skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Someone told me about one that's a level worse than that: 90 day password expiration notices that tell the user to do the wrong thing!
You talk about automation, but a lot of these bad decisions are made by humans! Overworked and underpaid ones.
How does this deal with changing URLs?

Eg Gmail has been over the last decade: gmail.com, mail.google.com and now www.google.com/mail
It's incredibly easy to simply add the ticket number to branch names (or commits if you're rebasing your branches when you merge). Many times the ticket isn't helpful, but "just make the commit/branch self-explanatory" ignores the fact that non-developers - product folks, designers, etc. - are far more likely to leave useful context in the ticket itself.
It happens when you install the app, not during usage.
I wouldn't say Google Search isn't improving because of the number of employees. Google Search is exactly what it needs to be to serve Google's interests - it's just that their interests don't align with yours.
The frog army videos are probably fake, see https://www.tiktok.com/@greenerbee/video/7108136947738103045
The whole idea of "Continuous Delivery" is not always one that meshes well with some shrink-wrap workflows.

I worked for hardware manufacturers, for most of my career, and software was always just a "sidekick" to The Main Show. We just got the "Supporting Actor" nods.

I'd say that 90% of HN seems to be Web/SaaS (and, these days, crypto), which is an excellent workflow; just not the one I do. Nowadays, I have some integrated stuff, but it's mostly native iOS/TVOS/WatchOS/MacOS deliverables.

CD is nice, but I feel that CI is better, for a team. Even that, is overkill for the way I work. I'm spoiled, I tend to work alone, or very loosely-coupled. That gives me a different workflow from what many experience. I had to spend a couple of years "un-learning" a lot of stuff from my Big Team days.

The way I work results in astonishingly good stuff, very quickly, but the scope is much narrower than what a lot of folks here, do.

As such, I find little utility in telling others that the way they do things is wrong, and that they should be doing it my way. I do talk about how I do things, but I'm not judgmental about it.

I do feel that software quality, in general, is fairly problematic, but don't claim to have the silver bullet. I know what works for me, and I try to stay in my lane.
The malfeasance in Apple's case rests on a few engineers that were flipping the bird (perhaps just at much at Apple upper management as much as at Carl Sagan). A bit of a stretch to make this a "corporate policy" of the likes of Microsoft or Google.
> They're not arguing it's an economic harm to decarbonize, they're pointing out that it cannot physically be done, at all, without some way of storing energy.

If this was true why is the US economy doing so well in the transition off carbon based fuels while being the most inclusive in history[1]?

> This is especially true if you do not classify nuclear energy as green energy

But nuclear is not green [2], and labelling it as such is just green washing.

[1]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2022/01/20/...

[2]: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/07/06/world/eu-votes-natural-ga...
I think there is no right or wrong answer here. Imagine if IT just fixed that screw without a ticket. All good. Few mins. Now a few days later, there is sudden issue with the laptop. Guess what the customer will say ? They will say "Oh I donno, the IT guy put a screw in here last so may be something happened because of that". Now, there is no audit trail and accountability and details and boom, the IT person's job is at risk because they did not follow protocol.

No one wants to take 4 hours to replace a screw. But the answer is not always so cut and dry. The best we can do is to find a balance. For example, the IT guy fixes the screw right there BUT ensures a ticket was put in by the customer within next few hours.
> it was nevertheless predominantly what we today understand as 'white'

I thought so, too, but https://acoup.blog/2021/07/23/collections-the-queens-latin-o... is a well-sourced article that shows that it just wasn't so.
local facebook groups? There will be collectors around you, and I'm sure they don't all go to the shops with a geologists hammer strapped to their hip. (Although that would be cool).
Jeremiah Lee points out that the focus on squad autonomy causes squads to sever ties with all dependencies in order to maximise autonomy, so squads grow and become unmanageable.
They don't have to intentionally rank them higher, but this fact could prevent them from choosing to rank ad-filled sites lower even though it would do wonders for search result quality because ad quantity is usually a good proxy for spamminess and trash.
This such an elaborate conspiracy, even if true, he's set himself up legally to all but have to acquire the company after Twitter beats him in court. This seems much less plausible than Elon is an impulsive person who likes attention.
Into the Forbidden Forest
> That's in a civilized, western EU, country

This feels a lot like Germany (from experience).
I would call this a measure to mitigate the effects of climate change, not reverse it.

I'd like to think that this could be used to buy us time to transition off carbon-intensive and fossil fuels, on to solar and other renewables.

But then, I don't think that human nature is that long-sighted. It would be a mandate to continue.
Voyager Digital had said accounts were FDIC insured, but they weren’t
They wants metrics for everything but surprisingly they always refuse to measure the time people are using to fill those tickets and time spend in meetings everybody dislike.
Dynamic vs. Static Linking: A Referentially Transparent Build Cache
Show HN: WIP – Machine Learning .ipynb boilerplate
> I read that some other journalists are uncomfortable with his questions since they fear that the government might decide to just not show up anymore

The thing in his early days was that he asked and "demanded" a proper answer. But often times the politicians don't want to answer to the question stated. Now you can waste everybody's time and ask again and again, without getting an answer (which is useful if you stream the event) or accept that there won't be an answer and move to the next topic (which is good if you want to write an article)

But meanwhile Jung doesn't play that game that much anymore, but asks good and precise questions and more often then leaves it there.
The main enemy of a better search engine are casual users who are satisfied with Google's mediocrity and don't seek nothing more advanced and better. Power users are the one who suffer the most.

Google will have to reinvent itself or it will eventually destroy itself with
negligence of its core business. There isn't yet critical mass of casual users who think Google sucks, all they think is that the Google is internet. That's their intellectual level.
> Imagine what it would do to literature review to draw from a 'tree of knowledge' of all the supporting texts of a work, or to see all the work that claims to derive particular meaning from some seminal work.

You can visualize all of these things using Scholia https://scholia.toolforge.org . Built on free and open citation data, no need for Google Scholar or anything proprietary.
Yes and no.

I think at least a part of that problem is that the usual support ticketing process infantilizes users. If you call in and the first question is along the lines of "is it plugged in? have you tried turning it off and on again?" then of course your next ticket will take that level of questioning into account. And call in even for a switched off monitor next time. Because they wouldn't ask that question if that wasn't their job to fix, right?

Also, of course users will try and fail to fix issues themselves. They should be applauded for the intent and empowered to be successful next time (if possible). Instead they are usually berated for failing and breaking stuff along the way. Which leads to the usual sheepish "I didn't do anything, I didn't touch it, it always was broken like that".

Of course there is a minimum number of imbeciles. But most people can be educated and empowered, so they do behave like adults when dealing with problems. "The system" just has to give them that chance.
what companies?
While my take may be incredibly silly, jwb, it is a different take than the one you're arguing against, and in some sense diametrically opposed.

My argument is not that specialization in informatics operations is unprofitable; rather, it's that specialization in informatics operations is indispensable for maintaining the negotiating position required to earn a profit. I'm not arguing that there isn't room in the system for the cloud operator to earn a profit; I'm arguing that after committing themselves completely and irrevocably to cloud operators, FedEx will no longer be allowed to earn a profit, or rather, just enough profit to keep their stock price from collapsing.

Now, it may be that the advantage of specializing in informatics is so powerful that this situation is unavoidable, and the only viable option for companies like FedEx is to become, in a sense, franchises of Amazon, Microsoft, Google, or Baidu. You remember when this happened to companies like Intergraph in the 01990s: they were reduced to undifferentiated Microsoft resellers. And it's not clear they really had another option. I'm not confident that the situation is currently so extreme, but maybe it is.

As other commenters have noted, you were pretty comprehensively wrong about iCloud, but that's a minor supporting point.
A genuine question: why should one think "The Economist" is losing touch with reality these days, it will be helpful if you can elaborate.
Not really.

> > * directly accumulate controlling ownership interests in key businesses.

OK, there's things like Catholic healthcare and schools or the Adventists' various interests. They're mostly pretty clearly branded as being Catholic or Adventist affiliated. For the most part, this is not something religions do, though certainly there are areas of concern, like faith-affiliated substance abuse programs used to recruit the vulnerable.

> > * use dubious fundraising and recruitment practices.

OK, perhaps religious fundraising isn't perfect, but most religions do not engage in employing missionaries as quasi-slave-labor to panhandle funds from the public at scale. Of course, you can find an exception or two, like the Salvation Army.

> > * form complex webs of not-obviously-related entities to use in influence operations.

Doing this on anywhere near the scale of the Unification Church is basically unheard of.

> > * have acted as a pseudo-cult of personality of a figure in living memory.

Basically here you've mostly got the Unification Church, Scientology, and various kinds of "prosperity" churches.

> > * are possibly abusive to their members in various ways.

OK, you've got me here: a lot of religions dabble in abusing their members.
Argo workflow as performance test tool
>Real investors making real investment decisions don't know in advance whether sectors like VR or 3D printing or clean tech or low-code/no-code or etc. are going to be hot or duds, they have to guess

Did you just baseline against a random walk?

If so, then at least 60 years of quant investing will beat the model control sample.
You don't have to.

But I don't really see how it relates to efficiency however since all are VMs running their own kernel. It doesn't change anything that they are different versions or not.
I briefly worked at a smaller unicorn. During "all hands" meetings, there would be frequent swearing. One of the "senior executives" gets up there, tells us we need to work harder because he has a ton of stock and he needs to get rich off of it. "Let's f-in get this done guys!!!" Real professionals.

At a earlier company (not near unicorn levels, but raised over $100 million), the CEO gets up on stage. He tells us we need to be willing to work nights and weekends on [major project]. If we don't believe in the vision and the company, we should get out now. "The stairs are in the back of the room!"

Both these companies were awful.
> A difference between Go and Java is that a null Regex in Java will not be implicitly converted to a non-null Stringable containing a null Regex.

You have it exactly backwards--you're arguing that Go should implicitly convert a not-nil interface (that is implemented by a nil pointer) to a nil interface so that Go interfaces behave more like Java interfaces, but Go isn't doing any implicit conversions (unless you consider "assigning a concrete value to an interface" to be an "implicit conversion", but Java does this too).

> implicit conversion from nil pointers to non-nil interfaces containing nil pointers

Again, Go doesn't do any such implicit conversion, and you're arguing the position that it should. An interface is just a tuple containing a pointer to the data and a pointer to the type `(pdata, ptype)`. A nil interface is `(nil, nil)`, and an interface that is implemented by a nil pointer is `(nil, <pointer-to-concrete-type>)`. You're arguing the position that the latter should be implicitly converted to the former, but this would break code that uses nil as a valid value.

The root cause of the problem isn't how Go handles nil pointers in interfaces, but rather that Go has nil pointers, interfaces, etc at all. Go gives you no way to express that a reference type can't be nil, but ideally it would have an enum system like Rust's that makes optionality an opt-in property via `Option<T>`. If an interface `Bar` is implemented by `*Foo` and neither `*Foo` nor `Bar` can be nil, then this problem largely goes away. If `Bar` is implemented by `Option<*Foo>`, then `Option<*Foo>`'s methods need to handle both the `Some(*Foo)` and `None` (i.e., nil) cases.

> that can only be checked for nil using reflection

You don't need reflection:

i, ok := (iface).(*int)
if !ok {
fmt.Println("`iface` is not an `*int`")
}
if i == nil {
fmt.Println("`iface` contains a nil pointer")
}
fmt.Printf("`iface` contains a pointer to `%d`", i)**
A fellow non-physicist, non-scientist here. If I understand correctly the problem is that if you attempt to change the state of one particle, two particles are no longer entangled. In other words you can observe one particle and be sure that the other particle has the same properties but the moment you decide to change one particle's state you can't say anything about the other particle.
Check out "The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt.
> Links make the paper harder to read

Do they? There is no law that mandates that links are blue and underlined.

> often you will not be able to use the links to directly access the source anyway.

This is true and I consider it a tragedy.
> Small Wind Turbines

> Car companies have been relentlessly making electric motors (which generate electricity if spun backward) smaller and cheaper. A small wind turbine only has to be cheaper than retail electricity rates.

It likely won't be cheaper. Small wind turbines have very high levelized cost of energy because:

- The wind at the lower heights they are built at is multiple times weaker and also less consistent than the wind that large turbines can access.

- The power output of a wind turbine is a function of swept area, which is the square of blade length and therefore very limited with small turbines.

No matter the efficiency of the generator it can't make power that the blades can't capture.

Small wind turbines only make sense in off-grid setups in areas with poor solar resources.
Vanadium is too expensive/rare to be used at scale unfortunately. But I believe there are a number of workable chemistries for non-vanadium based flow batteries currently in development.
It is. Capitalism relies on the basic system of supply and demand. When the marginal supply is free - the only proper price is zero - anything else isn't pure Capitalism. And so as free would mean no incentives, we give an even worse of a hack to deal with it, ownership.

A better way to deal with this is to discover what the intrinsic value for the product is, allow the creator to give it away, and then subsidize the creator the value they generated.

The nice thing with this system is that we can transition to it really easily. There are already many Open Source projects that exist, all we need to do is ear-mark a certain sized pot, figure out the weights of existing products, and hand it out. And as the economy gets stronger, allow the pot to grow, and eventually there might not be a thing as closed software, as open software will always be able to generate more value than closed.
You can know the other by observing one, the entanglement is then broken. You cannot change the state remotely. We can't say that the entangled particles were X and Y to begin with because that requires measuring them, which breaks entanglement. Quantum is heavily misreported on, often times by scientific bodies for the purposes of funding.
Least-toxic would probably ve the correct terminology, you are correct.
When temperatures regularly get above 45C or 110F then air conditioning is basic infrastructure for human living conditions.

The link between temperature and human productivity is well established, air conditioning is one of those things that seems frivolous but pays for itself.

And of course transportation of food and other goods is also basic infrastructure for human living conditions. So maybe not electric cars, but electric trains definitely.
Haha just a mistake! Thanks for pointing it out. Sadly I can’t edit it anymore :(
What about bitter melon, which is a popular vegetable consumed throughout Asia?
https://archive.ph/Fy2HF
How would you treat something like "They had the right idea, but their simulation was in 2d only, and we know now that this makes the simulation results garbage. They just happened to get lucky and got garbage that matches the real thing in 3d" with that?
Your ideology to deter crime is quite easy to grasp - implementation via abridging the freedom of speech is problematic.
Note that in this case, a two-thirds majority in the general assembly of members have to confirm the kick-out, which is judging by my experience in other associations a really high bar to clear.

In any case, such a decision can be review by civil court as well whether it actually met the conditions laid out in their charter.
I disagree. Links in the bibliography do not make the paper harder to read.

The rents from locking away research under foolhardy copyright must be removed, I agree on that point.

Zotero solves the first problem way better than Endnote, as an aside.
If you're not careful with this it will turn out to be a general purpose cheat code whenever someone criticizes an idea that you don't want criticized. Just like how crackpots reply with "You just don't understand it" when someone criticizes their theories.

Even if "Woke" ideas aren't originally stupid and twisted [citation needed], the woke ideas that are in power today are. Communism might have been "noble and intelligent" in 1840, but good luck convincing those living under it in 1970 of that.
>Search would be infinitely better if they actually fucking respected literal mode and stopped trying to treat me like an idiot with no attention span. Having search results that contain one out of like 8 words in my query and asking me if I want to include others and then when I say I do still showing me results without them is broken UI and not a user problem.

Use Verbatim?
Ah yeah disastrous long COVID, I remember having it in mid 2010s...

COVID killed pretty much NONE people under 40 unless they had other serious health issues, which were really cause of their death.

Official Czech (11M population) gov stats for ALL people who were COVID POSITIVE when they died (it just means they died positive in those 2+ years, not that COVID caused their death):

age group - total number

0–14 - 9

15–24 - 10

25–34 - 82

35–44 - 278

https://onemocneni-aktualne.mzcr.cz/covid-19/prehledy-khs

So massive number of deaths - 379 people younger than 44 in two years in 11M country who died while tested positive including (mostly) terminally ill patients, car accidents etc. You better don't wanna know how many people under 44 died from other causes in last two years.
Yes the techno fixes are untested and, therefore, with completely unpredictable consequences.

Especially when we are trying to modify something complex as our climate.
The catch is that you're getting an ARM server with the above offer.
>Many proposed projects trigger infrastructure upgrades that cost more than the power plant. It hasn't been clear to developers which projects will incur these costs, so they spam the ISO with many applications. The excess applications mean it takes longer for the ISO to run studies. Attempts for ISOs to increase staff have struggled as developers poach engineers that can estimate what grid upgrade costs will be.

Is digital twin type modeling used? If not, is the problem space a good one for digital twin modeling?
Or streets subdivided into clusters of houses with their own numbering systems for legacy reasons.

"4 Blah Terrace", "4 Foo View", and "4 Bar Lawn" are all within 100m of each other, have the first half of the postcode the same, etc.

Google Maps/etc can't handle this at all.
Yeah, the shareholders really don't appreciate it when the management of the company sells it out from under them to a vendor, cutting off the shareholders' future stream of profits. The cloud is a new enough grift that they maybe aren't aware that that's what's happening.
A better analogy is if you need continuous blood donations.

Even if I consent to give you some now, I'm not obligated to continue to give it to you every day, even if you'll die without it and it's only for 9 months.

Moral reprehensible? Maybe. Legally enforceable. No. That's a rabid hole of allowing the government to violate people's bodily autonomy and privacy that you really don't want to go down.
Are these issues with IT or with corporate bureaucracy?

Is there anything about IT that specifically amplifies these issues, or are there similar issues in other contexts which aren't IT-related?

IMO it's easy to blame the technology. But when virtually all individual corporate tooling relies on IT, there's no real control group to provide an alternative.

A lot of the problems listed below sound like they could be solved relatively easily - if the will was there, and if the corporate relationships around them didn't promote bureaucratic non-solutions because of turf wars, irrational policy, lack of effective oversight, and so on.
It's interesting that even in US papers, the sudden trend of Russian oligarchs to become suicidal or murder-suicidal overnight is largely reported at face value, at best giving the context about how suddenly and frequently it is occurring.
The paper made me wonder: How many false negatives? ie, did the model declare an investment as "bad" even though the investment turned out well?

Essentially: I was looking for a scatter plot with "expected return" on one axis and "actual return" on the other. (Maybe I missed it: The paper is pretty long/dense, and I only skimmed.)
That sounds interesting! Can you elaborate?
Even Microsoft manages Windows using Git today
Safer, but not cheaper. Even with batteries.
> One does not seriously attack the expertise of a scientist using the undefined phrase "butt-head."

But one does seriously attack the expertise of a scientist using the undefined phrases "crackpot" or "crank", which are not very far from "butt-head"

So while I think the ruling was correct in that the average person would not take the insult seriously, I can see why Sagan might have taken it seriously.
> Not without outside help

Why not? Wasn’t it public knowledge that Abe would be speaking there? At least with a few hours of notice?
Dysfunctional markets is a legal problem, not a technical one. Concealing the consequences of market dysfunction with technological band-aids only serves to preserve the status quo.