skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It often turns out the person who got cut off was a giant asshole who 100% deserved it. You might not have sufficient visibility into the experience of the person who cut someone off to judge their actions fairly.

You see this a lot in people whose kids have cut off contact. From their perspective, the cutting off was sudden and shocking. From their kid's perspective, it was the last-ditch effort to reclaim autonomy and preserve sanity after a lifetime of abuse and endless attempts to set boundaries and seek change. An outside observer is missing key details.
I spent a couple of years living in a paper mill town. When the wind blew right, it smelled like humid vegetarian farts. Certain locals brushed that off: "Smells like money to me."

I'm glad I don't live there anymore.
Agile development and push for constant teamwork was here for years and years, at the time when being gay was openly mockable. The daily standups are the thing first introduced 20 years ago. If you really don't care about politics and culture, why are you venting your frustrations with collaborative process that exists entirely independently on trans people?
What’s the end goal for you programmers?
Make money forever?
Work until you create an income yourself?
Contract and retire early?

What’s the goal?

We make so much money very early in our careers that it’s very easy to lose track of what the end goal is.
That's another thing not to do when writing a library: including and discussing code examples of incorrect usage. Personally, when I read documentation, retaining incorrect code examples is literally the last thing I want to achieve.
It's kinda crazy not knowing what the sky, the biggest most omnipresent stuff in our life, looks like, is now the default for us.

Other first times that give life a lot of texture back:

- first time a dangerous animal looks at you, and there is no wall between you and it. We are not used to be pray.

- first time you get to taste really good fruits and vegetables. Most people think they had. They have not.

- first time you get lost in a wild remote place. The jungle is really scary.

- first time you lose all your stuff (including money and id) in a place you don't speak the language. You will look differently at immigrants after this one.

- first time you see a human dead body outside of a building or a box. The outside sewers in Mali for me.

- first time you use your knowledge of physics or maths to solve a real life problem, and it works. Ok, this one is awesome.

- first time you know you almost died right there.

- first time your car break hundreds of miles from civilization, there is no cell phone, and nobody is coming.

Of course I don't wish you a lot of those. We worked hard at creating a civilization because it's nice to not die from dehydration or a spooked bull.
And...how do both companies compare in what telemetry they're sucking out of devs?
Sure: journalistic investigation should quickly dismantle it, which means they shouldn't report it to the public. It would be like reporting someone's words that you have found are lies, just to be fair and balanced.

On the other hands, debates with a general audience (i.e. non-experts) are a terrible way to judge scientific arguments. Non-experts are simply unable to judge for themselves the strength of most scientific arguments, because they simply don't know the fields well enough. The vast majority of the arguments will fly by us and we'll be left as confused or more; and we'll pick winners based on charisma rather than any deeper thought.
Usagi Electric and his series about reviving old Centurion minicomputer - https://www.youtube.com/c/Nakazoto/

Plainly Difficult for radioation accidents and and other science/technology gone wrong stuff - https://www.youtube.com/c/PlainlyDifficult

VWestlife for reviews of various old audio equipment and other thrift store finds - https://www.youtube.com/c/vwestlife

Tim Traveller for trip reports from various unusual places (weird country borders and stuff) - https://www.youtube.com/c/TheTimTraveller

Tentacrul for UX explained on DAWs and other music stuff - https://www.youtube.com/c/Tantacrul

Railways Explained for... well explaining the history and future of various world railways systems - https://www.youtube.com/c/RailwaysExplained

NFKRZ for explaining context of living in Russia - https://www.youtube.com/c/MultiNfz

Bald and Bankrupt for unusual travelogs in post-soviet countries and other places - https://www.youtube.com/c/baldandbankrupt
Very nice tip, mainly the part about when something happens you can rewind it.

What about hard disk space? How you handle it?
I share your sentiment with regard to ageism. Thank you for bringing up this topic and highlighting how wrong and ugly it is! And, you are right, this comment seems pro-ageist. I am happy to clarify (especially if there are some ageists out there who would have felt emboldened in their prejudice having misinterpreted my observation)!

I am not referring to the younger generation being magically more capable than a veteran technologist. I am referring to tech leadership in the government (say a general or colonel) being so technically inexperienced/naive that a novice technologist (the snot nosed kid) will probably be more capable in directing software projects. You can see a similar/identical sentiment mentioned during a scathing review of the military in the resignation letter of the pentagon’s first chief software officer as seen (bits and pieces at least ) here:

Chaillan announced his resignation in a blistering letter at the start of September, saying military officials were repeatedly put in charge of cyber initiatives for which they lacked experience, decrying Pentagon “laggards” and absence of funding.
“[W]e are setting up critical infrastructure to fail,” he said in his letter, which made only cursory reference to advances by China. “We would not put a pilot in the cockpit without extensive flight training; why would we expect someone with no IT experience to be close to successful? [ . . .]While we wasted time in bureaucracy, our adversaries moved further ahead.”

https://www.ft.com/content/f939db9a-40af-4bd1-b67d-10492535f...
(If you are paywalled try this https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcontent%2...)
In this sense yes. The phrase "real passengers" can be interpretted differently, more seriously.

But I am not sure the drivers are children. And even if they are, of course not the yongest ones. And if 14/15 year old is allowed to drive after getting trained, it is not a big problem, I think. In some countries 15 year olds can drive cars.

In any case, this railroad is supervised by adults. It is more of an educational establishment.

We have such a railroad here in Minsk. I never cared to visit, even when was a child. Although I briefly knew one person attending it, he was dreaming to work on railroad.
It's the only African country with a land border to the EU so there's a point. There was a major incident with almost 40 dead at one of these borders only months ago.

I also don't like the framing of migrants and drugs in the same sentence as both issues are ethically very different. But both are driven by organized crime groups and the migrants are victims too. The traffickers take them for all they're worth. It's a problem that needs to be fought.
1) is a much smaller problem than 2) indeed, but it does still happen.

5) This hides your queries from middle boxes, but your DNS server can still see the domains you are looking up. (There are some proposals to address this that involve a proxy who can't decrypt your request, so the DNS server can't see who sent the query.)
Love Music and Spotify?
Are you creating a false equivalency between North Korea and American? If so, Noam Chomksy in the house!
Fully agreed, and same goes for the Autobahn. Foreigners think it’s some super high speed no limit highway, but over 50% of the time you’ll be under a very conservative speed limit due to ongoing construction. Of course, you never actually see anyone working, it’s like they start the project and just leave it for months at a time.
> The flight time would last from six to eight hours, but the ticket includes a five-day trip that would involve staying in boutique hotels, exploring nature sites near the spaceport, dining at local restaurants, spa, yoga and other fitness experiences.

sounds odd to force such a bundle. I wonder how much just the few hour balloon ride without a week spa would cost.
The ideal measurement would be to get as good a model of day-to-day passenger flows as possible, then simulate the journey times based on both the nominal timetable, and the "actually-ran" timetable in order to also quantify the effects of missed connections.

I think the Swiss actually do something like this, whereas in Germany they've only comparatively recently started doing it, too, and even then I think they're currently only looking at long distance trains, so connections to/from regional trains don't count (and never mind local public transport).
This is a really good idea for people who are thoughtful and genuinely want to learn the truth. There problems with it in practice.

Some people have made their political ideology the foundation that they build their ego on. Any disagreement is intolerable. Others are not thoughtful enough to understand that there can be genuine disagreement in the world of both thought and action which needs to be tolerated.

These people will ruin any concept of starmanning that catches hold by using it as a passive-aggressive cudgel ("I'm sure you are a good person and therefore you will immediately cease your opposition and accept my arguments!", "I'm sure you want to be a good person and therefore can't really believe these things you are saying, which are only for bad people!", "Why are you resisting when I'm starmanning you, you must be Hitler 2.0").

But without labelling it, I do endorse the technique. Almost everyone wants the world to get better.
By most metrics compared to the past you're very lucky to be living in a time where we pollute the air with toxic fumes and the sea with plastic, they're both evidence of our civilizations' evolution as well as causally linked with tremendous progress.
Mexico gives Tesla a dedicated lane at the border to speed up crossing into US
I really hope our civilization can go from 7 billion people to 1 billion without a total collapse. Unfortunately we might not be ready. Will we be able to keep our technological level? Our current understanding of math, physics and nature? That requires quite a lot of people to transmit and learn. It certainly is theoretically possible but in practice? It's exponential. This has the potential to creep on us really soon.
I like C# but I've really come to dislike the idea of exceptions and null after working with Rust.

I think C# would benefit from a Result/Option addition.
> 5) Privacy is already solved using "DNS over https".

Both yes and no. It shields the user from ISP's DNS-based invigilation but at the same time it hides application requests from the user, renders user's own DNS-based filtering (pihole and such) useless and can just transfer spying ability from local ISP to big corp.

Probably an unpopular opinion but personally, I don't consider DoH as an upgrade but a deprivation of user's control.

I see its theoretical benefits for less technical users who haven't heard of pihole or even problems that it solves. Just theoretical, because what benefits the user is often in opposition to what benefits the corporation.
I agree your premise in a limited context: non fiction books.

Non fiction books often pad out very little info into an entire tome simply because that’s one of the few ways you can make money from your idea.

But this doesn’t apply just to economics. The most egregious of this are books about programming languages and architecture if you ask me.

In philosophy and elsewhere, a good author might write a lot but still be concise. That’s just because they have a lot to say. Or they need more examples.

This article wasn’t even that verbose. I don’t see how what he said related to star man though, but that’s a different topic.
Where it really falls apart is that a restaurant has a predefined menu and no items are allowed to have unknown complexity (someone asking items out of menu just gets a “no”). Estimates are based on actual measures, not guesses.

There will be accidents, but those will be rare enough to not have to be planned for.

In that respect, a restaurant queue is a lot more akin to a factory, and is fundamentally different in nature.
This is always the problem with most of free software. They are so awkward to use. Meanwhile any criticism is very often met with getting downplayed.
It must be one old article, because what rounds the corner is .NET 7, while .NET 6 and minimal APIs have been available for a better part of a year already
Thank you for your response. In my response to you I had to edit it to remove some incorrect statements. I had to do that because I read into what you wrote some implications that you clearly did not intend. It’s so easy to do that.
Out of the gate from [0], as soon as one tries to install it, they are met with this:

Notice: GNUnet is still undergoing major development. It is largely not yet ready for usage beyond developers.

On top of the Linux-focused attitude to this project (GNUnet, GNS, etc) which that is already limiting its usefulness and user friendliness to the average joe, if it is not available on other systems like Windows or macOS how does one even begin to use it?

At the very least it should be accessible via a browser. For Handshake that is accessible with the Beacon Browser. [1] Ethereum Name Service (ENS) domains are accessible via Brave Browser, and Beacon Browser [1]. That gives the impression to general users that it actually works.

[0] https://www.gnunet.org/en/install.html

[1] https://impervious.com/beacon
If you dont know what would convince you then nothing will.
This isn't really a problem photographers have, if anything, photographers often have to work around natural light. A good example of this is using either fill flash or artificial shade when shooting on very sunny days. The contrast and the shadows created by full on sun are just too harsh for most situations. Similarly in a studio, you're generally not looking to recreate what sunlight looks like, because sunlight by itself often doesn't look all that good.
I looked into GNS a little while ago and what I understood about how it works is:

1. I runs on top of GNUnet, which is a huge DHT that can be used for any purpose you like.

2. So GNS aims to replace DNS with a newer "modern" protocol, it is not a alternative root zone (like Handshake or such), nor does it decentralize the root zone, it just decentralizes "DNS".

3. How it is supposed to work is, instead of OS bootstrapping using root servers, they are preloaded with a root zone public key (possibly belonging to ICANN) or a list of TLDs (with corresponding owner public keys). Then the key owner can publish zones signed with the corresponding keys on the DHT, which recursively contains keys for child subdomains. It's like if torrent and DNSSEC had a baby.

4. To lookup a domain, you do a request with (tld, pubkey) and verify the response, do this recursively for each label until you have the record you want.

5. The problems with DNS it solves is: censorship (DNS is very easy to intercept and censor), query privacy (I don't know how this works, they don't seem to use onion routing or something), and secure resolution.

One thing to note here is development on GNS started in the 2001s, this was before DNSSEC and DoT/DoH were a thing, and most of the DNS was unsecured (which albeit even is today), and this could have been a completely viable approach.
As far as I understand from the wiki page, the Z-machine still requires a hohlraum, which I assume also requires the kind of precise machining that the NIH laboratory does as well. As such, it is essentially burning an extremely expensive fuel, obtaining small bursts of energy from it - requiring vast amounts of such targets every hour in constant operation, which basically makes it a complete no-go from any kind of economic standpoint.

Note that I'm not saying that it isn't an interesting or useful scientific experiment - it's just not a promising power source.
Saying the inverse of what you actually believe but with a tone that suggests insincerity isn't comedic. It's just obnoxious.
What hurdle?
Much like steelmanning, I fear that starmanning ends up serving as an excuse to ignore the actual thought of your opponents, and to make up some version that feels more comfortable.
So, to re-cap on this discussion...

- I ask a parent commenter who has asserted that society should still be preventing transmission of a highly infectious virus if they know of a system that could actually achieve that;

- A few commenters invoke China's approach (whilst conceding it was excessively draconian), others insist that it's not about preventing transmission, just slowing it, conveniently avoiding confronting the fact that the original point was about prevention, and even if it wasn't, slowing spread still means infection is inevitable;

- Nobody suggests an approach that would have been effective or palatable;

- Many hours later, a new commenter slides in to point out that it really is literally possible to keep kicking a can down a road forever, as if this is either true in practice, consistent with the rhetorical point of that metaphor, or relevant to the point at hand.

I'll ask the central question again: can anyone describe a system that would have (a) been effective at preventing spread of the virus, and (b) resulted in a society that anyone wanted to continue living in, or that could even function at all?
I've seen similar documents about Tito. In the end it doesn't change anything, you deal with the de-facto ruler of a country, not with his ancestors.

https://www.nsa.gov/portals/75/documents/news-features/decla...
"It's effortless to switch from working on one burger to another"

This is why software engineers should be banned from writing about anything outside their very narrow domain (and I say that as a software person).

There's context switching when working on different features, sure. But there's context switching when working on different parts of the burger, too. Slicing two buns is faster than slicing one bun, then coming back from doing something else and slicing another.

There's context switching in both scenarios. Heck, switching between writing a spec and working on the implementation is a context switch too. The switch between features is just generally more significant than the one between the different phases of working on the same feature compared to the steps of working on a burger.

Heck, this also completely ignores that the chef likely doesn't ONLY produce burgers and even when they do not every burger will necessarily be the same. In fast food restaurants you'll actually see chefs do some steps in parallel (e.g. slice all the buns) and some sequentially. Additionally they'll often optimize to finish all items in an order in the same timeframe -- in all likelihood you're not a complete prick and actually want your friends to be able to join you for lunch rather than staring at you for 4-8 minutes while you eat your burger all alone.

The analogy is not just simplified, it's completely ficticious to the point of bearing no resemblence to the actual process it tries to use as an analogy. It doesn't provide a common ground by referring to something everybody knows, it requires actively ignoring what you may know in order to make its point.
A new major version of Windows utility software jv16 PowerTools released. The new version includes two new tools: System Fixer and Quick Finder, as well as a wide array of other new features and improvements.

The full Change Log and other information here: https://jv16powertools.com/updated-version-7-5/
That's because it chooses a bad example of an activity for which production-line methods make sense. Pick an activity (that you need to repeat many times) where each step requires quite different tools and skills that are difficult to master, and breaking it up into tasks for individuals who specialize in said tools/skills is almost certainly going to get you better throughput. Even in the letter-stuffing example, if you imagine that if it required full/focused use with both hands of different tools for a) folding the letter b) placing it in the envelope c) sealing the envelope d) stamping it, then having different people special in and handle each subtask, even if it means paying a bit of extra time for moving the item between each individual, is likely to pay off (of course, if one of those subtasks takes vastly longer than the others, it may need 10 people doing that, vs one on the others, but that doesn't change the principle).

Obviously software development is very different - we're not asked to use the same tool repeatedly to produce the exact same result. Further, in our world a) switching between tools is usually relatively costless and b) developers are generally quite capable of becoming skilled with multiple tools.

But I'd still say that some of the same principles could apply, e.g. if those assumptions weren't true for whatever reason (e.g. switching tools means physically moving to a different piece of hardware in a different room, or there are obvious measurable differences in the skills of your developers as far as particular tools go), then splitting a task up so one part can be handled by one developer with one tool and the other by another developer with a different tool is probably going get you a better result than asking one developer to be responsible for "finishing" the whole task themselves. Arguably the important thing is that they be on the same team and consider themselves to have a shared responsibility for the task that's been split up. Which interestingly, often isn't how teams are organised in software development companies, from what I've observed over the decades. Having an end-to-end feature be the responsibility of a single team, even if it necessarily requires multiple specialists, is probably not a bad guiding principle - but on the flip side, many peoples aren't (for understandable reasons) keen on being shuffled around between teams depending on what each feature requires.
For reference, the everlasting beauty of Spaghetti Junction [1]

1.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghetti_Junction,_Birmingham
In fairness that is what they have done. .NET Framework is dead, .NET Core is "dead" (to clarify: .NET Framework dies with .NET 4 and .NET Core/CoreCLR is .NET 5 and above).

Mono is a cross-platform (ish) implementation of .NET Framework, but its future is (eventually) to be replaced with the main .NET which is now based on the cross-platform version (.NET 5 and above, which is currently distinguished from Framework by continuing to call it ".NET Core"). Mono and .NET Framework will fade away once Unity gets their act together and moves on from it.

tl;dr: .NET 5 and above are, for all intents and purposes, the only future path for .NET, but we're in a transitionary period right now.
Many (most?) people identify with their ideas. They consider their ideas to be parts of, or manifestations of, themselves.

This is why, if you attack an idea, the person defending it feels threatened. They go into a fight-or-flight mode, which almost completely deactivates their ability to evaluate your arguments rationally.

Star-manning makes clear from the start that you recognize, appreciate, and share their intentions. You aren't opposed to the things they care about the most. You're actually an ally. They don't need to fight you or run from you.

From this vantage point, you can discuss strategies for accomplishing the goals you both share, and there is a much higher likelihood they will be open to hearing the reasons you think your strategy will be more effective than they would if their hindbrain activated at the beginning of the conversation.