skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This seems to be the standard response to anything that seeks to debunk nudge. Any time you say ‘This example of a nudge doesn’t work / isn’t replicable / isn’t actually socially helpful’ someone will say ‘Ah but that’s not really nudge tactics.’
Eh, that only makes sense if you believe LaTeX (markup) to have accidental complexity that typst somehow abstracts away. Having used LaTeX, I appreciate that there is a learning curve, but I think all the complexity is essential domain complexity that's not easy to get rid of. (Note that I'm only talking about the markup language, and not about the toolchain -- which I believe is ripe for massive simplification.)

Most likely something simplified will start out convenient and then accrue much of the complexity of LaTeX over years (because that is solving actual needs!) -- the only difference (pro) will be that new users will be slowly onboarded to this complexity over years and (con) have to wait a long time for this to catch up with necessary functionality. An interesting example to observe is Markdown variants thrashing around and diverging as they try to go beyond the simplest case and try to model the essential complexity of writing documents.
Typical pharmaceutical.
Anecdotally, I only keep hearing horror stories of Indian outsourced dev work.

Yet Indian outsourcing companies continue to show record profits and revenue every year.

Why do they continue getting fat contracts even if the general consensus is that it doesn’t work out well? Is it just another “no one gets fired for using IBM” scenario?
Feds’ case against Huawei tracked ‘unprofitable’ deals near US military bases
Here you go.

https://imgur.com/a/BARUMWQ

EDIT: Ah, I realise now this achieves the same thing. But it does record video, so I'm not sure what's missing other than a visual representation of keyboard input.
It uses the hash table from gnulib: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=gnulib.git;a=blob;f=l... -- so that's not the reason, gnulib's hash table should be pretty general and robust.
I can't be certain what dcow is referring to but there are a few things that point to confusion, or maybe an overambitious attempt at simplification.

For example, Stacking PRs keeps the author unblocked. Authors don’t need to wait on a particular change to be merged before starting to build something on top of those changes.

This will fundamentally be up to the author's git skill whether or not they are presenting the PRs to reviewers / mergers as stacked. If they're skilled git users there's little to no cost presenting them one at a time and keeping the not-yet-PRd branches fresh. If they're not skilled git users, they have no hope of managing multiple PRs effectively only be virtue of presenting them all at once.

Or: Since stacking PRs allows you to create a DAG of dependent changes, this natually allows you to manage code changes that need to be submitted in a particular order.

Assuming this is in a single repository, a fast-forward-only commit policy alone ensures this.

Or: stacked PRs use branches, and can have multiple commits in a single atomic change; stacked commits use a single commit as the unit of atomic change.

Stacked PRs usually use branches, but stacked commits also still use at least one branch and could have more. In both the commit is the unit of atomic change, because that's what a commit is.

I'll also add I find the entire language around "branchless" workflows in git confusing, not just from this author. There is no such thing; considering one special branch as "not a branch" or your local and remote and someone else's remote as the "same branch" just because they have the same name is a holdover from older/other VC tools. We don't do any new git users a pedagogical or practical favor by clinging to that view.
My takeaway is that unoptimized c++ is pretty close to the same performance as JavaScript.

Wild.
Why is react so popular? It’s just covering a small part of the stack and doesn’t bring much to the table? There were so many other solutions before and so many other solutions now. Are people attracted by the name Zuckerberg? Srsly I don’t get the react hype. Didn’t get it 7 years ago. Don’t get it now…
surprised to see swift 4 times as slow as non-optimized go.

Anyone has an explanation ?

I know the swift string type is really complex, but i always assumed it was at least performing well..
Delighted to see the developers at AWS incorporating react w/ TypeScript.

I hope this project stays active and the framework keeps a low overhead: I've spent some time ripping out chakra-ui from my sites due to its complexity making it hard to diagnose styling bugs between styled-system, emotion, etc. Mix that with a monorepo of UX components where packages depend on each other, and them being prebuilt. I could never find out why certain style rules wouldn't apply.

It looks like this project has an interesting thing: style-dictionary (https://github.com/cloudscape-design/components/tree/7433543...)

I'd be interested in reading a dev blog post on the architectural decisions (and lessons learned). Is there any decisions from other major UI frameworks that were trying to be avoided?

One more thing I've never seen before in a framework's documentation: Patterns (very practical and case-specific examples), https://cloudscape.design/patterns/patterns/overview/

Good job to the AWS team on this, will be studying it!
How about just not compressing things for archival? A few bit errors in uncompressed files would end up as just a few bad characters. Whereas a few errors in an uncorrectable compression format might render the entire content useless. Sure they files are huge, but were talking about long term archival. In fact, if the documents are that important, have RAID-style redundancy and multiple-bit ECC in multiple geographic locations as well.
> The 'best engineers' empathize with the perspective of 'management,'

I deeply disagree with this argument of "empathizing": it is very often the case that if I tend to disagree with another side and nevertheless attempt to "empathize" with it, my disagreement turns into furious hate for the other side.

It is in my opinion often better for the peace not to think too much about the perspective of another side that you disagree with.
On enterprises, k8s solves a different kind of scaling problem. You tend to have hundreds of apps that are business critical and need to be managed.

K8s provides a consistent way to package, deploy with HA and monitor those apps. Ideally it replaced tons of ad-hoc scripts and confluence pages that are very poorly maintained.
My first thought was that this is an odd wiki to make, as there isn't even consensus on what is known and what is not.
> presuming worldwide that we all maintained strict lockdown until the vaccine was universally available and the vast majority of the population took it

We all remember that the vaccines were described as being able to prevent infection and transmission, certainly by some politicians, perhaps less so by scientists. One of those very politicians is currently Covid positive after four (count them) shots of vaccine.

Doesn't mass vaccination, particularly with imperfect vaccines, increase the selection pressure on the virus to mutate?

With hindsight I wish there had been much more international focus on protecting and vaccinating those truly at risk. It seems fairly clear by now that fit and healthy under-50s really didn't gain much from vaccination, their risk from this particularly virus was already tiny. After a couple of months the vaccines didn't stop them catching and spreading the virus either, so they weren't even protecting the vulnerable indirectly.
The best part of growing up in an urban area is there was always neighborhood kids to play with. Just walk outside and see who else is out.
Yeah i agree and think it can even be phrased as just not micromanaging. You understand which resources benefit the team and delegate a certain amount of trust to trustworthy individuals. Then hold them accountable to that trust. Dont dump stuff on them and dont jerk the wheel. Share your constraints; etc. Learn who is good at leading, communicating, etc. Do skip level 1:1s to validate your assessments and understand boots on the ground.

I use to also think being technical was a part of that but now i think being a good manager is worth much more on its own.
Interesting to see the arguments against this by people familiar with cubing. Seems like the main one is that the cube is not fully solved during inspection phase, so they are also solving on the fly during the 2nd phase.

As a layperson, I think new category would be interesting, because they would require different approaches. It reminds me of that Tetris post on HN the other day where teenagers innovated new techniques of manipulating the controller to defeat the old guard, or speedrunners coming up with new techniques.

Also I'm curious as to why people don't use all the inspection time in something that's so competitively min-maxed. Spending more time to reduce one or two moves seems like something that could make or break it when you get ties measuring to 0.01s
When clicking that link from another country of the European Union, I got a dialog box prompting me to select a country, with the country for my IP selected by default, but I was able to choose USA instead of the default.

Then I could see the expected content. Maybe whether that dialog box is seen or not depends on the browser used and on its settings.
From the readme:

> I accidentally restarted blogging after a long haitus. Before I could get words into the cloud, I muddled about with "modern" Static Site Generators. Because WordPress is so last century (or so I told myself). Then I got annoyed by the SSG Jamstack bespoke templating building etc. magic.

I felt the same way when I restarted my blog so I went a similar route, but... lazier. I'm using pandoc with some shell scripts gluing it all together and it works.. pretty well actually.

https://github.com/patleeman/patricklee.nyc
Thankfully, I was not part of sales.

But looking back (I have left this company since then), I believe your strategy would have genuinely had a positive effect on any employee's career path.
The interesting part is a cynical attempt to use a Western culture war weapon in order to promote Russia, which rejects Western values and hates and wants to destroy both sides.
Look, you need to realize that in this case, the farmer lost in court. He was judged to have deliberately violated the patent. He wasn't innocent. His actions only made sense as an attempt to pirate the patented genes that he knew were there. He tried to argue that because the genes showed up in his crops he was entitled to concentrate them by this selection process and use them. In this, he lost.

Yes, let's get back to that original nonsense post. You are objecting to a patent holder defending their rights under the patent, taking deliberate and knowing violators of the patent to court. That position is bullshit. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Note that no farmers have even been sued for accidental and involuntary contamination of their crops. Nor will they be, since they'd have an excellent defense there in the absence of any intention on their parts to violate the patent. The courts are not stupid on this sort of thing.
>2 dreadful things in parallel.

You sure it's just two? :)
I've gotten mixed reactions whenever I share this, but when I program I like to record my screen with OBS.

* It's a mental hack to keep me accountable, especially now working from home. If I'm in an office anyone can look over and see whether or not I'm working. It started as an attempt to mimic this feeling at home, even though I'll be the only one to ever see the recordings.

* It allows me to go back and see how I worked in the past. I have a few videos of myself working from 2015 which I think is pretty neat just because of how different my workflow was back then compared to now. I'm not using the same tools or even on the same operating system.

* I'm working on video games which is what makes this very useful for me. If something visually interesting happens, or if there's graphical bug of some kind, I can go back and breakdown exactly what happened. I've stepped through videos frame by frame in the past to debug, it's been surprisingly helpful.

* It allows me to go back and see my progress. I can know what I was working on a given day, see how far I've progressed, it's just generally a good motivator. You can of course do this with git, but if you're working on something visual it can be nice to see it in motion rather than a textual diff.
This makes a lot of sense. In the past when I built scrapers/aggregators, it made sense to separate out the scrape part and the aggregate part.

1. It decoupled the steps and allowed for concurrency of the scraping and aggregation tasks.
2. It helped with debugging the tiny inconsistencies across sites and iterating on the aggregation.
3. As a side-benefit, if I needed to aggregate more data elements from the same sources, I could just re-run the aggregate step.
they continue getting fat contracts for blaming rights
Americans? Varnishing neuroticism? Couldn't be.
Why would a prototype need a code review?
Buses are okay but a city of Bengaluru’s size needs a metro.

Delhi is awful but its awfulness is improved greatly by the metro.
The soup kitchen.

Does identifying as an AI expert preclude starting small?

Good luck.
If this was just about team review workflow I wouldn't expect to find "easier to rollback" and "don’t need to wait on a particular change to be merged" to be on the list of upsides, as these are properties of the repository structure and not the review workflow.
With Haiti, you don't have to go all the way back to the settling of the island for brutality. The closest analogue I've read to the behavior of the French who ruled Haiti was the treatment of camp inmates by the Nazis. Haiti was the worst colony in the Caribbean. It made the antebellum South look like a utopia in comparison. The life expectancy for slaves sent to Haiti was abysmal. Most of them died on the plantations within about 10 years of stepping on the island. So many died that in order to sustain the slave population, the French had to import tens of thousands every year. They wanted to create a native slave population, but it didn't work because they worked the slave women so hard that they made them infertile. They ruled by means of terror. The stories are sickening. They executed disobedient slaves by stuffing their rectums with gunpowder and blowing them up. They strapped them down and poured boiling cane sugar over their heads. They buried them up to their necks and smeared them with honey so that they'd be eaten by insects. For punishment, they cut off their slaves' limbs and poured hot wax on the stumps. This had gone on for a century prior to the revolution. By that time, there were about 500,000 slaves being ruled over by 30,000 whites (as well as, partially, 40,000 mixed-race Haitians).

It was not smart or good for Dessalines to massacre the 4000 or so whites that he did, but that act is so minor in comparison with the horror that the French visited on Haiti for 100 years that it's barely worth talking about.
I don't know the answer, but it seems like the parent might have it backwards. A handful of outsourcing companies control a massively disproportionate number of H-1Bs, and lobby heavily on expanding H-1B policy. They can place the US based H-1Bs to complement their local teams back in India.
Was it The Anarchist Cookbook?
I had the same problem - our family had an Amstrad CPC! It was rare to find books that had listings that worked in their entirety, but if you had a source of native listings (e.g. in the CPC case from magazine Amstrad Action) then it was possible to port some of the programs.

I was also too young in those days to be able to understand how to port PEEK, POKE and so forth, but I do credit trying to get stuff working (often in futility) toward my future interest in becoming a professional computer programmer. (Of course I'm not writing games like I imagined.) The experience of trying to parse mystery code is surprisingly similar to frustrations with finding libraries that almost but not quite solve your problem, or web layouts that look okay in most browsers until you encounter a weird screen size, and so on. I wonder if this background is what led me to being the kind of developer who greatly prefers maintenance, troubleshooting and bug fixing to new feature development.
I built this in a week, way back when virtually every app in the App Store cost money: https://techcrunch.com/2008/09/04/election-08-for-iphone-off...

Of course, it only had a 3 month shelf life, but I still made about $50k from it. I think the app peaked at #5 or #6 on the top 10 paid apps list and I was making about $1,000 per day from it then.

Fun fact: the data that powered the app was sourced from https://electoral-vote.com, which is operated by Andrew Tanenbaum, the creator of Minix.
The purely-mechanical portion of the recipe (list of ingredients and instructions) are excluded from copyright. Any other non-mechanical content (pictures, but also descriptions of the recipe or all that flavor/story text that pollutes modern online recipe sites ) will be protected by copyright.

Additionally, it is likely that collation or curation of the recipes into categories or collections or sites is protected by copyright.

Finally, if the website posts terms and conditions which limit or restrict your access, you might end up with some liability should you violate them. This is still an area of law that is shifting, but according to the American Bar Association, courts now somewhat routinely enforce terms-and-conditions when clear notice is given to the user and the terms are not unduly long or confusing. In general, the situations most likely to be enforceable are when the user sees a clear prompt to agree to the Ts and Cs, and clicks an I Agree button. The further away from such a clear agreement one strays, the less likely a court is to consider access/use of the site as agreement to the Ts and Cs as a binding contract.

I am not a lawyer, I am not representing you, and this is not legal advice
The roles that the federal legislative branch has assumed over the past 100 years are misguided and mostly based under an interpretation of the interstate commerce clause and how much power can be delegated away from the legislature.

I can hold that observation and also realize that it will be wildly disruptive to make an adverse ruling on that power. I can also see there are other ways to reach the same result, its really not rogue or illegitimate for a court to simply say "leave that to your elected representatives", and thats what the court is going to do. Its extremely predictable and does not require any circular logic to do so.

I don't think the disruptive nature is a reason to avoid doing it, as a consensus bridging solution would be resilient as well, antifragile.
I think it's supposed to resemble the busy cursor from macOS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinning_pinwheel
A good discussion, previously on HN: https://acoup.blog/2022/05/13/collections-ancient-tanks-char... ; the carriage or similar appears to be four thousand years old.
> You need to make them your own.

I second this, I found that I truly understand the material when I am in the position to explain it, to ensure that, I write my notes as if I am an instructor and I explain things to a class under the assumption that they won't attend the lectures.

As I write notes, I find myself needing to further explain things - so as to fit the requirements - which results in consuming more material and reasoning about it.

This requires a non trivial amount of effort, and not everyone has the capacity to do it, but for a student, this probably works, the Feynman method and all that.
Plugging my own tool: if you like to cultivate a stack of commits, you'll know how awkward git makes it to edit previous commits. With git-prev-next you can run 'git prev 3' and then 'git commit --amend'.

https://github.com/ridiculousfish/git-prev-next
I was working on a fintech project (gonna be vague as it's not yet released).

The legal team told us we couldn't use default choices anywhere, as it could count as giving financial advice. Fair enough. So we designed the onboarding, and there was this choice the user had to make before we could create their account.

During testing, we found people were getting really stuck on this choice, to the point of giving up. The choice actually had quite low impact, but it was really technical - a lot of people just didn't understand it. Which makes sense our users weren't financial experts, which was our target user. This choice was a new concept for the market, so we couldn't relate it to other products they might know. The options inside also had quite a lot of detail when you started digging into them, detail we had to provide if somebody went looking for it. Our testers would hit this choice, get stuck, feel the urge to research this decision, get overwhelmed, give up.

We spent so long trying to reframe this choice, explaining it better in a nice succinct way, we even tried to get this feature removed entirely - but nothing stuck.

Eventually after lots of discussion with legal we were allowed to have a 'base' choice, which the user could optionally change. We tested the new design, and it made a significant difference in conversion rates.

Huzzar for nudge theory! Right? Well, maybe. I think it's a bit more complicated.

- The new design was faster. There was less screens with simpler choices. It went from a 'pick one of 5' to a 'heres the default, would you like to change it?'. Was it just the speed that made a difference?

- The user was not a financial expert, and the company behind the product was. In some sense was the user just thinking 'these guys probably know more than me I'll leave it at that'. Imagine trying to implement this exact change on something the user is an expert in - say like your meal choice in an airplane. I imagine most people would think "How rude choosing for me! I'm an expert in what I feel like eating I want to see all the options".

- It had less of a cognitive load. Like the whole onboarding flow was already really complicated, just reducing the overall mental strain to make an account may have just improved the whole experience. E.g. if we had removed decisions earlier in the flow, would this one still have been as big of an issue? We never had time to test it, so I can't say for sure.

- Lack of confusion == confidence. For the users who didn't look at the options and took the default, did they just feel more in control and confident because they weren't exposed with unfamiliar terms and choices? They never experienced the urge to research.

Like at the surface level this new design worked great, so job done. But it's hard to say definitively it was because of nudge theory. I don't think you can really blindly say "oh yeah defaults == always good" and slap them on every problem - which is why the design-test-iterate loop is so important.
The mRNAs have been well known to cause serious myocarditis in healthy young men (including my own nurse at UCLA who had to check in to the ER after getting the Pfizer jab).

The current COVID-19 disease doesn't kill anyone at all based on data from LAC+USC https://youtu.be/_fGuA-nU7EI?t=460.

So no. The risk does not outweigh the benefit.
I'm not Russian, I'm Slovak. Before the war Putin was on the list but I removed him because I want to hear when that monster finally dies.
Wait, what? What does this show?

The link goes to an example. The front page of the site says the following, whish doesn't help much:

The computer world is not just technicality and razzle-dazzle. It is a continual war over software politics and paradigms. With ideas which are still radical, WE FIGHT ON.

We hope for vindication, the last laugh, and recognition as an additional standard-- electronic documents with visible connections.

We propose a new kind of writing-- PARALLEL PAGES, VISIBLY CONNECTED.
No, I will not stop. I like using realtime for low latency messaging.