skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Declarative isn't important. I wish people would stop talking about it. It's not even useful to think about most of the time because of how many ways it can be interpreted. It's a thereotical categorization, not a functional design principle.

Just make the program do useful things for the user. Make the computer work for the human rather than the other way around.
> I can tell you that for the duration of the cold shower my existential angst was no longer top of mind.

I bet you if you hit your thumb hard with a hammer, your existential angst will also no longer be at the the top of your mind.

Likely, any significant physical acute discomfort will remove existential angst from the top of your mind.
I'm sorry, but the title is triggering me.

Why not ask, "What are some good password managers for business use cases and their pros and cons?
> That's as direct an observation as you're going to get for most things in the universe.

It is decidedly not. It's a clear sign that points at "Our models don't work well here", but simply noting that we're seeing an unexpected result is FAR different than being able to declare "we have observed dark matter".

Basically - if you're saying that the bullet cluster is good evidence against MOND, welp... we agree.

If you're saying the bullet cluster is direct observation of dark matter... I don't agree at all. It's just proof that both models are broken for the cases where we see galactic collisions. The fact that you can wallpaper over this in models with dark matter is... the point of dark matter in the first place: A handy escape hatch for cases like this.
Why are you putting "truth" in all caps?
If you like John Cochrane, he is part of The Good Fellows show on YouTube. They have great conversations on a myriad of subjects between an economist, a historian, and a military general.
Zeiss office lens. Those are progressive lenses that combine close focus (the traditional reading lenses) with an intermediate range (for computer monitor usage).
You mean the miners? Mining Ethereum doesn’t allow for much inspection of what you’re validating in each block.

It’s just a program that runs and guesses a bunch of salts that hopefully result in a hash that meets some particular parameters (e.g. starts with 5 zeros). You want to be the first to guess correctly so you win the reward for that block, so any sort of investigation doesn’t make sense. From what data was stored on-chain in that block and whether it may be problematic (or even what the data represents), to which contracts were involved (and whether they have criminal ties), it’s just not reasonable for any miner to take responsibility for the block chain operating as expected.

I think this is the core issue with the block chain, is that society has always expected there to be some moral agent that you could hold responsible. Except in cases of natural disasters, you can normally blame someone.

But with blockchains, it’s a lot harder to place blame on someone, or link a physical person to the online identity.

Similarly with the 2008 GFC, everything was abstract enough that almost nobody got in trouble for a situation that was most certainly man-made, but hard to place the blame. At least then, though, the government had some amount of control over the banks and also relied on them to return society to normal.

Through the government’s eyes, block chain doesn’t appear necessary for society to operate and is very difficult to regulate, so I’m sure their tolerance is a lot lower for blockchains when financial crimes crop up from it.
More info on the extension they referenced here: https://ghc.gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/doc/users_guide/exts/cont...

But basically it's a meta-extension that flips on a bunch of extensions that most haskell users would come to expect as 'default'.

As a simple example: TupleSections. If the compiler complained to me that I needed to turn on TupleSections, I wouldn't take a minute to consider whether it was a good idea, I'd just be annoyed that I hadn't flipped it on somewhere already.
I am far from an expert, but there are hundreds of extremely similar but slightly modified versions of PFOA that haven’t been proven unsafe, so are still allowed, but they’re all so similar it’s hard to believe that they’ll have different affects.

We’ll see though in another 30-50 years how much they’ve hurt us again!

Some info & includes links to other sources: https://www.consumerreports.org/toxic-chemicals-substances/p...
I thought X.
I saw Y.
"I changed my opinion".

Excellent!
There are bunch of reasons, but here’s the one topping my list:

1. Heroes!

One man’s hero is another man’s jerk. A single box becomes a single point of failure. Once the hero guy gets pulled out of bed one too many times because the one box is down due to a “simple” change the other “stupid other guy who’s not the real coder” pushed, the hero guy decides they have a duty to protect the tin box with their blood.

It gets messy real fast. Soon you get a tin box that no body except our “Hero” can touch. The hero has all the passwords and they decide where the backups are kept (you don’t want the lesser people to mess them up! don’t you?), the hero has the encryption keys, the hero is only person who knows what to do when the tin box goes up in smoke.

Any org worth it’s salt does not want that hero guy or their one magic tin box!

TL;DR: Organizations are willing to pay for the slow distributed system that costs 10x to run to avoid the real shitty people situation that often comes with a magic all-powerful single machine.

(edit: tldr)
Why do you say that? What’s your experience? I’ve spent years in Japan and live with 2 native Japanese and hear はい
and いいえ all the time…

When you give a Japanese person a compliment the most comment response IME is いいえ (nooo I’m not)

And はい is said all the time
> The article compares the Russian jamming of Viasat with the compromise of a Starlink UT. No, no, no... This is really wrong!

This is a bit misleading. The article mentions the Viasat hack in the next-to-last paragraph of the article before the update in the context of satellite security more broadly:

> "As an increasing amount of satellites are launched—Amazon, OneWeb, Boeing, Telesat, and SpaceX are creating their own constellations—their security will come under greater scrutiny. In addition to providing homes with internet connections, the systems can also help to get ships online, and play a role in critical infrastructure. Malicious hackers have already shown that satellite internet systems are a target. As Russian troops invaded Ukraine, alleged Russian military hackers targeted the Via-Sat satellite system, deploying wiper malware that bricked people’s routers and knocked them offline. Around 30,000 internet connections in Europe were disrupted, including more than 5,000 wind turbines."
Focus Time Saved Me from Burnout
Oh okay, I think I get it now.

(It's weird to think about grammar sometimes in a language you just grow up with.)
Okay not bad, but can you implement Doom in MySQL? ;-)
I cook with stainless steel, including eggs (probably the most challenging food here, IMO). For an over-easy egg, it's sufficient to simply pre-heat the skillet until butter will sizzle and quickly melt (but not brown) when added. For scrambled eggs I do the same, but also continuously rotate the eggs off/on heat. This not only cooks the eggs to a beautiful custard type texture, but also mostly if not entirely prevents sticking.

Almost everything else doesn't require particular consideration on stainless steel IMO. Potatoes can be more difficult than others though. Hash browns are easy, but little stir-fried potato cubes tend to stick.

With meat, generally, the food will unstick when it's sufficiently cooked, which is a handy coincidence if you ask me.

I'd love to get any pointers, too.
It's a sign of the hackers skill that they can take the same difficult problem and make it so anyone with $25 can duplicate it.

Making something accessible to the masses makes it a more impressive achievement.
Doctor shopping isn't necessarily the best analogy, but it's also true that parental pressure on school bureaucracy can result in their student being placed into a program they otherwise wouldn't have.
> meaning everyone of those floating satellites needs to be brought back down and modified

Don’t they have a fairly short operational lifetime, thanks to increased drag from being in LEO? IIRC it’s around 5 years. I believe that’s part of the reason for the high launch cadence. Worst case they just limp along with what they’ve got until they’re all replaced with new satellites.
At these scales, there are no rigid bodies, and so no single "chunk". If the giant-impact account is correct, the moon coalesced out of ejecta in orbit.

> And why wouldn't the chunk either escape or fall back down, rejoining the main mass?

Some material likely did escape, but that takes much more energy than getting into orbit. You need to leave the surface of the Earth at about 11km/s to escape, but only 6km/s to reach lunar orbit.
I would pay for that. I bet a lot of us would.

And I would love a print edition. Not everyone would.

We have a lot of tech writers out there doing interesting things. Having those curated has a lot of value. And once a BYTE style distribution is up and running, the editorial section would also have pretty high value.

I bet it does not make sense from an investment point of view.

Does it make sense from someone making a good living point of view? I suspect it might.

I would pay $20 a month. Would any others?
This has been one of my favourite of his series. I've been thinking about making a game with some of my friends to model the complexity of moving an army around.
> Mere equity in a home with a flat value is essentially unaffected by lowered property values overall: you'll not be forced to 'save' as much, but the point of saving was to not have a mortgage payment anymore. If you don't need to 'save' as much to reach the same outcome, if anything that's a net good.

Some of this is hilariously false and the rest is incoherent. There is simply no way to argue that lowered property values won't result in a net destruction of wealth for people holding mortgages or paid off homes.

> Your data is out of date. It used to hover around 200k current dollars on average, but now it's far higher. The increasingly terrible zoning and other building regulations finally caught up to us: https://dqydj.com/historical-home-prices/

You can't measure from a point of extreme dislocation. We're clearly off trend at present and there's no reason to believe it won't revert, as is being widely discussed right now. Somewhat obviously, monthly mortgage payment inflation cannot greatly exceed wage inflation, on average.

> No, it's just luck compounded by regulations that favor handing out wealth to the elderly over the keeping costs reasonable for younger people.

You're still thinking about extreme markets. And in those markets regulation is only part of the answer. The truly salient determinant of prices is how quickly demand for housing in a region increases, which is fundamentally unpredictable.
This year I wrote the latest compiler for jank[1] to be in C++. Originally, this new version was being written in Rust, which I prefer, but I ran into a serious limitation. In the C++ world, we have Cling[2], so I can easily JIT compile arbitrary C++ code and link it to my running process. This is exactly what I need for jank's REPL and JIT capabilities. In the Rust world, such a thing doesn't exist and trying to use rustc as a crate is not well supported at all, all on top of the ABI instability issues.

I model most the C++ code around Rust's semantics for things like option<T> and result<T, E>. Currently working on replacing my boost::intrusive_ptr usage with an equivalent which is non-nullable, to be combined with option<T>. Even with value semantics, RAII, and hefty TMP for type-rich APIs, C++ still bites in many ways. It's still so easy to have UB compile, including anything from iterator slip ups to interdependent static globals in different TUs with undefined ctor/dtor orders.

1: https://jank-lang.org/
2: https://root.cern/cling/
It's worth noting that in the Indian judicial system a large number of judges are related to previous judges. There is a system where the previous judges appoint subsequent ones, which results in widespread nepotism.

The length of the battle comes from an overcrowded judicial system which has many reasons like this to be overcrowded via constraint of supply.

Supply constraint mechanisms are a way for labour to extract value from society. It happens with the AMA here and the judiciary there.
> co2 balance of those 'biofuels' is way worse than fuels refined from extracted fossil fuels

By what metric? You get out much more energy than you put in. And when we're talking about keeping farms active, that land wasn't going to be doing something significantly better wrt carbon if the subsidy didn't exist.
This is not that unusual. Nepali also doesn't have a clean-cut yes/no translation.
It’s important for audit ability and security that people can’t change commit ids from under you. If you run a security review of commit A and decide it’s safe to automatically deploy on your production systems, you’re only doing that because you know commit A can’t be changed.
> I have been quite surprised to encounter a number of people who resist using the forums or the issue trackers to ask questions, file bug reports, or make feature requests. Usually their reasoning boils down to it being too inconvenient to create an account on redmine.stoutner.com.

Joel Spolsky had a solution to this issue in 2003: Eliminate the registration requirement on support forums. Quoting him:

—-

Q. Why don’t you have a registration scheme to eliminate rude posters?

A. As I explained earlier, the goal of the forum is to make it easy to post. (Remember, the software was written for tech support.) Registration schemes eliminate at least 90% of the people who might have posted, and in a tech support scenario, those 90% are going to call my toll free number.

Besides, I don’t think registration would help. If somebody is being abusive, it doesn’t help to ban them, they can trivially reregister. The idea of improving the community by requiring registration is an old one, and it’s appropriate, I think, for the Echo/Well type of conferences where you’re creating a network of people as much as you’re discussing a topic, and you charge people cash money to belong.

But requiring registration does NOT improve the quality of the conversation or the average quality of the participants. If you look closely at the signal-to-noise ratio on the Joel on Software forum, you might start to notice that the noisiest people (i.e. the people who post the most words while contributing the fewest ideas) are often the long time, hard core members who visit the forum every ten minutes. These are the people who feel the need to chime in with a “I agree with that” and replies to Every Single Topic even when they haven’t got an original thought to contribute. And they would certainly register.

https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2003/03/03/building-communiti...
I wouldn't. Sony has a track record of fostering creative excellence with their studio purchases. Microsoft can barely get their studios to release anything within a reasonable timeframe, and most releases tend to be good-but-not-great. Something about the Redmond management just doesn't deliver here despite the exorbitant budgets.

Of course, my perspective is a bit different because I own both consoles.
perhaps https://hotdoglinux.com

or simply loading up Mini vMac, entering fullscreen, and basking for a while.
I would just be happy that you have a job you're good at. I switched teams multiple times. I'm tired of it. I wish I could do the same stuff and actually build expertise. I'm too old to continue on this treadmill. I recently switched teams and I'm concerned about just being able to keep my job.
Why is just running say your Ruby existing program on Truffle with a big performance gain stupid?
A lot of the languages use C extensions and running them on the JVM is faster then using the FFI to call them from the JVM.
> It's highly plausible that many people said their opinion "stayed the same" while actually worsening.

This statement crosses the line into absurdity.

The poll (that they designed!) didn’t give the “correct” results so time to do some hand waving and move the goalposts.

I’ll never understand this obsession with imagined grievances and jumping through hoops to paint one’s self as a victim. What is the point? Attention? Pity?
That might help, but I think it goes in the wrong direction - The proper way to implement a regex matcher if you are worried about performance against arbitrary patterns is to build a Finite State Machine. It's not as simple of code and involves knowing some computer science theory, but results in a matcher with better time complexity guarantees.
Kagi does not tie searches to an account, as a matter of fact it does not log them at all (and why would it when you already pay with your wallet)

https://kagi.com/privacy
The used market is about become very profitable :)
I'm not always expecting a consensus, it's just that frustration-fuelled rants end up being noisy and sometimes difficult to differentiate from rational arguments.

What also bothers me is the hostility and cynicism with which these things are discussed.

Also, you're tripping if you don't think HN has a quasi-consensus on many, many topics.
> Calling git a blockchain to rebrand bad tech

Does he have any examples of people making this claim? Otherwise the post just seems like a lengthy strawman (or what's the name for an argument based on defeating a made-up statement?).
Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/2022/08/12/peloton-un...
I think there are two things that are needed for Linux desktop in the business world to take off.

First, there are a few pieces of software that users are used to using. Outlook and Office are the biggest. Yes you can use alternatives or the web version, but most people are not used to them or they could be missing certain features. Until LibreOffice / online versions have full feature parity it will be a deal breaker. With more and more software becoming online only, this may be less and less of an issue going forward.

The other missing thing is first class support for AD. I think most Linux distros have decent support for on prem AD, but most (none?) have support for the cloud AD version. The cloud version is becoming more and more popular so until it can be supported I don't think businesses will accept it.
US approves Google plan to let political emails bypass Gmail spam filter
If they are, in my experience they seem to be mediated by the endocannabinoid system and not primarily opiod release due to trauma and adrenaline.

The only times I've felt it were on the tail end of cross country meets (a 5k race pace) and it was quite nice. Kind of an electric Bliss in your whole body. Borderline arousing at the risk of oversharing lol.
One exists to facilitate privacy, the other exists to facilitate money laundering.

Compare with E2EE Matrix protocol: it does not exist to facilitate criminal communication, but it does facilitate criminal communication.

TC is also different because it is an open source protocol, not a legal entity or group. You deposit funds into the protocol, and anybody in the network can help you withdraw them by relaying your transaction. It is a set of rules that any group of people can follow to allow for private transactions, and the same protocol can run on many blockchains.
If there's hardware out there, then people are running NetBSD on it. It comes in handy even when people aren't running it as their primary OS. For example, you can netboot NetBSD on your VAX to image disks, to communicate with modern servers and modern peripherals, et cetera, which would be a bit harder with legacy OSes.

As it happens, I run NetBSD on a Cobalt which builds NetBSD mipsel pkgsrc packages:

https://twitter.com/AnachronistJohn/status/15563865258891755...

I also run NetBSD on some VAXen, also to build pkgsrc packages:

https://twitter.com/AnachronistJohn/status/14624751587912745...

NetBSD might not have the best public visibility, but for those of us who appreciate a clean, consistent OS that runs the same on whatever hardware we choose, it's wonderful.

If you have an older machine you'd like to keep running, you may end up discovering that NetBSD is preferable to trying to keep some no longer supported Linux variant up and running. Even for modern hardware, it can be preferable - cleaner, smaller, without gratuitous changes from one version to the next...
the first two parts of this blog post series absolutely blew my mind and changed how I think about an army in the real world.

Can't wait to read this post.
My wife and I tossed out all the Teflon cookware we had about 25 years ago and replaced it with cast iron and stainless steel. We've not missed it at all.
Ah, I see, my bad. I misunderstood. (I think part of it is also like, what even is "systems" is confusing; I think many folks would think of those CLI apps as being bread and butter systems stuff, but you can slice it both ways really.)

Hopefully someone finds the presentation interesting if they haven't seen it before :)
But would you say using that web stack initially would have been overkill?
They use Unity for a wide variety of purposes, including cyber-security and educational training in general. BE glad they are making jobs available for the thousands of kids graduating with Unity certification in an oversaturated game market. There's a huge demand for "Unity Engineers" (read: actual programmers who also know how to use a GUI/IDE like Unity).
It's a jarring experience. They always seem to know better, and as the years went on, they made harder and harder to properly use the system as a power user.
I think that we need a bit of physical discomfort to push against.

We have created an environment with the least amount of effort and variations and as a result the more prevalent diseases are the result of too much calories and not enough effort exerted.
I think both of these are missing the fundamental question of: What does the business, or what do the product teams need? And what is the business willing to pay for it?

We have a whole bunch of simple systems with very lax SLAs around. Those are just running as a single container in the orchestration, because upon failure, they just restart with a minute of downtime or five and it's available enough. For these systems it wouldn't make sense to really think about HA postgres clusters for example. It would be entirely fine to have 2 postgres instances with replication and alerting so the admin can trigger a failover as needed.

However, we also have systems with rather strict and ambitious SLAs, and we're being paid well for the availability of these systems. And at that point, the buisness decisions start to accrue - the company considers it a selling point to be self-hosting, we have ambitious SLAs, we have a lot of products settling on postgres.

At that point, it makes sense for the company to have 1-2 engineers focusing on an HA postgres setup and a couple more engineers who can handle it during an oncall incident. It took us like 2 years and a lot of head scratching to get where we are (which would be an unacceptable investment of time and money to a startup), but now these rock-solid database clusters are turning into an actual asset for sales and product development.

This has been my learning over the last 2-4 years overall: You kinda have to do the smallest and simplest thing to make the business requirement work. Oftentimes, a simple single node solution or a 2-node setup with some defined manual emergency handling works surprisingly well and you don't need any fully scalable auto-failover setup. In other times, big requirements require the big hammer, but that one doesn't come cheap.
The "like you should have been able to 30 years ago" bit suggests otherwise, since you have been able to for at least 20 years.