skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I've heard people had good experience with: https://www.toptal.com/

I heard about TopTal from https://mixergy.com. Andrew Warner is really serious about only accepting sponsors that provide great service and value. If you listen to his mid-podcast sponsorship spiels, they usually offer a free two weeks of work or 50% discount or something...
This one seems more reasonable, but I recall seeing similar projects/initiatives in the past, aimed more towards post-apocalyptic scenarios... and yeah, I share the same exact thought as you. Computers are totally useless in such a world, with the possible exception of data storage
I used Tabnine before GitHub Copilot and I never looked back. It feels a bit like upgrading from GPT2 to GPT3.
XFire, now that's a throwback...
I ran into the same problem of "sounds true" when testing the limits of GPT-3 as a general purpose "knowledge engine", used to answer questions about the real world. Either it doesn't understand the difference between truth and fiction, or it doesn't care. The output is 95% truthful and 5% outright fabrication. Even worse, it writes better than most humans, so the fabrications often come out sounding extremely convincing.

I once had it generate an entire interview with an author, which was so realistic I was sure it had encountered it verbatim in the training data. The interview was about one of his books. Turns out such a book didn't even exist, but GPT-3 knew real facts like the name his publisher, the names of employees there etc. and wove them into the story.

The best use I've found for GPT-3 is text summarization, it seems to do very well on that front. I think OpenAI are working on a hyperlinked interface that lets you jump to the original source for each fact in the summary.
She’s a black swan. Good for her and your democracy not being completely and utterly dead
agreed. but old code really doesnt need to be rewritten unless there are bugs.
You haven’t tried Copilot, have you?
It’s better than digging up new carbon and releasing that into the air.
Nominally, yes. But conversions between C strings and `std::string` are just a small corner of the problem: C++ makes it very easy to accidentally call copying constructors and perform nontrivial copies when doing e.g. implicit argument conversion.
I prefer "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes." :-)
We Need More Car-Optional Neighborhoods
Maybe Dad was just being modest when he told me that he couldn't have gotten into med school without an undergrad degree these days. Also note that I was talking about competitiveness of admissions, not competitiveness of the classes. You seem to mostly be commenting on the competitiveness of the classes.
I'm not an Apple fan, but I've tried to use CEC a bunch of times, and I can't blame them for not supporting it. It's not a good protocol.
I take it from the opposite direction. I trust that every sufficiently mature religion has a self consistent doctrine with answers to every question. If the religion is popular enough, I can just look up the questions and answers. For this reason, I have no reason to even engage in the dialogue.

For this reason, I share your bafflement.
Honest question here: I understand that Copilot can increase productivity. But I personally fear that it would cover the fun parts of programming and leave me with the boring bits. What is your experience around that?
Good guide to shell in general.

Google shell style guide [0] was also a good read. I thought that the "When to use Shell" section is a section that is good for any kind of guide, not just for bash / shell.

Also, maybe not so much a pitfall / bug, but something I had to deal with recently was that bash does not handle the EINTR when calling write() in the printf and echo builtins [1][2][3], etc.

[0] https://google.github.io/styleguide/shellguide.html#s1.2-whe...

If you are writing a script that is more than 100 lines long, or that uses non-straightforward control flow logic, you should rewrite it in a more structured language now. Bear in mind that scripts grow. Rewrite your script early to avoid a more time-consuming rewrite at a later date.

[1] https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/487260

handle the EINTR when calling write() in the printf and echo builtins.

[2] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/ca1fdab7fd27eb069df13...

Q: what's up with this '/bin/echo' ?

A: bash's builtin 'echo' command does not check calls to write() against
errors. If you use it in the cgroup file system, you won't be
able to tell whether a command succeeded or failed.

[3] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash/2018-01/msg00031...

write() not retried after EINTR in printf and echo
Maybe that it makes the content more difficult to understand is a plus.
Oh, what an issue! There's plenty of context in there, and it's right up my alley. Thanks!
Healthy lol Seniors are gonna die too. What makes this era of senior experienced workers different? Why not pay it forward?
You probably write code in a way that’s hard for the AI to predict. Write stubs, name things first, wire things early, and watch the fireworks.
What you have:

- backend engineering skill

- experience using Tailwind

- a color palette and font choices

- screens and user flows

It sounds like all you're missing is:

- UI polish

Depending on how detailed your screens are, maybe you could consider skipping the UI mockup step, and just try to build it yourself using the 'Application UI' components from TailwindUI (https://tailwindui.com/)? If you use your own color palette and fonts, your site will still look unique.

Sure, you might need to change some things later, but you'd save some time and stress searching for a designer.
If you're not concerned about the risk of prosecution under the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA, you should be able to emulate HDCP 2.2 by connecting the computer to an HDCP 2.2-to-1.4 converter[1], connecting the converter to one of the myriad cheap HDCP 1.4 splitters or audio extractors that "accidentally" strips HDCP as a side effect, connecting the splitter to the firewall, and, finally, connecting the firewall to the monitor.

[1] I've used both

https://www.amazon.com/Monoprice-115242-Blackbird-HDCP-Conve...

and

https://www.hdfury.com/product/vertex-4k60-444-600mhz/

in similar scenarios, and both worked. Come to think of it, though, while I love my Vertex dearly, it's exactly the sort of highly programmable[2] device this firewall exists to protect against.

[2] Over (out-of-band) USB, RS-232, and, using an optional external adapter, Bluetooth. AFAIK, it's at least not intentionally configurable or reprogrammable over HDMI.
I've used corporate systems which made u login every visit (multiple times a day for me, 5 days a week), I've seen government systems do it, there might be a surprising number of targets where 512 attempts is effective
What were they thinking?

20% yield?
I mean, I guess, tell that to every important artist, author, architect, craftsperson, and humanitarian. Paul Farmer and Norman Borlaug both had children, but it's hard to argue that their real purpose in life was to reproduce. Could you get more Paul Farmer time? Seems like a worthy goal.
Increasing levels of dementia are likely being observed because we have healthier older people than ever before. Anecdotally I’ve known 3 people with severe Alzheimer’s who were extraordinarily robust - healthy in every other way into their eighties. In a earlier era they likely would have been dead before their dementia became incapacitating.
And the main barrier to design work being integrated into FOSS is usually the attitude of project maintainers. I know plenty of designers who’ve worked as developers and all of them contribute to FOSS… just not as designers. The attitude of the post to which I responded is a perfect example of it— the way developers do it is the advanced way to do it but designers just want to make the Tonka version for idiots. It doesn’t fly in commercial software but FOSS is fun for a lot of developers specifically because they don’t have to listen to a project manager telling them to make it pixel perfect just like the designer asked. And hey — it’s their Project and they can do with it what they will, but it rubs me the wrong way to see those same people blaming users for struggling with their “advanced” interface and scoffing at the utility of experts and their work.
Since you mentioned Texas... In certain parts of inner Houston, there is still pole mounted power. When hurricanes inevitably roll into town, the parts of town with pole utilities lose power for far longer (days-weeks) than other parts of town with buried utilities (hours-days).
I have an exit survey on my Chrome extension, which loads automatically upon uninstall. People who hate the extension, or hate aspects about it, are more than happy to provide such feedback. Sometimes with obscenities.

One thing that people complained about was price, so I decided to ask people what price they thought was fair, from a list of three options (50% off, 75% off, and 99¢/yr). I then offered them a coupon code at whatever price they indicated was fair.

After offering this for years, and with over a thousand people going through this branch of the survey (which required saying that cost was the primary reason for uninstall), only a handful took me up on the discount. My takeaway from this is that lots of people will say that something should be X% cheaper, but nearly all of those people would not buy it even if it were that price.

Having learned this lesson, I no longer offer the uninstall discount, or many discounts at all.
That is also how your brain works.
I don't think there's any less rigour or competence here than in "respectable" philosophy; quite the opposite. There is no excess of metaphor, just an exploration of a technical subject in the terminology that it requires. It's using plenty of jargon and references, sure, but programmers are in no position to throw stones about such things; the jargon is meaningful and clearly defined (indeed, defined clearly at the start, in the case of "zagnets").
Apple, Amazon, and Microsoft better cough up as well. They all use the data for voice assistance, etc.
Interesting website. I never considered in my 30-something years of reading that I was a slow reader but apparently I am (<250 WPM). Most of my reading (outside of the internet) is scholarly articles for my job.
You ask people "Help me save time. I know why this will succeed, tell me why it will fail."
The other commenters have pointed out that this is basically just PR, but even if we ignore that entirely, it doesn't make a lot of sense. A few issues I pulled out somewhat at random:

> Copilot queries the model relatively infrequently

Huh? It queries whenever you stop typing.

> Copilot does not suggest code in the middle of the line, as its AI model is not best suited for this purpose

This is at best false, at worse disingenuous. Yes, it won't insert a completion in the middle of a line, but this is trivially solved by inserting a newline in the middle of the line and then triggering a completion at the end of the line you just created.

> In addition, Tabnine makes a firm and unambiguous commitment that no code the user writes is used to train our model.

Copilot has this option too...

> Copilot uses one universal AI model, which means that every user is getting the same generic assistance based on an “average of GitHub”, regardless of the project they're working on.

I mean, anyone who has used Copilot for more than 5 seconds would know that this isn't true. Copilot does a fantastic job at reading the current file and providing suggestions relevant to the file, rather than some hypothetical "average of GitHub"
The myth was that the ARPANET was designed to survive nuclear war.

Wikipedia sets this one straight, anyway:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET

> The ARPANET was not started to create a Command and Control System that would survive a nuclear attack, as many now claim. To build such a system was, clearly, a major military need, but it was not ARPA's mission to do this; in fact, we would have been severely criticized had we tried. Rather, the ARPANET came out of our frustration that there were only a limited number of large, powerful research computers in the country, and that many research investigators, who should have access to them, were geographically separated from them.

Citation: Charles Herzfeld, ARPA Director (1965–1967) as quoted here:

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/10/50-ye...
They were not old, nor leaking. It is like a burnt mark on the battery.
How do you avoid the obvious adverse selection problem? California can't prevent the most expensive people in the country from moving there, and the system we're talking about would be a powerful incentive for those people to do so.
Counter-propaganda isn't the answer. We've already got counter-propaganda, from the other political party. It's not persuading anybody who doesn't already drink that flavor of Kool-Aid.

No, I don't have an answer either. I just know that counter-propaganda isn't it.
> What percentage of x-plane users do you think ACTUALLY use it for learning to fly an airplane (in the sense that they do or will go fly that actual plane IRL)?

Based on my anecdotal observations of people I know IRL who use X-Plane? 100%.
That link is... really something - it actually gets better and better the further down you go.

By "better", I mean more absurd, shocking and funny :)
Yes, exactly, but imbalance is in the eye of the beholder
Maybe it’s pedantic, but in my experience the best summation of a scientific approach to beleif is to say ‘I will withhold belief until sufficient evidence is provided to support the belief.’ Most noticeably, this stance does not exclude the currently unknown from being true or known at some point, it simply holds a person to the honest — and truly humble — mindset of never thinking things are true on insufficient evidence, no matter how badly the conclusion is desired.

You seem to be asserting that religious persons are willing to believe things on insufficient evidence, for example those “things beyond our understanding or currect capacity or ability to know,” and that is somehow a good thing?
Quiet, you fool. You'll ruin the Politically Correct Joke.

/s
In defence of skimming books: Not everyone is enjoying reading the same way. Not even one person in different contexts. There are books where I'm going to be engaged completely. There are others I'll enjoy for main plot but will want to skip the fluff. I'm extreme cases I'll gloss over a whole paragraph as "whatever, I don't care about the scenery". Being able to skim quickly to the next interesting part is a good skill.

But the comment made me think - can we even improve the comprehension, as in processing what we read? (not as in understanding the vocabulary/structure) I've never heard of ways to purposefully do that.
I don't see how this can work wth computer system? Let's say evrtyone loves the computers, but there is a single person who hates computers, and they want do irrecoverably delete all data on those satellites. Can you deny them access?

If not, then your system is not going to last long.

If yes, then how do you ensure this mechanism would not be subverted?
Except, strangely, for Biden.
There's interpreters/runtimes for C? At least that's the go-to definition for scripting languages.
> Vector fields are the mathematical way of expressing the continuous aspect of the universe.

Woah
Ergo – modern IRC server written in Go
I mean...Jesus was an orthodox Jew and prayed in (mostly) Hebrew (the sacral language), not Aramaic (the vernacular language of the Jews at the time). Having a "sacral language" or "sacral register" is not specific to the English or to the KJV. You will find the same phenomenon in other areas as well, some of which aren't even remotely religious. Think of the register of speech people use when writing a paper for publication in an academic journal, it's distinct from the register of speech you'd use when talking with your mother, or addressing graduates at a university commencement speech.
It’s a great one, thanks!
It's a solved problem in the sense that it exists, and works[1] and it is available in a lot more places than Canada.

[1] "works" is an interesting point because it isn't clearly defined, and usually means different things to different people.

Ever experience of the system is "unique" - there is this mix of human patient with human provider with finite resources with medical knowledge with time. So there are plenty of examples of long waits, bad service, unfavorable outcomes, even death. It's not hard to cherry pick bad experiences here.

No health system will make everyone live forever. Death comes to us all sooner or late. But universal healthcare works in many places in raising the overall standard of public health, without bankrupting people in the process.

Given that its always spending limited money, and only scales at human rates, its far from perfect. But, at least for some, its better than a "health care level based on your wealth" system.
I think the classic design phrase "form follows function" best describes the ideal.

That is, when designing something, and especially when there's nothing to yet dictate what the form should be, let function guide you to it.

If you were to ask "how should a table lamp be designed", I would point to its function -- to give diffuse light and allow switching it on and off -- as the primary guide. Make that work well. Don't let the form get a life of its own that will distract from the function. Rather, the form should serve the function and make it beautiful.
I hire UI/UX professionals on UpWork. That is the best solution I have come up with. It is totally worth it to pay somebody $70-$100 to review your site or app for an hour and give you actionable advice.
I'd agree, the concept of cracking hydrocarbons and then capturing the GHG byproduct effectively is just fantasy. At best a blue hydrogen fuel cell would be on par with a super clean natural gas combustion engine. You'd get CO~2~, water vapor, and electricity. Better than rolling coal but not better than "green" hydrogen or just a chemical battery.

The math for blue hydrogen might work out in commercial and residential installations in regions with existing natural gas and siting that makes solar impractical. A fuel cell with a catalytic cracker could feed a building with hot water and electricity vs a combusting water heater that only provided hot water. For similar GHG output it might be an efficiency win. But I see that as a weak maybe all things considered.
Great example of a 'no true Scotsman' argument. Such idealizations are of little to no practical relevance, we need solutions that work in the real world, with all its flaws.
Median household income was $67,521 in 2020. Doesn't seem outrageous.
What college costs $75k/year? My kids go to the flagship state school in Illinois (Champaign), their tuition is less than 1/4 of that, and we pay full freight.
> ... since nowadays we all do TDD (right? ;). I hope so! ).

Everything in moderation. TDD is good, but I've watched people write extensive tests before writing a line of code to test, and it often ends badly -- not too badly, they usually just needed to rewrite the tests once they figured out that they had the wrong API (oops, at least one example was a case for DOD, because the API was perfectly obvious from that lens) but sometimes that can trigger multiple refactors along the way. I've seen the same thing happen with documentation-first. I've seen top-down problems and bottom-up problems and code that ships before tests or docs were ever written/validated. In my not-even-remotely humble opinion, people need to be familiar with all the design patterns, and figure out which is best at project inception.
Maybe an important distinction that these were the largest investment banks and not retail banks.

I want them to be allowed to fail. As I learn more I’m not so sure.
I can see this easily happening for a number of reasons. I can see pretty well, but learned late in life that I needed glasses and was getting a lot of migraines from the lack of them. And if there's one thing that activates my stress and depression, it's a bad headache. They can be debilitating. I've also heard there's related problems with vision and nausea for example.
Will a performance-based money back guarantee generate more sales?
I have an alternate and, I think, unusual view on this subject, which is that Christianity actually teaches that God's existence is, by design, not proven or provable by nature at all. I think this follows from these facts:

1. Faith is the substance of things hoped for (Hebrews 11), and we don't possess [proof of] what we hope for (Romans 8:24).

* This means that anything the scripture places in the realm "of faith" is something that we don't have tangible proof of

* For example, we have righteousness "by faith" but no undeniable proof of this righteousness, as in Galatians 5:5: "For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope"

2. The existence of God, and the creation of the world, are placed in the realm of faith by the scripture.

* "Without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists" (Hebrews 11:6)

* "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." (Hebrews 11:3)

Therefore the existence of God and the creation of the world are purposefully consigned by God to the realm of unverifiable facts.

This makes sense intuitively, because it makes the gospel appear weak and foolish in accordance with 1 Corinthians 1:27, and prevents anyone from approaching the subject based on their own intellectual powers as in Matthew 11:25.

And in light of this, the verse you mentioned in Romans can be taken to be about mankind, who were originally literally shown things by God Himself corporately, rather than about any particular man or all men individually.

In my opinion, this logic precludes apologists from appealing to natural theology as a legitimate way of convincing someone to believe in God or to convert to the Christian faith. According to this line of thinking, submitting evidence to someone that can be verified by observation in order to convince someone that God exists or that Christ is God is actually undermining faith.
It shouldn't happen like this in the first place. Before building something, you should already have access to your target audience. There are many ways of solving this. E.g. doing consulting and building a list of clients with a similar problem. Starting out to build a solution without this makes it just so much more likely that you build something that doesn't solve a real problem or there's no buying interest. Ideally, you can build for a group of clients who are ready to pay when you give them an MVP.
I can draw one from memory. It was a triangle. Not sure what it means … but I can draw it.
If you have a product but no users at all, I think you should go back to the step of idea validation. Make sure what you're building is something that people might use in the first place.

Multiple ways to do this.

Th easiest, imo, is to set up a simple landing page for your idea. Know before-hand who might be interested in your product, if it's just a handful of people, that works too. Just prepare for a lot of manual work (getting in touch with people and conversing about your product in different ways without making it seem like some sort of an ad), at least until your first 1000 users, more so for the first 500 (assuming your end-users are individuals and not businesses).
The root of the word faith comes from the Latin "fides", which can alternatively be translated as "trust" (think fiduciary). You don't need faith to believe in God. This is a common misunderstanding among both atheists and theists.
Seems like you are implying there's a non-real solution to that curve's maximum as well, which makes sense. Obviously directly these aren't useful, but I wonder if there are any situations where imaginary solns might also be helpful to know?