skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Sure, this is only the start. Internally we have a definition file; the CLI is, so to say, the fancy editor for it. We plan to open up this definition in a JSON or YAML file.

Regarding the AWS Resources being used:
The cost estimation feature is on the roadmap, telling you how much exactly one Project costs. And showing you in advance how much more changes will cost.

Using SetOps starts with base costs since we need at least one EC2 instance + database running and some other services. The base costs are ~130$, including your first apps. But launching your first 10 containers doesn't bring many additional costs, so running some apps are quite cost-efficient.

Someone else already stated here that something is missing in the docs regarding the services provisioned in AWS. We will deliver that! For now, I can show you this slide from the internal pitch deck:
https://static-media.setops.co/infra/aws-components.png
> Where I studied CS, algorithmic complexity and Big-O was taught in Graph Theory (Discrete Maths)

I may be misunderstanding you?... In my study and practice of complexity theory, algorithms related to graph theory are an object of analysis of complexity theory, not a conceptual foundation for it.
Whoops, adding that to my list of things to read again... >.>
Paramagnetic Encoding of Molecules
Interesting point, but I wish instead of this we had an article that did more to explore the technical aspects. Run through the derivation of that 1/e fraction. Or at least link to it. Go into depth about how human psychology modifies the mathematically precise solution.
> But many disciplines, in this case psychology, did have the replication crisis coming.

The point of the OP is that there isn't a replication crisis. Should we be assuming, for purposes of this discussion, that there is one?
It makes your job easier at the expense of the quality of your product.
What kind of mill did you get? I've been interested in one but I don't have that much space and I've heard that benchtop mills are not that useful, I hope that's not true since it would be my only option.
The plane refers to the plane of complex numbers (a+b*i), the right half is where the real part (a) is positive. If the zeros of your feedback loop are on the right hand side that means it is a unstable feedback loop, if they are on the left side it is stable feedback loop (this happens because the zeros eventually end up in exponents which either tend to infinity or to zero with time).

If you squint a little bit most systems looks like a feedback loop and my not very confident interpretation is, judging from the last picture, that the author thinks we have a runaway inflation problem (zeros on the right hand side of the plane) and we might or might not have the controls to move them to the left hand side to tame it.
> If Musk truly wanted to walk away, I think Twitter would find a way to let him.

They will let him walk away, but the starting number is $44B. Now they are just negotiating.
Often when a business representative says they don't have to honour a contract, they are wrong, or lying to see if they get away with it.

If it was a transfer of business ownership, I would expect that you had a contract with the business, the business still existed, and that if you filed in small claims court you could recover at least the cost of the unused entry card due to contract non-performance by the business.

Unfortunately, a lot of business transfers are shady and aren't really transfers at all. The old business winds down or renders itself bankrupt, and a new one is started in its place. Everyone with contracts with the old business loses out. The new business is not supposed to be able to mislead everyone into thinking it's the same business, though.

I worked for a games company in the 90s which did that to its office landlord.

One week I interviewed there for a job, and got an offer. In between that and me starting 2 weeks later, they declared the company bankrupt and started a new company with almost the same name, and the same directors and owners, and I was employed by the new company under its new name instead. This allowed them to ditch their commercial lease giving 0 days notice in contravention of the terms. They moved out in secret over a weekend so the landlord would not know until the old company had disappeared.
Ah come on, you have to admit that Erdogan's recent posturing has nothing to do with an article about a manual on ancient counter-siege tactics.

And it's a good thing I explicitly said political talk was fine, otherwise someone might think you were calling me an "idiot", right? :D
> most regexp libraries are stuck in the 80s/90s, not keeping up with recent developments in research.

Can you show me the research that states how to add things like complement and intersection to general purpose regex libraries?

Most regex engines are backtracking based, and in that context, adding complement/intersection seems pretty intractable to me.

For the small subset of regex engines that are based on finite state machines, it's pretty much intractable there too outside of niche regex engines.

In fact, the research[1] suggests that adding things like complement/intersection is quite difficult:

> In particular, we show that when constructing a regular expression defining the complement of a given regular expression, a double exponential size increase cannot be avoided. Similarly, when constructing a regular expression defining the intersection of a fixed and an arbitrary number of regular expressions, an exponential and double exponential size increase, respectively, cannot be avoided.

And indeed, as another commenter pointed out, "minimal DFA" is effectively irrelevant for any general purpose regex engine. Not only do you not have the the budget to build a DFA, but you certainly don't have the budget to minimize that DFA.

With respect to reversal, RE2 and Rust's regex crate both do that. But mostly as an internal strategy for finding the start-of-match when using a lazy DFA. It's otherwise a somewhat niche feature more generally.

With respect to JITs, plenty of regex engines out there do that. PCRE comes to mind. So does V8.

As a general purpose regex engine author, we aren't "stuck" in the 80s/90s. There are just some fundamental trade offs at play here that make your ideas difficult to support. It's not like we haven't thought about it. Moreover, for things like complement and intersection specifically, actually reasoning about them in regex syntax is pretty tricky! I'm not sure if you've tried it or not. (There are some niche regex engines that implement it, like redgrep.)

[1]: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2071368.2071372
Photography for Geeks
Good: Libraries are leverage; as with financial leverage, use wisely to optimize results. At best, a library will be well tested, heavily reviewed, battle-proven code, and therefore worthy of trust.

Bad: Sometimes we convince ourselves that because a library has a large download count, it must be of high quality, and written by people far more qualified than ourselves. Sometimes this is true; sometimes a popular library is written by whoever was willing to write it first (and therefore grow adoption), which might not correlate with the other desirable properties.

Ugly: library authors naturally tend to be quite pro-library, more than the average developer. So they tend to bring in dependencies in unexpectedly large numbers. Your transitive dependency graph can grow unexpectedly large (especially in the npm ecosystem!). Your project can turn into the xkcd cartoon we are all thinking of, a tall tower built on some fragile bits you didn’t even know existed.
Honestly, this comment better than the article.
Yes, although the new system might require some non-trivial changes to the software, e.g. new OS version is very different from the old version. That should have been covered in software requirements section.

Also, the software distributors are not obliged to _distribute_ the old software versions, just like car manufacturers don't distribute or support an old car models, even though owner have "lifetime license" to use the car.
Have you considered small claims court? In many jurisdictions, lawyers aren’t allowed, so the new owners would have to justify the decision.

What I bet actually happened is their lawyers said, "you can, but you might be sued" and the owners took it as an OK. Lawyers generally aren't stupid enough to just say something sketchy is OK; They will include caveats that the clients have to consider.
> a lot of the original studies were unintentionally or intentionally wrong, had way too little power, i.e. noisy measurements, small N and publication bias.

That seems much too obvious for all these scientists to overlook, including the OP. Do the authors of the original replication paper say that?

> Recent advances in the field of replicability include specification curve analyses, for example, and those have been able to show more conclusive evidence of non-replicability because the published results were unbelievably special (i.e. one out of a tiny fraction of significant results).

Would you have links to this research? Thanks.
The article claims to be for a broad audience, and contains insinuations of political relevance. But right-half-plane zeros are a purely technical concept, and they're not explained with enough technical detail to be air-dropped into the middle of a broad audience piece.

It's almost good. It would be good if it dropped the pretensions to technicality.
Brltty
Again, how are you comparing VC investors with Retail traders? There’s a clear difference between the two demographics.

I’d go one step further to posit that most crypto traders are not even day traders, so much less experienced.
Sorry, “weird pattern” was a poor choice of words. I just meant that it’s an approach that isn’t common so it’s understandable that VS Code can’t handle it well.

VS Code is best when it’s just an IDE. I even have to drop into the terminal for some Git stuff
Claws has a GUI, so buttons, drag and drop, etc. It has a pretty good html rendering engine. Also it uses MH format which I prefer.
Agreed - they even include almost at the top of their homepage [1] a quote from the creator which includes: "If you can suppress the urge to retch long enough to give it a chance, I really think you’ll wonder how you ever worked with CSS any other way."

[1]: https://tailwindcss.com/
> In all fairness, I've never actually tried it.

That's what you're missing. Try it.
I agree. The author uses technical jargon but is clearly intending the reader to be non-technical. Otherwise, footnote 1 should just be in the main text. The rhetorical effect, intended or otherwise, is an appeal to (the author's) authority. As you say, the author then switches to a topic he likely much less expertise in (housing prices, inflation, etc.) while relying on the reader to believe that this new problem shares some mathematical foundations with the original set of problems.
The problem is that the subscription is used as a weapon to keep spend high.

With the perpetual + 20-40% maintenance/support model, you weren’t dead in the water when the term ended. When the subscription goes, you’re toast.

Subscriptions are like leasing a car. You pay an opaque premium to capitalize the software, a higher cost on the support and maintenance, and have no rights. Companies like Microsoft and VMWare also dumbed down the support, so you have to get another subscription to talk to competent people.

At a large enterprise level, subscription software is valued like life insurance. If you’re a big spender, you need to look at the IRR of the company and how your multi-year commitment impacts the company’s market cap (and executive bonuses). $500k spend with a 3-year commit may be $10M of accounting dollars towards the bonus for the SVP.

The strategy if you have the air cover is carrot/stick. You dangle some bullshit they really need to sell as the carrot and tell them to fuck off and walk if they won’t play. That gets attention, as the SVP who was looking at the fabric for his new boat is now scrambling to make his number.
I realize this isn't your specific problem but whenever I download any software, particularly software I paid for, I put a copy of the install package/executable somewhere where I can get it again (eg Google Drive, Dropbox) along with any license files associated. I've been burned too many times on not being able to find old copies of software I've actually paid for.

The issue here is that the license is tied to the computer not the user and isn't necessarily transferable (within the ToS at least). I did take a quick look at the site and it does say "1 Mac" not "1 user". Is that not 100% clear? Maybe. But it's not a lie.

Also, there is no non-lifetime option on that website so it's not like you went for a more premium license FWIW.

Pretty much any version licenses (lifetime or otherwise) create a financial incentive to create a new version. This is kind of what Adobe did with Photoshop (pre-subscription). This was particularly noticeable with the RAW plugin. Whenever a new camera is added they just bumped the minimum version to force you to upgrade.

I'm actually not fundamentally opposed to subscription models for software as there's no disincentive for bug-fixing and constant improvement. I mean how Adobe does it is terrible (eg dark patterns around resubscription, only annual pricing). But compare that to Jetbrains who has an outstanding subscription model.
I’m not making a judgement regarding the effectiveness of remote work. But, there are intangible changes to the social dynamics that develop. People overhear and share jokes, develop office friendships, etc. which becomes harder to do when everything is “on the record”, or physical distance gets in the way.
From a political perspective, I have seen firsthand how being local can keep you in fresh in the mind when new projects are being discussed and assigned. In years past, it was always considered better for one’s career to be “closer to the mother ship” than a satellite office. I suspect that this was/is at least partially human nature, rather than a learned anachronism.
It seems like easy money compared to other Github projects. Actions looks like a garbage fire full of unsolved problems, for example.

But I'm not sure how good it is to work on such a project for a long time in terms of career growth. Telling your next potential employers your body of work at Github is a Badge CRUD sounds pretty underwhelming.
Why can't I remove a song from a playlist in the web ui without it removing that same song from all playlists in my entire library?!
> there's definite risk in outsourcing the majority of your power production, risk that doesn't exist if you're outsourcing long-term storage. If something goes wrong with the storage ecosystem, you can keep it on-site for a few extra months

I think trusting another country to look after your radioactive waste for a few thousand years might involve a fair amount of risk. It's hard enough trying to look after it yourself.

At the simplest level, what if the storage facility has a design fault or some geological event happens and suddenly loads more work and/or money is required?

Or, in the spirit of bad movie plots:

What happens if the other country changes its mind, perhaps after a major change of government or referendum? "We instruct you to take all your nuclear waste back. Right Now!"

What happens if the other country doesn't maintain the storage properly / fails to keep it safe? Who's to blame for any leak / accident / incident / attack?
I agree that the UI often holds back open source. When looking at the features of Claws, nothing is jumping out at me as both unique and something a lot of people would really like/need. Is there something specific you're seeing that you think people are missing out on due to the interface scaring them away?
"you can ask the bank to give you the money back"
"you can take them to court"

Which like the article argues, is not something that can be solved by any ledger, distributed or not. Even if banks reverses records, they don't change the data which is already on the database/record, instead they just issue a new transaction from the backend or withdrawing it from a legit reserve that they own. In any case, no reversing was done.

What if instead of taking the bank to the court, we have something in place for it that runs based on certain "if statements" or "switch case". Of course, is not as easy as it sounds, we need conditions that are robust enough and not vulnerable to abusers. It's a very complicated problem to solve.
The original formulation was probably written under the assumption that the readers were familiar with the game show it was drawn from.
No, not that I'm aware of, but I'm also surprised they haven't: they'd just need to follow the model proven to work by the case against Big Tobacco. Any business model that depends on exploiting their customers is inherently illegal and following the established case law to this conclusion is the only sane outcome.

The only reason we haven't is that Big Sugar (or whatever it ends up being known as when they write the history books) has more money than Big Tobacco and has been laying out their defenses against it.
Yeah, the standard ESPP I’ve seen (twice now) is essentially a series of call options (at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months in the future). If the option is not 15% in the money at vesting, the plan resets and it is replaced by one that is in the money.

Look at the price for actual call options at these intervals and you will have an approximate idea of the value of this financial instrument. It’s probably substantial, almost certainly more so than the opportunity cost on your money (unless you must meet critical expenses or pay off credit card debt). And if you always sell the same day you buy, the risk is quite low (if the plan is at its bottom and the stock price falls 15%, basically, but most ESPP dates are just after earnings which limits the types of surprises you’re in for).
This paragraph is useful because it clears up some potential confusion between how computational complexity theory and algorithmic analysis are used:

> Yet another subject related to computational complexity theory is algorithmic analysis (e.g. Knuth (1973), Cormen, Leiserson, and Rivest 2005). Like computational complexity theory, algorithmic analysis studies the complexity of problems and also uses the time and space measures `t_M(n)` and `s_M(x)` defined above. The methodology of algorithmic analysis is different from that of computational complexity theory in that it places primary emphasis on gauging the efficiency of specific algorithms for solving a given problem. On the other hand, in seeking to classify problems according to their degree of intrinsic difficulty, complexity theory must consider the efficiency of all algorithms for solving a problem. Complexity theorists thus make greater use of complexity classes such as P, NP, and PSPACE whose definitions are robust across different choices of reference model. In algorithmic analysis, on the other hand, algorithms are often characterized relative to the finer-grained hierarchy of running times `log_2(n)`, `n`, `n log_2(n)`, `n^2`, `n^3`, ... within P.

Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computational-complexity/

Note: I've done some light edits so the mathematics are roughly in LaTeX syntax; e.g. `_` for subscripts.
I think you’re forgetting natural talent (it is their Acceleration to your velocity), commitment, energy, lack of distractions, luck and so many other things you can’t account for. Feeling left behind is inevitable even if you’re on the top of one field - there are going to be others you’re not at the forefront of. The billionaires pay a ton of money to play tennis/golf for example - ask them how they feel when they watch pga/open events.

The crux of the answer is making peace with getting left behind and constructing meaning where you’re. Or use that as motivation. In a connected world the Jones are way too many in number to match and exceed.

I think we as humans need to and will find the ability to have a thick skin for this. We have had to historically build resistance to various distractions - this is just the latest where all the celebs are very interested in making you feel like they are regular humans as well and what they do is very much achievable for everyone: in short it isn’t and we just need to get with the program.
This isn't about lifetime licences but more untrustworthy companies and clearly unsustainable business models in the LT deal. You have to think critically.

I've bought quite a few lifetime licences from AppSumo etc. over the years the vast majority have been above board, and some have even given extra bonuses years down the line as a thank you for supporting them in the early days. Some get bought by bigger companies and you can flip a coin what happens - shout out to MooSend and Archbee as they're remained great after being bought out/got investment.

Some companies also respond to bad PR when they bait and switch; Miro killed my LT licence until I complained and referenced contracts, BotStar is persisting after AppSumo kicked up a fuss and another whose name escaped me backed out of bait and switch after PR threats.

Some do just sadly die though.
FreeBSD 2022/Q1 Quarterly Status Report
More FUD to push the agenda.

Remember when we're freezing and starving in the dark that this blinkered view of civilisation is what brought us to the inevitable end that the green agenda brings forth.

We do not have the alternatives for what you want to get rid of, period.

Industrialisation has brought us to where we are, removing it for this nonsense will doom billions.
I've noticed this pattern with Tailwind specifically where people who look at it hate it, but people who tried it love it. I've tried it, and I like it.

This phenomenon encourages me to try something out before forming an opinion.
You're right that things can get downvoted and flagged according to personal tastes (mention a figure like Marx or Tito without explicitly condemning them and watch the downvotes roll in for an idea of what the prevailing personal tastes here are) but my point is that overall politics is not at all off the table here, even when it's not totally civil.
Multiple people have tried, though I don’t think any have been successful.
"I know this news is surprising, especially as you heard last month that the business is on track with record quarters and increasing customer demand. However, capital markets sentiment shifted to a more balanced approach between growth and profitability, and at this time, we have decided the best course of action is to reorganize to position OneTrust for continued long-term success."

Translation: we over-hired based on the assumption that VC money would keep being easy to come by, and now that VCs might be tightening their purse strings, we want to preemptively lower our burn rate in case the next round of funding is tougher.

I get it, but every pre-IPO company that does this just indicates that their leadership are short sighted and gobble up as much VC money as possible just because they can, rather than raising only the amount needed for their growth goals.

This whole "let's over hire while the VC money is flowing and mass lay off as soon as it's not" thing will make talent think twice before applying to your company, and will make your existing talent eager to look elsewhere for more a more secure role.
"We carry out Gaussian boson sampling (GBS) on 216 squeezed modes entangled with three-dimensional connectivity5, using a time-multiplexed and photon-number-resolving architecture. On average, it would take more than 9,000 years for the best available algorithms and supercomputers to produce, using exact methods, a single sample from the programmed distribution, whereas Borealis requires only 36 μs."
I'm really tired of needing to wade through these sort of comments. This is not a unique criticism.

If you don't don't get it, either try it out or move on.

These comments add no value to the conversation.