skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
What is constructive user feedback? That doesn’t help the software become better?

Not that the original email was that, necessarily. But in general.

We have such a code-obsessive—and elitist too—view of “contributing”. Oh so you are not gonna learn a new build system, a new programming language, our code guideline, and how to use our pull request checklist? Tsk tsk, then it’s not interesting to us that people with astigmatism can’t read the texts in our popups.
The claim of "American Exceptionalism" was a cornerstone of the Bush Jr. presidency. Notably, the Obama presidency continued it, both in word (speeches) and in action (death from the sky).
> a lot of lawyers are about to make a lot of money.

The one thing written in this thread that I am 100% confident is true.
If it is a myth, then it's a noble lie.
> Is there just no monogamy in the gay male community?

Of course there is. There are also, for example, gay men who obstain from sex altogether for religious reasons. These group just doesn't get as much attention.

But the distributions are a bit different and the tail of the distribution is longer. See for example https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3334840/

Number of partners, last year [median, range]:
* Heterosexual men: 1 (0–99)
* Heterosexual women: 1 (0–7)
* MSM (Urban Men’s Health Study): 4 (0–500)
* MSM (Seattle MSM RDD): 2 (0–300)

Number of partners, lifetime [median, range]:
* Heterosexual men: 8 (1–99)
* Heterosexual women: 6 (1–99)
* MSM (Urban Men’s Health Study): 45 (0–9005)
We don't want him to own it, but if he's being forced to after making all the self-righteous fuss earlier this year, it's extremely funny.
They lost 80% of engineering talent, baking a custom framework every single new joiner would have to learn would be a colossal waste of resources.
There seems to be a mindset among a large number of people that if a person's behaviors fall into certain socially "protected" categories, that they should be able to do whatever they want, with no consequences, or if there are consequences, they should be compensated for by the rest of society.
Not sure about the US but outside the US it has vastly increased its size. Most of the people I know in my local community are unvaccinated, and none of them ever expressed any opinions about vaccines before COVID. Many are tech firm employees or former tech firm employees.

The so-called "anti vax" community was supposedly a tiny minority. In the country where I live, the majority of the population is not boosted despite the government advising everyone to get a booster. Most people now recognize that government health advice about vaccines is wrong and to be ignored. That wasn't the case even just one year ago.
Switzerland and Japan doesn't have land to sell, so it's not a good example for the ideal of home ownership.

Things run 'fine' because the immigrants and majority of swiss people have no foothold in the country. There is very little opportunity to sway the dial in their own favour, so the people who make the compromises and let go of everything are happy with it.
Nice, doesn't seem to work on firefox though, guess it's chrome only?
He is a man who owns and can raise massive amounts of money and promise smart people the ability to build something they want to build. That he gets so much credit for his ventures is a very strange thing to me given how many he has vs how few hours in the day he must have to actually pay any attention to them.
Musk has lied repeatedly in public, so it's difficult to assume good faith from him.
That's not how hypocrisy works.
You can also go to bookshop.org, buy the book there (usually for about the same price as Amazon), and most of the profit goes to a local bookstore (which you can choose) instead of a big search engine with warehouses.
First off I think it's good that the author distinguishes between 'greatness' and subjective preference but I think the entire analysis is overly quantitative. It's a very long piece so I'll just take one example, the power and influence across the world:

>"One may of course argue that this situation is changing, albeit slowly, but at the moment the contrast is startling: the sphere of Russian influence does quite reach Kyiv (about 150 miles from the Russian border) and the sphere of Chinese influence does not quite reach Taipei (about the same distance, but over water), but American influence evidently reaches both despite the former being 4,300 miles and the latter 6,500 miles away from American shores."

While that is true one can't talk about influence without talking about depth and quality. Russia and China have more limited reach, but the countries where in particular Russia has had an influence, Russian culture deeply permeates. One only needs to visit Kazakhstan to see the influence from its very system of politics at the top and well into the private homes. US influence around the world is wide but often times quite shallow. It's mirrored in military disappointments despite overwhelming power. Vietnam, Afghanistan recently, and so on. Same in the sphere of culture. Despite the overwhelming dominance of the US and the UK as well and, the Chinese haven't all become American, as people are noticing now, despite what they thought in the 90s. Even South America diverges pretty widely from the US compared to say, Russia and its direct periphery.

And I think this is to an extent true within the US as well. The author rightfully points out the dominance of US education in sheer numbers, but the US also seems to have unique troubles to translate this into social tools. For all the high quality of top tier American education and money, it hasn't necessarily created exceptional outcomes broadly, even compared to much poorer nations.

There's a thinness to American exceptionalism that is often masked by the focus on numbers and size. While the country is exceptionally rich, the life expectancy is not exceptionally high, but lower than in Cuba. And I think articles like this which pretend to be objective do intentionally wave that aside.
The utterly inefficient and overpriced Canadian telecoms exist only because we allow one specific behavior:

1. A new local player comes to town, builds their own infrastructure (e.g. connects one building to fiber) and starts offering competitive service.

2. Rogers/Shaw/Bell/Telus immediately offer better terms for the residents of that building.

3. The competitor runs out of money and leaves.

4. The telecoms revert to their usual pricing.

This hurts competition, this hurts customers, this hurts long-term infrastructure resilience, but not a single politician ever comes close to even admitting the problem. I understand you cannot do it on the federal level where both major parties are on the telecoms' payroll, but it could be a very low-hanging fruit for someone running for a municipal position to address. But nope, identity politics, words, feelings and fighting climate change with paper straws seem to be what the electorate wants instead. Sad.
https://open.spotify.com/track/2KL9mHCn3aSZJzxpJM4HNb
I don't understand the distinction Matt Levine is trying to make. He signed an agreement to buy Twitter without doing due diligence first. Isn't that the same thing as waving due diligence?
>> "the debts that we’ve had to accumulate"

Like the $5B (and counting) for bungling the KC-46 design?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-46_Pegasus#Flight_...
The stock market went way down, twitter suddenly cost much less. Tesla worth less too, so harder to use it as collatoral.
We would not have ANY COVID vaccines if not for the _billions_ of dollars the US government spent with Operation Warp Speed. The entire operation (warp speed, building and funding multiple vaccines at once to only keep the working one at the end) was something the government designed _decades ago_ and kept as a potential mitigation for pandemics. We're in a position for you to comfortably post hot garbage takes from a brand new throwaway account from the COVID-free safety of your home because the government acted to respond to this pandemic...
Notice this is a reimplementation in js. It's hosted on GitHub with no db. The original was a bit more sophisticated, with a lot of collaborative breeding stuff enabled by server-side code.
I don’t understand have 911 service is impacted, doesn’t essential services have redundancy?

Society is fragile
We're celebrating the forcing part, not the actual buying part.
44 - 20 = 24 != 22
What does automation have to do with building more affordable housing?
Fine, in some cases the bad guy with a gun hasn't shot someone. In some cases the guy with a knife or brick has injured someone. What is the balance? It is easier to shoot someone than it is to stab them or brick them. If you succeed, the damage is much greater in the former case than the latter. This isn't just speculation. This is borne out by evidence. In the UK there is a lot of knife violence. It is much less lethal than our gun violence. This isn't because UK thugs are less competent. It is because it requires less competence to injure someone grievously with a gun.

I don't see how this has any bearing on anything.
You’re probably looking at the requirements for early access to permanent residency.

Work visa’s for skilled work categories in Japan aren’t particularly hard to come by. You just need a qualification or a few years relevant work experience.
> because he has much less overhead.

Well, when you're selling hardware that you can't support because it's pirated or fake, you do tend to have less overhead.
You're at a National Park. In Canada, it's crown land. In America, it's your park. The Canadian mentality is different.
So that's why my urinal cakes have been disappearing.
Eek - now I'm glad I wait a few months before buying each disk for my NAS.

Not doing it for this reason but rather financial ones :) But as I have a totally mixed bunch of sizes I have no RAID and a disk loss would be horrible.
https://open.spotify.com/album/5YisV9UHQtoAZHtbLrva9r
I think that's silly. He already sold tons in the last 6 months just to pay taxes. Did he sell extra?
NestJS v9 is now available
I appreciate your efforts on keeping HN orderly. I see 3 comments that have been flagged. My theme in all of them are to encourage people to take personal responsibility for their actions. Clearly, I need to reflect more on what unsubstantive means on HN.
Well, we should not ignore that the gay community is diverse and that there is room for vastly different experiences within it
You can also choose your favorite local bookstore on bookshop.org and order from there.
I really like your SPOT better than SSoT, the acronym is so much more on point, really hits the "spot"
“In April 2021, Rogers customers reported interruptions to wireless voice and data services for several hours. Rogers blamed that outage on a glitch tied to an Ericsson software upgrade”. Rogers has rolled out 5G with Ericsson equipment and I hope this outage is not related to Ericsson activities. Network upgrades are usually performed late at night during low traffic, so it shouldn’t be the case.
>'Everyone on his side now thinks he's a bastion of free speech, and he can forever say "If I owned Twitter, I would have...".'

Doesn't he kind of forfeit that bragging right if he tries to walk away from the deal though?

>"Twitter got what they wanted. They didn't want Elon to own the company, but they also couldn't ignore the offer."

What happens to their stock price after this though if this deal doesn't happen? Hasn't it basically been flat or trending down for some time before this current situation? Doesn't Twitter still have all the same problems they had before this current circus started?

Also is there a possibility that if that deal doesn't happen there becomes a bigger spotlight on Twitter's future filings in regards to their quoted percentage of "fake or spam accounts on Twitter’s platform"?
I certainly don't mean to endorse DUIs! And if a company has the viewpoint that a DUI indicates that a person shouldn't be employed in a specific role, then background checks are a good way to achieve that.

My perception is that some people who don't want to do background checks feel that way because they don't want to know embarrassing details about their employees and colleagues that aren't relevant to work. And the good news is that employers can generally set up background check reporting to simply not report issues that employers don't think are relevant. And that makes it easier to offer background checks, and easier to meet SOC-2 audit requirements.
The filed letter (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000110465922...) isn't the knockdown argument I would be expecting.

Musk is saying, you haven't demonstrated your numbers are accurate. But having signed the merger agreement and waived due diligence, I think he needs to demonstrate that they are _not_ accurate. Complaining Twitter rate-limited his API access (which would be very foolish on their part) or that their bot measurement standards are "arbitrary" doesn't seem to get there.

The letter complains that Musk asked for data allowing him to "independently verify Twitter's representations regarding the number of mDAU" -- but where does the agreement provide for that verification as a condition of the deal? Maybe Twitter didn't provide sufficient information for Musk to "independently verify" that number -- that means nothing without showing Twitter had a duty to provide that information, or that Musk had a right to his own verification. (Any lawyer agreeing to the other side's verification of such a thing probably isn't a very good lawyer.)

The last paragraph, complaining about firings and hiring freezes and departures, seems positively desperate. Who seriously cares about this stuff?

"I relied on your numbers but now they seem soft" is different than "I relied on your numbers but now they are clearly wrong".

I have enormous respect for his engineering and business skills, he's accomplished some remarkable things. But he doesn't seem so great as a dealmaker. Perhaps he's badly advised, but hey, he chose his advisors.

I would think Twitter will sue for specific performance, and they probably have a case. And Musk is liable for their full market cap, and any trial would depend on a legal team that has a hard time writing a clear letter. I think Musk is in trouble here.
>"anything not illegal is allowed" sounds decent to me; if you want stuff illegal, make it illegal.

Twitter is based in the US, the 1st Amendment protects hate speech such as explicit support for genocide. I don't consider a social network full of genocide promotion to be a good thing.
The crucial M4 had this too but it was fixable with a firmware update.

https://www.neoseeker.com/news/18098-64gb-crucial-m4s-crashi...
"Fantastic Fungi" documentary, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Fungi, trailer, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxABOiay6oA, and on Netflix.
An established social media platform's most valuable asset is the size of its userbase. Even with the reach of Musk, I think it would be hard to attract a large enough userbase to make the product more compelling than Twitter.
> This isn't a good idea organizationally though.

It's absolutely necessary for very large organizations though. The alternative of trying to centrally plan the IT operations of an organization of, say, 500,000, gets to be quickly intractable.

Groups try to do it with frameworks like SAFe and while that may help a little bit, in the end you need to treat different parts of the organization as individual silos that are able to control and execute on their specific mission set within the wider org. Otherwise the complexity of the problem set they're dealing with makes it impossible to do anything without breaking other systems or teams.
I see so many people get these two conflated, across the board, any time something like this happens. Some big leak or outage or whatever.

The shocking part is not that they are giving no updates. Everyone is to expect that. The shocking part is that we (collectively) don't care that they give no updates, and let them get away with it.
So you think he would be more deserving of credit if he only did SpaceX? instead of SpaceX, Tesla, NeuraLink, etc?
Elon Musk made the offer himself, he wasn't coerced into it or did it without sufficient public information.

He's an adult.
It's not hypocritical to complain that:

1) Elon Musk, as owner of Twitter, would prioritize profits over free speech and other concerns.

2) Elon Musk, as a participant in a binding legal agreement, should not be allowed to break it on a whim.
What do you think "isolate" means exactly? Are you aware that COVID test-trace-isolate involved forcing people to not leave their homes, i.e. mandatory house arrest for anyone who tested positive?

Given that monkeypox disproportionately affects gay men, your proposed policy would require the government to somehow identify that population, engage in regular mass testing of them and then actively police them to prevent them going out and infecting other people. Remember that tests have false positives. Many of the people who tested positive for COVID had no symptoms at all, or symptoms so mild they'd hardly noticed, so you can bet that mass testing for monkeypox would yield some steady stream of FPs as well.

You really think that's going to happen? If you think our governments would even countenance that policy for a second when it'd disproportionately impact LGBT people then, well, you don't live on the same planet as I do!
Which only shows Musk is shit himself,
His legal team maintains Twitter is in material breach of multiple provisions of the Agreement and appears to have made false and misleading representations.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000110465922...
I'm on the fence about whether he's intentionally bullshitting or whether he's just off the charts optimistic to the point of being a bit delusional. It seems like when he becomes convinced that something is physically possible he goes "all in" and jumps right to "yeah we can do this now!"

I've met a lot of engineers like this. I can occasionally do it at times. I think maybe the difference with him is that he has a ton of capital and a massive reputation from amazing successes like SpaceX VTOL rockets, which makes people take his sometimes unhinged optimism seriously.

On a personal character level I hear lots of conflicting stores and don't know the guy, so I remain agnostic. If the bad stuff is true it comes down to that eternal "separating the artist from the art" question. Can you still like a musicians' music if they are an asshole (or worse)? Same question here.
Slashdot is a slurry of Reddit and HN. My goto when bored with reddit and hn...
The act of creating something deserves to be celebrated, even if it doesn't meet your standards for quality! Good job!
I'm being dense it seems, because I don't see what microservices brings to this. What's the fundamental difference in this regard between shipping an executable with a bunch of dynamic libraries, and deploying a bunch of microservices?
Mlvt: Machine Learning Visualization Tools in the Terminal
One of the charges in the MAX crashes were that _it did_ need a whole new training class
This is good to hear.

There's something like a cognitive bias that makes me leary of genetics (in any language). Once you have some cross cutting feature, generics or object orientation, or in functional programming, those functions of type 'a->'a, or assembly language address modes, people get bogged down by trying to make everything in their work generic or object oriented or "orthogonal". Lemire's example is relevant to his topic, but it could be a poster child if someone else did it. They need to sum an array of int. So they spend 4 days getting a function and a generic type that can sum every numerical type, rather than 15 minutes to sum int arrays.

What's this called?
It should be noted that this is largely because Musk agreed to it.

The normal remedy for breach of contract is for the breaching party to have to pay the other party monetary damages sufficient to put the other party in the monetary position they would have been in had the contract not been breached. Court generally will only order someone to actually go through with the contract (which is called specific performance) if monetary damages won't work for some reason.

For example if we have a contract for me to sell you a million microcontrollers at $1 each, which you are going to use to make a million units of some gadget that you are going to sell for a profit of $0.10 each, and I find someone who will give me $2 each for the microcontrollers and so let you know I'm going to breach the contract and sell my microcontrollers to them, a court is very unlikely to order me to honor the contract. They will order me to pay you $100k, the profit you were anticipating making from our deal (and probably attorney fees, and other costs you'd incur dealing with the breach).

But, according to this blog [1] at Findlaw:

> If Musk tries to abandon the deal, Twitter could sue him and ask for specific performance. This remedy is usually hard to get, but Musk agreed to a powerful specific performance clause in the merger agreement. In fact, he didn't just agree that Twitter could get specific performance. He promised that he wouldn't argue it couldn't (forgive the double-negative).

I'm unable to think of any good reason one would agree to that.

[1] https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/courtside/is-elon-musk-go...
He was specifically looking for

> 1. Information related to Twitter’s process for auditing the inclusion of spam and fake accounts in mDAU.

> 2. Information related to Twitter’s process for identifying and suspending spam and fake accounts.

His principle activity is influencing. The main sticking point of the proposed merger is information on how Twitter polices fake accounts. Nothing suspicious about this at all. Reminds me of the time a wolf was interested in buying my farm, and mainly wanted to know when my dog was chained up and how long the chain was exactly.
It's stuff like this that leaves me despondent as a technologist. Are these the people whose lives we've spent decades trying to make easier? I'm starting to suspect most people don't actually want their lives to be easier.

I've been writing software professionally for twenty years, and the worst thing that ever happened to the internet, in my mind, was making it essential to people's lives. I suspect if it started out as essential in the 90s, the free software movement would never have happened.
> but the backlash from people in regards to Tesla, SpaceX, and just the general public

There's no way he didn't foresee this.

It would be shocking if he is lacking in self-awareness to that extent.
> Doesn't he kind of forfeit that bragging right if he tries to walk away from the deal though?

I actually don't think so, he gets it more because "liberal big tech tried to screw him and he was smart enough to walk away"
> Musk's misguided approach to free speech, which says anything that is not explicitly illegal is allowed

That's what free speech is, whether or not you agree that such a policy of unrestricted free speech is constructive or beneficial.
I like to think that I'm a fantastic fun guy
he wasn't (or isn't) aiming to sell the stock, he was/is aiming to finance the purchase using his Tesla stock as security. So this line of argument... Doesn't really make sense?

This is all publicly available. Due to leverage, he faced ruin if Tesla fell below X (whatever X is) if he funded it all himself. So he opened his side of the deal up to other people, and allowed other large shareholders to come inside his tent - which reduced his exposure.
Then the market dropped 15%.

Matt Levine has an excellent series of newsletters covering it.