skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think the larger takeaway is that the level of protection needs to scale up with the value of the contents, and he unfortunately did not keep up. The value of those games has gone into the millions recently, so this setup was not sufficient anymore to withstand the level of attack.

For example, if what you have moves into hundreds of millions of dollars (not the case here) then any safe is no longer sufficient, you need to move to a vault and armed guards.
For random SAAS/utility things, no. For actual, core, software yeah absolutely.

But theres a big difference between solo developer and "literally the only person that will ever be involved". If you are dealing with businesses then you need to act like a business. There needs to be contingency planning and availability. Another commenter gave their story of how one such dev didn't have support triage setup when they took a trip, and so the customer wasn't able to get in contact. Thats the stuff I'm talking about.

In reality theres no reason to only have that redundancy during specific time periods (since you want to ensure they know what they are doing already at the point they are actually needed). So my suggestion is to walk the walk from the beginning. If this is the US, you should already be doing admin things like payment and ownership under some corporate structure already (LLC, Corp, etc) for numerous reasons. For the day to day stuff, I think it makes sense to bring on assistance on a regular basis. For instance, you can have a support person help out 1 day a week, or a few days a month, or whatever makes sense for your load. The important thing is that they are being involved before absolutely needed so that when they are needed its not something special.
A bit low for Wifi stuff though isn't it? The ESP32 has 520KB and that's usually already somewhat limiting.
My fave thing about Jira is how between the tool & it's plugins, you can roll up all sorts of views for management reporting purposes.

Despite this, exactly zero shops I have worked do management believe their managers will understand those views.

Therefore at a weekly/monthly/quarterly cadence, "someone" (dev leads) have to spend hours hand updating some horrific excel view of project statuses for big management to understand.
Well, they have been, as well as bunch of others you blindly trust.
I 100% agree, yet while the investors were buying this vision in November, just to give up a few months later amazes me. With the 2000 internet bubble there was at least enough time to see the overpriced businesses doing poorly, here the bubble popped before anything had a chance to be delivered and market tested.
Also this is "agile"
> Seems bizarre to me that rpi didn't just create a non-proprietary library.

There is a chip shortage on, so having a volume supply wifi chips is a miracle.

Not having to pay a licensing cost is also rather a good deal.

As with all things here, perfect is the enemy of good.
I think GP meant “ayran” or “doogh.”
Is the 100x valid? The odds of a founder dying vs. the chances of a company shutting down seem not apples-to-apples

I would guess there are many cases of solo founders shutting down their business other than founder death...
But did they need to decode the HTML source code?
UK rules that AI cannot patent inventions
This reminded me of the Ceylon language. So I created https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31932085
Thank you for sharing your experience. Migrating from software A to B is part of life, Jira does not hold a special technical place. Politically, that's a different conversation...
The trick is that they're not promoting an ideology/cultural value domestically; they're bowing to local influence everywhere, including domestically.

i.e. we should not take corporate Pride as sincere support, but as an indicator of the zeitgeist.
I teach Scratch to children professionally. It is such a brilliant learning tool—except for one thing that annoys me so much!

One of the first things we have kids try to create is a game called "Ghostbusters". The first step is "make your ghost hide and show every two seconds." Nearly every student codes something like this:

forever
hide
show
⬏

The result is a ghost that does not do anything. Not the best introduction!

I always tell the kids some variation of "the computer is going too fast", so they'll add a wait block. Their code need the wait block anyway, but it would be better if they could see what was happening and figure it out on their own. Also, my explanation is actually bullshit. Think about it—the ghost should be hidden as often as it's visible. Furthermore, if the kid does:

forever
show
hide
⬏

...their ghost will disappear and never reappear! Can you figure out what's happening yet?

Well, consider this. If you do:

move 10 steps
move 10 steps
move 10 steps

...your sprite will jump forwards 30 pixels all at once. But, if you do:

repeat 3 times
move 10 steps
⬏

...then the sprite will animate forward, moving ten pixels per frame for three frames.

Scratch only updates the screen at set "yield points", which are basically any instruction containing the word "wait" (reasonable enough) and after each iteration of a loop (very problematic). Loops should not have side effects! It's much more difficult to teach iteration when the unrolled version does something completely different!

But the problem is deeper than that—it pops up everywhere with basically every student I work with, because it prevents kids from seeing the results of their code! Fundamentally, two blocks in the same script which request a screen update should not be able to run on the same frame. (Unless the user has enabled turbo mode, which is already an option for advanced users who need to push the limits of the language.)

I know that all languages have quirks, but I just don't know what Scratch's developers were thinking here, or why I seem to be the only person who considers this a massive problem!

I made a fork of Scratch which fixes this problem, but I'm not really sure what to do with it. Without a backend for saving projects to the cloud, I can't realistically use it in my classes. I've been trying to add a backend, but the code is undocumented and I have zero experience with backend development. https://github.com/LLK/scratch-vm/compare/develop...Wowfunha...
It depends on your motivations:

If you have a laundry list of features and grand plans to do more, I'd avoid you like the plague. Reliable software is time consuming, and piling on more and more features tends to break corner cases.

If your software is extremely simple, with a few well-defined use cases, and it's clear that you only spend 1/3rd of your time actually programming, I'd probably consider it. (And in this case, there's a good chance you'll hire contractors or employees when your company grows.)

In the former case, (laundry list of features,) I'd conclude that you're a programmer who doesn't want a boss, and quality will probably suffer. In the latter case, I'd conclude that you're a businessman who happens to be selling software.
It's like that scene from Silicon Valley (which is almost always accurate).

Seriously, when did it become normal in capitalism that you should not prove that your business can make money? That there a customers willing to pay for your product? That the promise of future maybe profit sells better than actual profit now? This is insane.
What an invaluable comment, just like mine.
The "new" in the headline refers to these compilers being newly ported to OpenBSD. OpenBSD also sometimes gets new features, sees new releases, etc. There's nothing weird about seeing "new" and "OpenBSD" in the same headline.
> It's not the role of a retailer to promote a particular political agenda.

Standing up to an authority that declares some lives less valuable than others (e.g. gays, women, having slaves) is maybe a political agenda but it is moreso a moral position, and that is the thing to emphasize.

The trouble is, ultimately people tend to not care enough to stick their necks out (lose money, lose a job) to stand up for what's right, unless it affects them very directly. And it is rational to not forego your own wellfare for the sake of some other group, I just wish the circle of empathy people have were larger.
Yes, see for instance the GNU C Library “obstacks” facility; It’s clearly not object-oriented:

https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Obstacks....

“An obstack is a pool of memory containing a stack of objects. You can create any number of separate obstacks, and then allocate objects in specified obstacks. Within each obstack, the last object allocated must always be the first one freed, but distinct obstacks are independent of each other.

Aside from this one constraint of order of freeing, obstacks are totally general: an obstack can contain any number of objects of any size. They are implemented with macros, so allocation is usually very fast as long as the objects are usually small. And the only space overhead per object is the padding needed to start each object on a suitable boundary.”
I'm a pragmatist, not an ideologue, and my intention was not to grandstand. I find people who think change happens overnight just as frustrating.
Counterpoint: Windows works with 30 year old code, and somehow managed to manage their piles of tech debt and still work. Still a huge % of the market.
Oddly enough, if your team is small enough that it doesn’t need a dedicated PM, you generally have no issues with Jira either.

It’s almost as if the PM is the problem instead of the solution.
I've been a solo developer, and people have trusted me.
However, I have always worked under an alternative type of contract: If I deliver, this is the fixed price. If I don't it's free.

That way, the customer risks only the setback in time for the solution, they know what the cost is up front.

I set the cost comfortably high, my hourly rate on average on those projects were more than 20x what I am earning at my current position.

My customers were all happy, and probably still got off cheaper than if they'd hired a big pro consultancy firm.
> somehow

Chaebols, that's probably how.
Holy fuck that looks horrible. I don't want some elastic band around my neck constantly very slightly constricting me.
Giant fossil found in Papua New Guinea identified as belonging to a different species of kangaroo
Slightly dated, but from their 2020 annual report: https://s26.q4cdn.com/977690160/files/doc_financials/2020/q4...

- 30% of revenue from Create Solutions (ie engine licensing)
- 61% of revenue from Operate Solutions (ad platform, IAP, multiplayer, build server, VOIP, CDN, analytics)
- 9% from strategic partnerships

Although they are known for catering to the indie developer crowd, a bulk of their revenue is from a relatively small number of companies (~120).
There's just one of every zero-value coin out there.

BTC is, like those, going to zero. Crypto is pseudo-economics just as vitmain supplements is pseudo-science.

Almost no one uses bitcoin for anything, it has no economic backing. It's value is pure fiat, pure speculation.

The number of actual economic transactions conducted in BTC, i'd say, would place the coin at <100USD. Ie., I'd guess the actual BTC economy is 21m*100USD = 2.1bn at most largely due to the black market.

Contrast that with the USD economy which is, what, 100trn worth of transactions?

I suspect the black market will keep BTC alone in the 100-1000 USD range. Everything else is going to zero.

The value of money isnt speculation, its value is given by the economic transactions in which its conducted. With a gov. collecting taxes in a currency, it has a massive guarenteed value as a gov then requires massive amounts of economic activity to use its currency. The USD, in addition, is the currency of oil trades and the reserve currency of the world.

THAT is why it has its value. The number of actual economic transactions in BTC is trivial. No taxes are collected in BTC.

So where's its value from? It's just ponzi value, a pyramid scheme.. its a made-up paper value that a few early stakes can realise gains on, when the whole thing collapses 95% of people will lose.
well mmap is posix, not standard portable C.
You mean ING Direct Australia, the subsidy of the Dutch ING Groep?

I think the point was that Volt was the first domestic online-only bank. Additionally they seem to be the first "neobank" though I haven't found any definition that is able to distinguish them from a "direct bank", which also applies to ING.
In the space Atlassian is in, choosing to be unprofitable while quickly growing could make sense.

It is not necessarily true for other sectors (e-scooters, different delivery services, maybe even Uber), as there is no stickiness in those areas. Whenever a cheaper Uber would come to my city, I'd drop them within a second. They are usually cheap while they can burn VC money.

If Atlassian can keep their system for a couple of years in a big, slow legacy company, the company will end up with tens of thousands of tickets and pages.

Then, no matter how everyone thinks that all the products of Atlassian is terrible (there is a thread about it every second month here), the company will never leave Atlassian because nobody wants to spend the time on migrating all that stuff and everybody is afraid to say that "we will probably not going to need poorly written user stories from three years ago", and they don't want to risk that the new system doesn't cover everything that e.g Jira does.

Once a company is locked in, it will keep paying because paying any amount is easier for them then migrating, training the employees to use the new system, broken links, missing features, etc.
Well most software I buy are games and I usually don't like games produced by solo indy devs
I think this is not as straightforward as you make it sound.

1. Often the way companies are structured requires specific teams and processes to exist and unwinding that is not easy.

2. It can be very hard to identify which people are actually critical. If you get it wrong it’s a big problem.

3. Additionally, firing a large percentage of employees will create a very negative feeling in the remainder so they might leave as well or their work quality will suffer.

4. Customers may lose faith in the business as a result and switch. Something like Atlassian has many competitors.

Are there any specific examples of this being done successfully?
YES

To the extent that I need the functionality of any of those (and I don't have a use for all of them) then I would rather buy something that does one thing and one thing well rather than carrying something around with me that

- can interrupt / distract me at any time

- that is a single point of failure

- that is expensive and a target for getting stolen

- that spies on me

- that enables the manufacturer to push updates to it remotely without my consent

- and has planned obsolescence built in

- seems to have enabled this mass migration to "software as a service" where I don't own my data or my software any more

I've worked in tech for nearly 25 years. I used to be a very "high-tech" person, compared to my peers in the 90s and early 00s. These days my smart phone consists of a Pixel 6 with GrapheneOS installed, very few apps (the ones that are installed are open source) and I actually hardly touch the damned thing. I often forget it at home. And I like it that way.

For those who make judicious use of their smart phone, great. Live and love your life. To each their own. What I resent about smart phones is that they left me and those like me behind. The above bullet points are all deal breakers for me. I don't like the things. I don't have a need for them. I want a smart phone free life and that seems to get harder and harder as everything, including some government services, are starting to require apps. I don't like to be a black and white thinker who thinks something is all good or all bad ... sure there are a couple of conveniences that I can point to with smart phones. But the bad so far outweighs the good to me that I'm practically a luddite now even though I've dedicated my life to developing technology.
That's a wonderfully effective marketing video. It's funny, gives me a background on the technology itself, and effectively highlights the new features.
Just use localslackirc and whatever textual irc client you want perhaps.
I love the concept and would like to see some real world programs to be implemented in that language :)
Who is talking about FB being hacked? It's about them reusing all this info for many other purposes. That is nefarious.

Plus you'll find that many will vehemently disagree with you kind of accepting as a given that data should be handed to FB carte blanche. It's a dishonest to start with such an extremely debatable starting point.

I say why don't we give them jack (nil) and start the discussion then.
there's a key difference.

labels are applied _after_ the message is _received_. Their solution applies the tags _before_ the message is _sent_.

thus they're tagging the thread at the beginning of their interaction with it.
As I understand it, wasm modules depend heavily on linear memory in growable buffers in each module.
I feel like this happened to Gitlab / GitHub as well. Gitlab was gaining a ton of popularity and momentum with their free private repositories and built-in CI testing infrastructure. Then GitHub swooped in and offered all the same things, taking the wind out of Gitlab's sails.
Like Adam Nuemann. You have to be tall and loud. Doesn't matter if you are making sense or not. Sometimes VCs act like gullible women on a date who are enamored by a douchebag, I swear.
One of the most Hacker News articles ever written. A bad solution (wearing a choker) to a self-generated problem (using Arch) that costs a lot of money.

In summary: this generates more problems than it solves (unless you're a navy seal).
...And generally optimized for punitive wealth extraction from those in the worst position to be extracted from via high fee per transaction or overdraft fees targeted at those whose income streams are less regular/stable.

Worked in the sector for a while until I realized what was really up. Lots of effort put into making the employees believe we were "helping the disadvantaged" when in reality, money was being made hand over fist by specifically targeting the most troubled or statistically likely to overdraft populations as a profit taking mechanism.
This, and the amount of newly public companies that received nosebleed valuations despite being pre-profit (and often enough, pre-revenue even) thanks to speculation (and the fact that these companies were impressive if only because they were using essentially free borrowed money...which has now dried up). And perhaps even more problematic, the less newly public but still nonetheless overvalued companies that are actually in the major indexes (and thus, in the average person's 401k), now down 50-80% in some cases. Couple that with the bond market ALSO melting down based on the fact that the Fed was engaging in its bond buying program keeping yields artificially low for the last few years and we had a situation where the average person took on far more risk than was suitable due to having little alternative.

Given how much stable companies borrowed to beef up their balance sheets, my suspicion is that the core business environment may not be as badly affected as many suspect, as they have the means available to weather the storm, but that there will be a lot of folks caught out in it when it really hits, likely with quite a few bankruptcies in the tech sector, and as a result, a fair spike in unemployment. That will undoubtedly bleed into consumer spending, but again, given the healthy balance sheets we see in more core industries, I'm not seeing a cascading failure of the whole system on my crystal ball just yet.

Guessing a 6-7/10 if we wanna put a number on "how bad".
> Sure, right now we accept plastic and plasticisers everywhere around us. Which is crazy. And quite probably contributes to the great hormonal disruption and the trans craze.

Interesting intuition. Do you know of any research suggesting a causal link between plastics and more trans visibility?
It's the name of a weird fermented milk drink in a lot of Slavic and other languages (I first encountered it in the Czech Republic):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kefir
Reddit or Facebook have probably taken over as they don't need any technical skill to set up.
> ignore diets and supplements and, instead, just aim to cut out junk like processed and fried foods.

In other words... go on a diet?
Agreed, but then it's just valueless noise and I wish they'd stfu about it XD
Well, then let's look at some indicators of success.

In terms of adoption Mathematica is even less of a success than if you measure financially. And adoption is a key factor when evaluating whether or not you want to use a programming language for non-trivial projects. It impacts your ability to recruit, access to knowledge (books, forums, evolved practices), usable solutions to common problems (libraries) and even more or less existential questions like whether or not the language will be maintained. Python ticks all of those boxes. Mathematica partially ticks perhaps one of those boxes. And note that this is before we even consider if Python is any good as a language.

If you were to invest in developing a non-trivial system in Mathematica, how enthusiastic do you think investors would be if you nailed your flag to the Mathematica ship? It would not represent good risk management.

Then there's where things are heading. The number of jobs as "data scientist" or "statistician" of some description is growing sharply. It may gain Mathematica a trickle of new users. But the really big gains have been for languages like Python or Julia. Worse still, people tend to move away from software like Mathematica or Matlab, moving to languages like Python and Julia. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if just the growth in Julia alone over the past couple of years is greater than the total paying userbase of Mathematica.

Single digit, or even low double digit growth in a field that has doubled a few times in the same period isn't success. It is everyone else outrunning you. Fast. And I have seen up close and personal how people who find themselves in that situation will rationalize it with "but we're growing".

Is it a success that it is "good"? For some value of good? Well, a lot of people think Lisp is good. And yet after being around for many decades it is still so hard to find developers to maintain Lisp codebases. I've seen about half a dozen major systems written in Lisp being scrapped once one or two key employees leave. Sure, the systems may qualify as good, even great - but that doesn't help when it becomes a business liability? In the real world it doesn't.

I would have loved for Mathematica to succeed. But it hasn't. And I suspect it won't. Even if it were open sourced right now, I seriously doubt it would bear much fruit the first decade or so. If at all, since the big audiences are focused elsewhere.
This was a lot of years.. but things like:

1) We used some super crappy Clearcase version control system. It was easier to layer Git on top, letting us have a VC on top of a VC. I can't remember if it was impossible, or just easier to do in Git.

2) Conflicts did better. We made kind of torture test of merges and put both systems through. Git was able to resolve more out of the box.

3) Speed of operations, I think Git was a bit faster out of the box.

None of this was about Github, as it was comparing self hosted HG vs self hoted GIT.
"circumvent" makes it sound like they're not taking the straight-line path and ignoring western democratic values and getting away with it
Were they having troubles accepting deposits?
> if you're going out of your way to promote an ideology/cultural value domestically (Happy Pride Month!, flags everywhere, etc)

A cynic might even suspect the value signal is more about marketing than deeply held belief.
I'm surprised that neither of the big tech companies are building their own competing game/graphics engine.
So your saying you came up with another cool loss function to add to the network.