skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That is, in fact, my whole point. There are multiple ways to use your tools--don't assume that people who prefer to use things a different way are ignorant. We completely agree. My challenge is to the frequency at which there is actual need to limit the allowed workflows as a result of different preferences. In other words, let there be a diversity of workflows and deal with it.

More often than not I've seen such limits used to "reign in" "misbehaving" engineers or because, as I've suggested, people sometimes don't know how to use a tool to its full capacity. Sometimes it's purely people wanting to force their preference on others. I've had to walk senior engineers through (or just manually clean up when they clearly have no idea how git works) branches that people royally mess up because they merged something in 8 different ways because some other person told them rewriting history is evil or some previous organization taught them to only push merge commits to PRs or protected all branches or something...

There can both be organizations that need to enforce policy to make their business successful and people that don't really understand the full gamut of what's possible with a tool and restrict workflows to stuff they understand. I don't think I equivocated the two. I simply expressed frustration from all the times I've anecdotally encountered people to aren't fluent with git making decisions for others who are fluent with git on how git should be applied.
Not yet they don’t.
Closer to artificial vanilla, actually.
Sounds like a startup idea/thesis?
My two cents:

- Getting things done in Germany is equally problematic. Bureaucracy exists there as well.
- There is large part of the public sector that works better than anyone gives them credit for. Same with public schools and healthcare. Greece produces twice the number of scientists compared to the average on OECD countries, you can't do that without an at least "good" education system.

Unfortunately corruption is rampant and the current gov only made things worst on this front.
1. It's private, only internal routines can use it. You aren't telling anyone to avoid using it, you are constraining where it can be used. You can use it directly in every internal routine if you want, that's not a problem. But no one outside the class/module can directly access it so if you change it (in whatever fashion) then those outside users will not be impacted because they are only dependent on the public interface. Now if you change the public interface, then they are impacted but that's often rare after the initial development effort, in my experience.

2. Forget about people, it's about place. I don't care how many people alter a particular class or module. What I care about is how many places some information has to exist within the code and has to be maintained and synchronized as a result.

As a mostly-useless-after-CS101 example, consider a bounded stack. An implementation might have a number (perhaps variable) which describes its limit, an array backing it, and another number indicating where the current "top" of the stack is (in languages where arrays carry their size you don't necessarily need that limit number as a separate thing).

If you leave everything public then every user of this bounded stack could directly alter the backing array and change the "top" of the stack, artificially indicating that something had been popped off or incorrectly incrementing beyond the limit. The limit itself could be altered without actually changing the backing array. The backing array could be made smaller or larger without correspondingly changing the limit. All of that would make this data structure useless, because it would be in an arbitrary, likely invalid, state.

In order to preserve the invariants of the system (limit == array size, 0 <= top <= limit; as just two of them), you write routines internal to this module (class, whatever) that make sure that when one is changed the others are changed, or that changes are only valid (top can never be larger than limit or less than 0). If users are able to bypass these routines by directly accessing these three member fields of the data structure then to correctly use it they have to preserve all these invariants everywhere they use the data structure. The code is now scattered and contains many duplications. Again, this isn't about people, it's about places and the number of them.

If you want to change the internal structure of this bounded stack, you have to change every place that currently accesses the public fields. Or you can be a sane developer, use private fields and public routines that manipulate the state so that it's always in a valid state. Now when you change the internal structure you only have to change those public routines and the private fields, no other place has to be altered. Every use of this bounded stack will look exactly the same as before, just push and pop and some error handling for when the stack is full or empty.
It sounds like you would have been opposed to the introduction of timezones? They made everyone switch away from local solar time, primarily for the benefit of railway timetables.
> I tend to write reference implementations of everything, then combine them together as a separate project.

This is how I write software. My stackblitz is full of domain independent experiments https://stackblitz.com/@Pyrolistical. I then copypasta this into private projects once I figured out how the individual piece works.
It isn’t about giving advice. The advisor role is simply about saving face on both sides. Neither the company nor the founder want to admit they lost faith in the other party.
Ban housing as investment
Amazon Textract does a phenomenal job of extracting text from dodgy scanned PDFs - I've been running it against scanned typewritten text and even handwritten journal text from the 1880s with great results.

I built a tool for running OCR against every PDF in an S3 bucket (which costs about $1.50/thousand pages) here: https://simonwillison.net/2022/Jun/30/s3-ocr/
> I have seen perhaps hundreds other far more moving scenes in other WWII movies (everything from Schindler's List to Saving Private Ryan to Downfall) that I far more vividly remember.

It’s completely different. Schindler’s list is great, but reads like a documentary. Downfall is flashy, but lacks the spontaneity of Casablanca, which was filmed in the thick of it. Completely different atmospheres.

Also, if you are into this kind of films, the Pianist is an absolute must-see. I would put it at the same level than Schindler’s List, way above both Saving Private Ryan (which is way, way too much of a Hollywood action movie) and Downfall (which is fine, but really not in the same league).
If you want to run a(n online) business, you will have taxes to do and paperwork to keep up with. No single payment provider will take that away from you, you just need to pay a bookkeeper for that.

Also:

> I don't think that Stripe offers that the customer buys the product from them and Stripe buys it from you?

I have no idea what you mean with this, sorry.

> Does stripe handle the invoicing? So that every customer gets an invoice they can use in their country?

Yes, Stripe does invoicing. How else are you going to book it into your own administration?
I paint a hypothetically plausible situation that could explain a lot of the incidents given what I see play out on the road surface in my city, I don't blame anyone, I just describe how there could be plenty of confounding factors that lead to a dangerous situation on the road. The numbers at the end of the day are so low. 10 per 4 million people a year does not indicate to me a trend one way or another in terms of safety to me. Again, imagine another hypothetical, maybe just some barhopping dudebros renting lime bikes while blackout drunk then getting into some tragic accident, that could throw the numbers up to 15 that year just from that one freak accident. People might go "wow deaths are up 50% this year" and start all sorts of discussions from that fact, but really this hypothetical increase could be well within the yearly variance of this metric and may not actually be a real trend. Life is bayesian.
I started training for my private pilots license (It worked)
> Chernobyl hid the fact that the reactor was highly unsafe, because it was too expensive to fix it.

And that is bad. But it is different.

> As for the benefits of capitalism, it's the only system that has managed to lift millions of poor people into the middle class and beyond.

That's because capitalists take credit for China. Take China out of it, and capitalism is a no-op.
The Andrei Rublev bell scene is forever embedded in me.

Every time I am working on something complex I ask myself: will it "ring" in the end?
I think you are conflating marketing with advertising. Advertising is a subset of marketing, but wouldn't include things like:

- Writing clear and effective home pages (e.g. the Get Started button is the most prominent affordance on the https://reactjs.org/ homepage)

- The design of that homepage is marketing. Have you ever felt more comfortable using a product that has a nice website?

- Engineering blogs (e.g. the https://www.backblaze.com/blog/ seems to make it to the HN homepage every few months... they aren't just writing this stuff for fun)

- Making your product easy to get started with isn't strictly marketing, but letting people know that it's easy to get started with sure is (e.g. good documentation)

- Having a good pricing strategy is marketing. (e.g. make three tiers for different customers, but try to steer people to the middle one)

- Having a good pricing discount strategy is marketing. (e.g. AWS is basically free for students because they know who those students will want to use when they are making decisions in the work force in a few years)

A key thing is that not all marketing needs to be done by the marketing department. Marketing is about understanding the market and what will make them use your product. This is important even for software engineers.

Edit: fixed typo above and adding below.
=========================================

Also, there are ways of getting the word out that aren't advertising but are done by the same sorts of people. For example, GoPro didn't buy online ads or TV commercials when they were a young company. They gave away GoPros to people doing crazy stuff and had them upload their footage to youtube.

Trader Joes doesn't buy advertising, but mixes up their inventory regularly in order to generate buzz. They'll even take popular items out of production, which I've always suspected is a marketing ploy meant to get people talking about them.

Lamborghini is another example of a company that doesn't make ads, but they fiercely guard their reputation. In fact, their marketing department is hiring right now for someone to manage their "car configurator" (https://configurator.lamborghini.com/), a product that they see as part of marketing.
Well, they did it on the T440. I don’t think it will last more than a single generation this time, either.

There’s usually a good one every few years.

The big problem with the T440 non-buttons was not even the tactile feel — I might have been able to get used to that, humans can adapt to pretty awful things — but that you couldn’t turn the touchpad off without losing your ability to click things. I guess it’s the same this time.
Copyright law already has fair use provisions that permit you to analyze or criticize advertising, or other works. Mockery is also covered under fair use.

Few ads provide worthwhile raw material for reworking and remixing.
Hawaii is on our list as well. Unfortunately it's very hard to get a working visa for both of us. Otherwise it would be a great option.
Perhaps we should add, "Reconsider" as in, "Reconsider purchasing the item, when it's not needed, or a better alternative exists".
>> things grouped nicely together

fixed it for ya :)

I'm a maintenance programmer. Even working layers of layers of layers above the actual shit does not make it not stink.

>> jumping around

...should be intuitive and joyful, not a disaster to your brain.

EDIT: I am a fan, though, of SOC. I guess enterprisey code tries to be that (but fails hard at it).
Any chance you can link to brands that "extract the eggs without killing the fish"?
What do you mean by "time in the real world"? The relative position of the sun to someone on Earth?

_Some_ legal uses of time are probably concerned with this, but I'd think it's a pretty small minority.
You can greatly reduce pollution associated with mining by taking various precautions, but they all have one thing in common: they're expensive to implement. For example, ore-hauling trucks in Alaska could use covered trailers to transport ore to reduce lead/cadmium dust, which gets into local food chains, for example in Alaska:

> "A 2001 National Park Service report documented elevated levels of lead, cadmium, and zinc in vegetation along the road, as well as near the storage area by the port. Concentrations of lead and cadmium, the National Park Service report stated, exceed levels found in “many of the most polluted countries in Central and Eastern Europe and all areas of western Russia.”

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/most-toxi...

Usually mining companies respond by saying that requiring them to implement such solutions ('regulation') is anti-free-market and makes them uncompetitive, as they then have to sell their ore on global markets at higher prices or accept much lower profit margins.

I've never actually seen an industrial pollution problem that didn't have a technical (if sometimes expensive) solution. Making those solutions the norm (kind of like requiring all homes to have toilets, etc.) is the reason why regulation is a good idea, it flattens the markets so noone can undersell using dirty methods.
Wang did sell an IBM-compatible board after it was obvious that Wang wasn't going to win the desktop computing market. I had one of those boards, and the Wang to go with it; worked fine, and I don't ever recall any incompatibilities.
The proportion of pickups that have ever carried a load is pretty small. Trucks may be intended to do work, but the majority never do.
That’s not a strange way to say something, it’s not the same idea. A bigger vehicle always costs more - you have more mass to move, stop, and many parts need to be stronger for those reasons.

That can be justified if you actually need to do something which a smaller vehicle cannot do - nobody expects a cattle rancher to pull a trailer behind a Prius! - but the vast majority of the larger vehicles Americans are buying will never be used for something which requires that extra capacity. The extra bling added to justify those price tags makes them worse for the ostensible reasons people buy them, too - who’s going off-roading with premium rims and delicate flair?

This is the classic externality problem: people are buying massive trucks and SUVs for emotional support reasons which would be an amusing personality trait except that they’ve reversed a half century of road safety improvements and the pollution they generate affects billions of people other than the buyers.

> It’s also strange to me someone would mention tire particulate pollution in a grand comparison. The EV poster children wear through tires quicker than their comparable gasoline counterparts—softer tire compounds (road noise reduction) and weight.

This similarly is arguing against a different point: my statement was simple fact - bigger vehicles pollute more, no matter whether that’s a large EV full of batteries or an oversized truck.

This is a famous drawback to EVs, along with the CO2 used to create them and the mining for battery components, and one reason why both environmentalists and urbanists are careful to say that the future should be more transit, bikes/scooters/etc., and walking because the model of everyone driving themselves everywhere in a private vehicle is inherently unsustainable. EVs solve the downsides of cars the same way that methadone solves opiate addiction.

> > more likely and more lethal when they happen
> Those also pay more for insurance.

Again, this isn’t the point. Insurance can’t resurrect a dead person and it pays nowhere near the cost of lifetime impacts for people who are seriously injured. If they’re lucky, victims will get enough to pay for their immediate medical bills - the rest, often majority, of the cost is fobbed off to society just like all of the other negative externalities of driving.
It's okay. :) They were known only in niche film circles because there was hardly a good print, restoration, or subtitled-version available for decades.

No such Janet Traub at Google at the present. :)
Massive companies are more prone to silly errors like this.

Source: I work for a similar massive company. You would not believe the amount of issues similar to this. This one is gettin attention because it happened in open source code.
Yep, SPEED-1 and SPEED-2 were products of a company called "TOM Software," where TOM was short for "The Office Manager."

Here's a little inside baseball on that.

TOM Software (Burien, Washington) had many applications written in Wang Basic-II. Sometime in 1983, or so, I hired on with TOM Software to help with finishing and porting an interpreter for Wang Basic-II to various small (and not so small) UNIX systems that UNIX system vendors provided to TOM Software in the hopes of getting some applications on their systems.

It was a hugely fun time, working on that interpreter. It was all written in C, and unfortunately, it's wasn't as fast as we would have liked. It did work and we did ship it on a number of platforms. Machines like the Fortune 32:16, the Pixel, Zilog Z-8000 micro, Perkin-Elmer 8/32, and even a Burroughs system (wtf?)

As I remember, the Wang VS system was released and was a competitor to the Wang 2200.

There was another company, Niakawa (sp?) if I remember, that did have a fast port of the Wang Basic-II interpreter to Windows based systems.

Towards the end of my time there, we were coding certain SPEED-1 subroutines directly in C in the interpreter. They could be called via a magic command ... "BOB-N", that was embedded in the interpreter. So you had BOB-1 XXX, BOB-2 XXX YYY, etc.

There is a book by Payne and Payne called "Writing Interpreters," which if memory serves, kind of centers around Wang Basic-II. I think I still have a copy of it in my storage unit, but I might have chucked it. I didn't find it on Amazon when I just searched, so perhaps I'm wrong.

It was really a good time for me. I learned a lot about writing interpreters and other V7-ish stuff working there.
Plastic is indispensable completely unlike electricity is indispensable.

Plastic is a huge pollutant, with breakdown stats that make you cry once you start thinking in terms of tons of absolutely indestructible stuff that makes it into our environment every day. Only a very small fraction of that stuff really needed to be made from plastic. Mostly it is just done because it is cheap and mechanically well understood. And because - tadaaaa - it lasts longer than most other materials. But the result is that the plastic invariably outlasts everything else, and it is super hard to recycle it efficiently unless it was expressly made to be recycled, which it rarely is.

Electricity is a highly fungible form of energy, in every way that matters unlike plastic and for which we do not have any alternatives that come close to having the same kind of properties for everyday use.
The trend seems to be towards minimalist UIs at the expense of depth of features. Extremely popular utility apps tend to be very simple ones. The more capable something is, the less popular it seems to be.

Case in point: Ableton Live conquered the DAW market. Do I use Ableton Live? No, it doesn't have sophisticated enough features I need for scoring motion picture or video games.
I wonder what the comments about software developers look like on Marketer News :)
It all depends.... if we were having a private conversation I would be asking about all of the following. But I wouldn't really recommend getting too specific about some of these on a public forum.

> How old?

> Current health status? Chronic illnesses? Cognitive health?

> Current level of independence or dependence for daily living?

> Recognition of need for assistance?

> Level of wealth, property, investments and liquid cash?

> Level of income - degree still dependent on parents working FT, PT or now on pension, social security or other retirement monthly income?

> Level of debts needing to be paid off or serviced?

> Presence of non-family social support?

> Living proximity to you?

> How much time monthly can you devout to helping?

> What is your own financial strength and ability / willingness to help financially?

> What level of trust do your parents have in you?

> How comfortable are your parents with technology?

> Do your parents have access to high speed internet?

> Availability of assisted living and/or nursing home facilities

> And more

I personally have walked a pretty long road of being the lead caregiver, guardian during 20 years of declining health and increased dependence from my own parents with each eventually dying in their mid-80s.

It feels like the only generic advice is something like the following.

> Spend regular time with them and pay attention to changes

> Keep their dignity in mind - no one likes the process of becoming more dependent on others

> Be willing to calmly but firmly advocate for them with doctors and institutional caregivers

> Technology may not help nearly as much as you imagine

> Effective assistance will be more expensive in time and money than you currently envision
Yup, I've run in to that one.
I think the current state of affairs is that everyone in academia has 100% perfect and total academic freedom. However, they don't have basic rights of due process, so it becomes quite easy to remove someone who's opinions are not 'allowed' via a spurious, sometimes decades old, accusation and evaluating those accusations via a process which does not value truth.
This is like saying someone choked to death on celery once, therefore celery is just as bad for you as pork fat
Makes sense. Hubble is believed to be an adapted KH-11.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11_KENNEN
Zipcar will charge your credit card for no reason
Zipcar will charge your credit card for no reason and would rather have you dispute with the credit card company than refund you.

I encountered this and thought it was interesting. If my company had charged someone and found there was no trace of it in our system, I would be very concerned. But at Zipcar they seem to play it off as not a big deal. I wonder how much revenue they make from randomly charging people who don't notice.

https://imgur.com/a/ET3ckK9
> Why would Fedora not want to expunge all licenses that doesn't mention patents at the same time?

The idea is that a generic grant of usage rights will cover multiple forms of IP, so it's fine.

But if it says "this is copyright only" that's a problem.

The issue isn't directly about whether it mentions patents or not.
No, it's not a good idea to dispose of toxic waste on playgrounds.
The stuff flakes apart over time and degrades in sunlight, and generally ends up everywhere in the vicinity of the TDP padding.
Soccer goalies are just the canary in the coalmine.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/health/artificial-turf-cancer...
Assume they are full of shit unless they prove otherwise. Being actually good at marketing is pretty rare. Most marketers are those with poor skills and little talent who find marketing's ambiguity a perfect place to hide and do work in a startup without having to prove results. Even worse are so-called growth hackers.
Oh, well, if you completely forget the last 2 years.
Maybe if you are parroting the result in front of investors instead of statisticians that's the case
Could it be...
https://www.linkedin.com/in/anuatluru/
You've certainly marketed your thoughts my way, so I'm now familiar with them. The meaning of marketing is diminishing rapidly here.