsoft screw this up? - Surface Pro X (SQ2) vs M1 Macbook Air

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhESSZIXvCA
To play devil's advocate: this author is known for often having a combative style. There's usually lots of good substance alongside that style, but the tone is what it is, and you could argue that it's needlessly incendiary. (Though in their defense, the post yesterday was self-described at the very top as "a proper rant")

HN is a powder keg of emotions about programming languages, and fasterthanlime's posts tend to be... shall we say, "sparky"
Their rules of engagement would be far more strict.

So that would be another benefit over public law enforcement.
Oh no, verbal abuses do hurt and in very subtle ways.
its basically a gamblers fallacy, another one is people will get angry if they were playing a slot machine, losing - got up and the next person immediately won a jackpot. they think it was their jackpot. when in reality it is just RNG at its finest.
I understand the fight your picking, but really this isn't that much of an argument. "Mainstream media" makes mistakes. It has perspectives that leak through into interpretation. It has blindspots in coverage. But mainstream journalists almost to a fault genuinely view their job as bringing important facts to their audience, and they care about getting things right. That's just not true of the partisan press on the right, and you know it as well as I do. Let's actually measure:

Here are the biggest three headlines I see at nytimes.com right now:

"West's Resolve to Block Russia Grows Amid Fears of a Protracted War"
"Likelihood of Trump Indictment in Manhattan Fades as Grand Jury Wraps Up"
"Piles of Garbage, No Showers: What Lockdown in China Looks Like"

All seem eminently plausible, reasonably descriptive of the content in the article, and (except arguably the China article) not written from an argumentative perspective. I'd happily read any three of these articles and "trust" their content (I did read the Ukraine one).

Here are the three biggest headlines at foxnews.com, fetched within a few seconds of the list above:

"President Biden's close relationship with Hunter associate who led company with China ties exposed"
"Liberals lose it after Elon Musk's tweets about the Democratic Party"
"GOP rep grills Biden's secretary of state over Ukraine 'lies'"

Every single one is written from a decidedly partisan perspective. One contains a value judgement ("lose it"), one uses deceptive quotes to be able to call something a "lie" without evidence (someone else called it a lie, Fox technically didn't), the other is a guilt by association fallacy.

I don't trust a single one of those things to give me the whole story, and I'd be shocked if even partisan republicans did. If I want to know what's "really" happening on any of those issues I know a-priori that I need to find more sources, because this one isn't giving me the whole truth. Giving you the whole truth, essentially, isn't what Fox views as its "job" in the same way that the Times does.
Nobody suggested "flipping it off after the fact", whatever that would mean. I have no idea where you are getting this.
> it seems that it should be expected that an a.Change func will mutate A

But you can make functions that have copied receivers:

type Foo struct {
bar int
}

func (f Foo) mutate() {
f.bar = 2
}

func main() {
f := Foo{bar: 1}
f.mutate()
fmt.Println(f.bar) // 1
}

> whats the advantage of creating a function of type struct a rather than creating the C equivalent of change(obj structAtype)

types need to have methods in order to fulfill interfaces, that's all. (Well, and all the downstream benefits of using interfaces, such a polymorphism).
Is it a carbon sink organic compound? Does it offgas VOCs?

HS chem was years ago. Does jsmol/pymol work in Jupiter notebooks? That probably doesn't at all model heat or other QFT or QG fields.

Though this one probably doesn't require an understanding of how quantum chemistry is actually occurring (Q12 STEM), I found this for protyping, which "operates on abstract data structures allowing the formulation, combination, automatic differentiation and optimization of generalized objectives. Tequila can execute the underlying quantum expectation values on state of the art simulators as well as on real quantum devices."
https://github.com/tequilahub/tequila#quantum-backends
Build a 7.5 foot boat with 2 sheets of plywood
Hush – Unix shell based on the Lua programming language
Fastero – Python timeit CLI for the 21st century
As someone who both loves the Rust language and is very right of center, I've never found politics to pose much of a problem for the Rust community in practice. Yes there is occasional virtue signalling here and there but people don't let it get in the way of making programs that work.
I have no idea why Apple laptops don’t have cellular but whatever the reason is, I’m pretty sure it’s not because of the BOM cost of the components.
Why can't they make a patreon?
Where is there market demand for that functionality in a laptop?
If you look at life expectancy in the America, it has been flat to reversing. Understandably with added pressure from Covid, but at a rate higher even with Covid higher than all other well resourced major nations. This not because we are unable, but because those with the power are unwilling to engage fundamental issues. Covid is not the only issue for which this is the case - it was happening before covid.

Multiple major issues with scientific and economic root causes are simply being ignored as stability and promises of improved prosperity provided by civilization is going backwards. This is meets my definition of falling apart.
The original point I was making, "republicans are a minority", is true, and the data shows that. This isn't a tribalism thing, it's a question of data analysis. Also, I take umbrage at your patronizing tone. Personally attacking me does not change the data.
I'm not the biggest spreadsheet fan but they do make data easy to understand for people who don't understand data or programming. You can have a visual representation of the data itself with the mathematical formulas and results all on one page. They also make entering data easy. Being able to just whip up a spreadsheet in a few minutes to show calculations to someone who isn't tech or math savvy is useful.

That being said, for my own purposes I'd rather use a programming language + file/database representation of the data.
Tanks weigh a LOT. Planes have to be very light for a reason.
In roulette they post the last 20 or so results, the reason they do it is because the marble is not self aware of previous results, each marble roll is an independent event.

I'm unsure if slots are like this, I guess it would depend on the quality of the RNG and trust in the casino/machine that it's configured correctly.
I stumbled upon this document by accident today and started reading the PDF out of curiosity, and wow, I had no idea Russia was so far advanced in (NN)EMP tech, and that EMPs plays such a crucial role in the conflict between east and west. I have heard very little about this through the regular news outlets and nothing from governmental sources.

I would love if someone with more knowledge about this topic could put this into context and comment on the feasibility of this cyber-weapon (as it is classified as in the document).

EDIT: Direct link to the PDF: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1124730.pdf
Asking why there is X instead of Y, where both X and Y are things, is valid. Even asking why there is/isn't more X ("why are there no stars closer to the Sun?") is valid. We could still conceivably be having this conversation even in a universe with many more stars, or much fewer.

But the phrase "something exists" is tautologically true, while the phrase "nothing exists" is a logical contradiction (since the phrase itself and the speaker and the listener must exist). So it's logically impossible for the whole universe not to exist, as long as we can have this conversation or even thought. It's like discussing why 1+1=2 and not 0.
But that is literally one of the oldest logical fallacies in the book - Ad Homenem - defined as "(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining."
I have no argument with most of that, but Qualcomm and Microsoft have been shipping ARM devices with x86 emulation for 4/5 years now.
Well, the US is a nation of some 330 million individuals. It's the 3rd most populous nation after China and India. The US is also the 4th largest country by land mass. It's actually tied with China in that regard.

Why is that important? Because at those scales, a population isn't remotely homogeneous. On the contrary. The US is a massively complex nation with many complex histories, cultures, economies, politics and belief systems. Languages spoken in the US are a massive topic in their own regard. American linguistics is a huge field.

The thing is that all that complexity gets hidden by a few dominant narratives. Noam Chomsky has been instrumental in pointing that out through his career. [1] Even so, the role of the media is just the top of the iceberg. Far more interesting is digging into deeply ingrained belief systems and the formation of identities throughout the history of the US from when settlers first arrived until the present day. One can never really fully escape one's own past, and this rings very true for collective histories.

I wouldn't characterize the US population as collectively having become "lazier" or "more entitled". I think that's short selling a national identity. However, one narrative is that the US fully became a global empire after World War II. The effects of those 5 years, and the preceding decades, from 1918 onwards, have profoundly transformed not only the US but also the world as a whole. Global economic prosperity up to the 1970s (in France, they are called the "Thirty Glorious Years") and it's subsequent decline over the past 50 years are ripples of a turbulent first half of the 20th century.

The fact of the matter is that the US - just like the rest of the world - is facing a new, challenging future with many new, potential and real, fault lines that might give rise to conflict and tension. Many of which still being rooted in historical differences.

It's easy to see how that breeds uncertainty and a sense of "everything is falling apart". Old certainties, dynamics and beliefs that have dominated the thinking of billions for the past 80 to 100 years are now being challenged. The question is how the US, this complex nation such as it is, is going to rise towards the occasion.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky#News_media_and_pr...
Apple doesn’t want you to be able to purchase a device that bridges the gap between a MacBook and an iPad. That way more people need to buy both.
> This is the second day in a row where a post about Go _from the same blog_ has been posted.

Unless you consider this post either spam or off topic (and I personally don't believe it falls into either category), then flagging the post is not in keeping with my understanding of the site guidelines.

Just don't upvote it.
I'm actually curious to push on your idea that "we can all agree that violence isn't the answer". Because I think there are more and more people who think it is the answer. I would guess you're saying the vast majority rather than all (Sorry if this sounds pedantic but it's not meant to be).

Also, is it ok to call for violence if your next tweet says that you were joking? I do not think there is not agreement on what a violent extremist is.
I mean, even in your own post, you spell strong man different from strongman. Here’s a definition of the word strong for you: “possessing skills and qualities that create a likelihood of success.” Obviously this meaning is divorced from the definition of strongman you provide, so why be obtuse about it?
There's still time for that backslide to happen we're already seeing conservative reactionary groups pushing for returns to before those questions were 'resolved' in more and less direct terms.
afaik the only way to get epoch with only posix-compliant tools is to use awk:

$ awk 'BEGIN {srand(); t = srand() ; print t}'
1651247949

explaination:

1. srand if not provided with a seed will use the current unix epoch as seed

2. srand will return its previous seed in a new initialization (and we assign it to t)

3. we print t

I learned this via a "Systems we love" talk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfhMUed9RSE)