skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I disagree.

Yeah, you always start out with K/V pairs but it never takes long until you need the same configuration but just with a slight tweak here or there. For example consider the same configuration but for different running environments.

People always come up with custom solutions per tool which some sort of metaprogramming, again in YAML. This is just bonkers IMO.

So why not just use a proper language from the beginning?
Not CRA related, but is it as simple to move an existing Vue2 project to Vite?
Build B2C startups for fame, B2B startups for profitability
Agree 100%, slack is the wrong tool for the job in this case.

Your proposal is a cool idea, and there are even self-hostable FOSS clones available.

See: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2267/are-there-any-...
Why can't such interesting articles be published without the unnecessary profanity? It actually prevents me from sharing it with a lot of people.
A python script that uses an html template to send an email if very simple to write. The bigger job is probably to scrape the data, though that's also simple if you know specifically what you want from a given source.
"Why..." and "How..." titles are edited to remove those words. That's been the case for years. The submitter gets a 2 hour or so window to edit the title if they don't like the changes.
Just got hard AppleScript PTSD.
One excel file with Monthly budgeting and expenses. I do not track money on a day to day basis. I assign myself x amount a month for expenses and I am good as long as I do not exceed that amount.
> that doesn’t involve financial institutions (that give people at least some protection).

What protection? They take the wire. Charge fees. That’s pretty much it. Corp clients don’t have Reg E.
Well I personally prepend @everyone to all my messages.
Unfortunately, I've seen an internal stackoverflow fail right out the gate because of clout chasing. For example, people asking questions only to answer it themselves immediately.
> You have a good point that featureful standard library doesn't necessarily result in less boilerplate, but I assumed that you kinda implied it by enumerating features.

Gotcha, I appreciate the back and forth which helped me to clarify that point a bit better :)

> What I find most lacking from the C++ standard library is actually coherence.

I 100% agree. There are plenty of areas that C++ is very lacking, and I think this comment highlights that.

I initially started this thread off because a big complaint I hear among C++ users is the language is a bloated mess, which is why the parent comment saying that C++ had a thin standard library didn't ring true to me. But I think what you're saying here is closer to the truth. It has a lot of good features, but they're mostly after thoughts and poorly integrated. Whereas a language like Rust (or another modern language) has around the same amount of features builtin, but they're more focused, integrated, and planned :)
Supplement anecdote: I really like Floradix because it doesn’t make me puke like the over-the-counter Ferrous Sulfate tablets always do: https://www.floradixusa.com/products/floradix-iron-herbs-liq...
What's wrong with that? On the real StackOverflow, that's not only allowed but encouraged, and it doesn't seem to cause problems like that.
What jasonkester might have been thinking of is that peers are eligible to sit in the House of Lords.
> Large miners have capital reserves to hold the Bitcoin if they can't sell it profitably. I'm guessing 2 years runway for well managed large operations.

“Well managed” is the key sentence here. A number of larger miners became addicted to using cheap capital to fuel massive hashrate growth, and it’s coming back to bite them. Riot Blockchain had about one quarter of cash left as of their last filing; they’ve been selling off digital currency holdings into a falling market.
It's probably cost related. Don't want any extraneous jobs running on AWS, someone might automate that as an attack.
Yes. And what happens when an element defined by utility classes only needs to change properties in different context?
Havana Syndrome: Embassy Intrigue
Which is exactly what SO encourages one to do.
I have yet to receive a point by point rebuttal with any kind of real data or sourcing. It always ends up in deflection or something along the lines of a conspiracy theory (any debate of which is infamously unproductive).

I would like for blockchain technology to find its rightful place as a unique solution to a real problem with actual user adoption and meaningful real world impact but after 13 years, substantial investment, and several pivots/rebrands/etc it hasn't been successful at anything (relative to the total potential user base/"addressable market" of 5 billion internet users).

I like to look at it as if Bitcoin (and to a larger extent blockchain) were a single technology startup. Let's call it "Blockchain Inc". If it weren't for the religious fervor of true believers, speculators, "hodlers" doing anything and everything to pump it, etc no investor or group of investors in their right mind would keep pouring untold billions of dollars into Blockchain Inc after its pivoted over half a dozen times, still has essentially no real world use case, and no meaningful user adoption (when compared to other 13 years old startups, platforms, technologies, etc with or without equivalent investment).

It's a failed tech startup being propped up by speculation and its own engine of propaganda and constructed media narrative.
The world is falling apart and people are still worried about harmless words. Talk about misplaced concerns...
It's not a bad thing, it's just not as good of a thing. You want the benefits of meditating? Meditate. You don't want them? Than don't.

The bar is where you set it for yourself. And that's part of the point - complete internal reflection, rather than awaiting someone else's instructions and/or approval.
Q&A: Carver Mead revolutionized computers. Can he do the same for physics?
I'm tempted to email the author answering that question, because it's actually a really good and profound question.

Edit: except I can't, there's no way to contact him from the blog. Oh well, in case OP is the author:

In addition to programs that read code and do what it says (interpreters, like Python), there's another class of programs called "compilers" that translate code from one language to another. One kind of compiler (an assembler) translates assembly language into the specific numbers (representing instructions) that the computer hardware can understand and run. Some of these are able to do this for a computer other than the one they're running on.

So, the bottom of the stack is generally... another computer. When you make a new computer, you write a compiler (or assembler) on your old computer that will generate programs the new computer will run... And those programs include compilers and assemblers for the new computer so it can host its own development after that.

The obvious next question is, how did the first computer get programmed? And the answer is, by hand: what an assembler does can be done by hand, by a patient person, so someone did that and then keyed in the numbers manually (old computers had front panels with switches to manually read / write memory, for just this purpose).
That's why I stick to low level programming, embedded systems, etc. It minimizes toolchain churn.

But this is an inevitable problem in the industry in general, you just have to keep up and learn when required.
David Cope's been making algorithmic music for a while - not current but worth knowing about:
http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/

edit:
There's also this on ambient endless generative music that I think was an HN submission a couple of years ago
https://generative.fm/
The Revenge of the Malthusians and the Science of Limits
Check this out [1]

[1] https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9385-low-bloo...
Toicon.com embeds your IP-address in the SVG icon file you've downloaded
That makes sense, I think that's more of a reason for not enforcing the streak so strictly. Giving levay days helps you not obsessed over it. Also, for a user who lost his streak and is devastated over it, I do think Duo support helps them restore it. I do think they realize it's just a number and there is not need to traumatized people over losing it.
Github also can't send webhooks to ipv6 only hosts.
> Please encouragement only, no discouragement. I’m discouraged enough already.

Please, ask your therapist why you are not married and paste the answer here.

Watch Kevin Samuels on youtube.
Weird, the stats on the first graph show the 6to4 traffic being extremely minimal
People who grew up in Berlin tend to have become enamored a bit with Tegel. I moved to Berlin later and always hated Tegel (though never as much as I've hated Schönefeld which was a kafkaesque nightmare).

It's true that Tegel was conveniently located and that boarding could be quite fast in terminal A. But if your flight got delayed after you were through security you would be stuck in a crammed space and your only opportunities for food would be overpriced Pretzels. And the whole thing was just outrageously ugly.
Why not go for 1000 years mortgages or more? Serious question. Don’t stop going up in years until the monthly instalments are fractions of a cent. What could go wrong?
I should have been more clear. I was trying to add context as to why Facebook deleted certain abortion related posts / ads.
But hey, you need to keep those PMs busy!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
> Doesn't requiring operators of coal plants to produce less electricity have the effect of reducing emissions from power plants a task that was given to the EPA.

Sure, along with other undesirable effects. But just as it is a mistake to decide what authority they have based on just their name, it would also be a mistake to do so based on just a one–sentence summary. We really should be quoting out of the enabling legislation.

Suffice to say that this legislation is long and complex, but it specifically gives the EPA the authority to mandate design improvements to new power plants (prior to construction) so that they will operate at the best possible efficiency, and also the authority to mandate the installation of new systems to reduce the pollution put out by both existing plants and new ones. This has historically been things like scrubbers to remove pollutants from the waste stream. Think of new hardware devices that you can add to a plant or a factory that reduce the pollution while maintaining their function.

The EPA tried to argue that they had devised a “system” under the meaning of the law that allowed them to shift power generation from coal to gas or renewable power. The Court pointed out that this would gut the word of all useful meaning, and that it would give the EPA the power to unilaterally decide the entire industrial policy of the country. They would be able to use the same language to simply ban almost anything they wanted, and it’s pretty clear that Congress never intended that. The EPA could use that new authority to reduce pollution by banning virtually all industrial activity, causing it all to be done in other countries, for example.

There is another interesting aspect of the enabling legislation. It requires the EPA to investigate multiple systems that achieve the goal of reducing some specific pollutant from some specific source (such as soot from a power plant or whatever), then to determine how much reduction the best of those systems would achieve. Then instead of mandating that everyone has to install that specific system, they are allowed to mandate that everyone must achieve the same reduction by some means. This gives the operators a chance to beat the EPA on either cost or performance, and avoids forced mistakes. If the EPA accidentally selects the second–best system rather than the best, nobody is forced to use a sub–par means of reducing the pollutant.

However, in the case of the EPA’s new generating–shifting “system”, everybody would be required to participate in the same way for it to work. The opinion states: “By contrast, and by design, there is no control a coal plant operator can deploy to attain the emissions limits established by the Clean Power Plan.”

You should at least read the six–page syllabus to the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
In previous teams I've worked hard to make sure slack isn't the place for decisions to be made that are any greater than where to go for lunch. Same with bigger questions as well.

Slack is great for small insignificant chatter but developers need long uninterrupted periods of quiet to work. That doesn't go well with an IM system that people expect to get big questions answered or key decisions made with.

If the team needs to discuss a key decision everyone should be given time to digest the information at hand and respond. That might be in a synchronous meeting or over an asynchronous email but either way people need to have time to think and contribute. Slack prioritises whoever is first to reply and no one wants to read a 50+ message thread to figure out if they have relevant input.

If someone external to my team wants to ask a question thats of any significance I'll try to jump in and set their expectations. If it requires input from multiple people on my team then it's best done over something slower like email / collaborative docs, or as a last resort a meeting. If it's internal to the team I'll try and push it out to a mechanism that allows people to set time aside to consider the topic and respond.

Most questions in and around the team are small and less opinion based. How does X work? How do I do Y? When did Z change? Anything like that is usually fine to be answered by anyone when they get a moment and doesn't require much input from the whole team, Slack is totally fine. To help out I like using the slack action thing for when someone joins a teams channel to let them know that it could take a bit to get an answer because the team may be focused on something else.

As you say, emergencies are different. Those are raised via alerting of some sort and interrupt people in a different method.
That's nice to know. I read it when I was 18/19 while travelling on the New York City subway from Far Rockaway into Manhattan. Twice a day for 3 months and sometimes outside it. I still know the opening line "A screaming comes across the sky". Difficult book.
There's also more nuance than that, in that the Liberals' position changed substantially over time. Gladstone's party was one that very much believed in lowering taxes and lowering state expenditure, with the idea that the individual knew best how to allocate resources and would only be stifled by the fetters of government. This cutting back of the economic role of the state was the "Retrenchment" part of the Liberal slogan "Peace, Retrenchment and Reform". It was the New Liberals, at the turn of the 20th century, who split with the old Liberalism and turned the party into one that supported rudimentary state welfare.

Furthermore, it is not as simple either as saying that the Tories "aligned with nobility". The Whigs were a very aristocratic bunch — just look at the government that passed the Reform Act 1832.[0] In fact, the Whigs enjoyed greater support among the high aristocracy: "Among the very greatest landowners, those who held at least 10,000 acres worth at least £10,000 per year, the proportion of Liberals increases."[1] Overall, the divide between the Tories and the Whig element of the Liberals in the 19th century can be hard to nail down or understand precisely because it doesn't easily correlate with any one factor, such as religion (they were nearly all Anglican, but some had sympathy for nonconformists), social origin (they were largely drawn from landowners, but there were various ranks among them) or ideology (although things tended to be more clean-cut there — there's a reason nonconformist industrialists sided with the Whigs rather than the Tories), but seems rather to have been a combination of these things and more, including family tradition; and the Whigs themselves have been seen as a conservative element who simply had the pragmatism to enact such reform as would allow them to preserve their dominant position in society.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Grey,_2nd_Earl_Grey#Lo...
[1] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1750-0206...
Good, the copyright should expire (even, in my opinion, copyright should be abolished). It should not last as long as it did.

However, Disney should not abandon characters and other things in their work even if they are not copyright.
You would not celebrate your 10 year anniversary, which would connote 10 years of "continuous sobriety" or 3650 days in a row without a drink.
Thanks for hosting on not-github!
You can abuse it the point of meaningless, but I'd guess most people don't. If you are committed to practicing every day, it's a motivator, and the streak freezes are nothing more than a bit of leniency for cases where something unforeseen happened. I have a long streak and have only occasionally used them. The streak actually represents sustained, long-term effort.
Heck, that spot in Jupiter could be a 2000 million years old conscius, "alive" entity.

For a thing like that, humans would be like amoebas are to us, and probably will take to humanity maybe hundreds of thousands of years in evolution in every aspect to reach the point where we could go and say "hey, hi there".

Humans have a tremendously inflated of sense of superiority for simple developments achieved, like science, technology, language, etc. And little aprecciation for hard to achieve developments like real sustainability beyond just consuming every natural resource available around us, true value grow beyond simple economic grow,

which means we gave culture and true adaptation to environments the simplest meaning possible: everything we create at some point are just the means to survive, to fully dominate the ground.

You know, sustainability is what we know for certain the key development to be achieved if you want your species to keep evolving a billion of years in the future. Just like that, take a look to an aligator and see what an incredible achievement is that, they were side by side with dinosaurs, and now are here, with us.

The most advanced intelligent species on Earth couldn't be us humans, but maybe those hive-forest of thousands of years old, maybe whales are vastly intelligent, so high in the tree of evolution that they are completely alien to us, and we see the lack of "civilization" as false symbol of lack of intelligence. Similarly we could think about the dolphins, octopuses, elephants, etc.

These species have already thrived on Earth for millions of years, in full symbiosis with the planet, overcoming unthinkable threats and deadly planetary events, they don't even require technology to feed themselves as species and keep persisting along extremely long periods of time, they have culture, language, even individual personalities,

but hey, they can't be conscious because they don't talk aloud with humans, and of course they can't be conscius because they don't build technology.

(but you know, culture and language ARE technology and under this standard their technology would have millions of years of refinenment).

Maybe we - as a species - have gave a lot more of credit to "organized civilization" of what actually is its real value.
> Looks like the paper covers this, and counter-intuitively, most supply-shocks do not have far-reaching impacts to the global supply.

Thanks. Yes, I find that counterintuitive too. But note that in the publicly released data and model, the authors make highly simplifying assumptions about the limits of supply sources and edge capacities -- see lines 202-208 of the paper. In the real world, sources have limits at which you just can't get more flow at any cost, and edges have limits at which you can't transport more flow at any cost. I wonder how the responses to supply shocks would look if subject to hard limits on supply sources and edge capacities.
> And It is hard to mediation when you don't know basically about Buddhism - This is my guess from what did you write.

Why? There's nothing inherently Buddhist about meditation; there's no reason to bring religion into this. Buddhism is a tradition that has been practicing meditation for a long time, but their practice is shrouded in their mysticism, so it's difficult to know what's real and what isn't.

This is coming from someone who once thought like you, by the way. Although I am an atheist, I read a lot about Buddhism and meditation, even medidated with a monk. The religious aspects are a complete waste of time, so you're better off learning from a secular source.
Anyone tried just swapping this in with their current web pack pipeline? What are the pain points? Is it even possible?
The thread on the second link gives some clue as to why things are the way they are
During university i did a lot of small jobs on rentacoder.com. By the time i applied to my first job i already had experience. If its not too late give freelancing websites a try. Even small tasks will expose you to new things and give you a bit of usable experience.
Neither of your comments answer my question about level of comfort. I would be interested to hear your answer to that question.
I know everyone is here to complain about the mess that is "modern" frontend work. But I have to say, I started using Vite a week ago to bootstrap a new project using Typescript, Preact, and Tailwind, and I'm loving it. There is one weird quirk in where it insists the index.html file should be. But if you can live with that, Vite takes care of the details for me and gets out of my way. It also bundles everything exactly how I would have set it up by hand. I think it's weird that it insists its mostly a dev server. It does that well. But it's also a very good bundler with good defaults. I'd recommended it to anyone who just wants to get started, and wants a good middle ground between esbuild and parcel.
Because being “behind” on front end technologies is a sure fire way of ending up jobless and irrelevant.
3D Printing Grows Beyond Its Novelty Roots
What exactly do you have in mind in terms of a community? Are you looking to develop a platform or use existing platforms?
Hanna Chang quitting Google to work for Collectors.com
In my view the question asker can help themselves by asking better questions, if they aren't already. Sometimes people ask vague questions, and it's hard to respond to them, even if you want to. This is something we're working on in my team: ask specifically for what you want, tell the other person that it's important, and also, crucially, tell them when you need the response by.

But, assuming they are already asking good questions and just not getting good responses, they should instead be asking for a synchronous meeting with the other developer. They should be pairing, or screen sharing, or at the very least looking at each other when they talk. An ad hoc 15-minute meeting is a slight pain in the ass, but better than a Slack conversation spanning 2 days, followed by a 25 minute retrospective discussion on what went wrong.

Try to make it part of your team culture that, when somebody is blocked, anybody who can help them needs to put down what they're doing and unblock them as fast as possible. This was a firm rule on the most successful team I ever worked on, and I have carried it forward ever since then. It's better for everybody if they can expect to get help and are expected to give it.
Yep. Hell I'm guilty of the same thing. I'm saying "we" should unionise and it's a good thing to do - while not unionising myself. My defence (excuse!) is that I'm a foreigner, my local language skills suck to the point that I'd struggle to understand local employment law so I'd be a pretty awful person to spearhead this :)