skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yes, businesses produce actual value. The problem is in what you're diverting from, the ground rents extracted by artificial housing supply constraints. Whether you pay your landlord $X or $Y has zero direct effect on the total amount of real goods and services produced and consumed by the economy as a whole, it's purely redistributive. So if you reduce the total amount of rents paid to landlords, you are enriching renters at the expense of landlords without changing the total size of the real economy, and there's no real goods and services freed up to then be productively used by businesses to generate actual value.
The breakthrough is probably going to be a GPT-N model. It needs a few tweaks to be good enough - for example to be able to handle complex projects. The glue code is always going to be an impossible problem from the point of view of language design, can't standardise, every case is different in a different way. Only a human or a language model are flexible enough to adapt to this kind of variance. We're going to love our glue generator and won't be able to understand how we used to write that code by hand.
My reasoning was that, across all Facebook-owned properties, they have ~7 billion MAU. All their top competitors combined are roughly half that. [1]

This is all illustrative, of course. My salient point is that monopolies are only really held in check by the law. In this case, at least there's a significant competitor.

1: https://www.searchenginejournal.com/social-media/biggest-soc...
Docker is an open platform for developing, shipping, and running applications. It enables us to separate the applications from infrastructure so that we can deliver software quickly.
12 hours ago, 26 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32493735
Scanned the article for any significant insights and only notable reference to me was the distribution of neurons, though it was lacking any meaningful details.

Quick Google turned up: “Octopuses have an extensive nervous system, with over 500 million neurons, similar in number to that of a dog. But unlike dogs and other vertebrates, where the majority of neurons are in the brain, over two thirds of the octopuses' neurons are located within their arms and body.”

Appears neurons are evenly distributed among the each the eight arms. That said, unable to find any research that shows the arms show any signs independent intelligence.
Single entry bookkeeping is essentially a list of your income/expenses. A list of this nature means you can't be certain you got everything, if an item is missing or has been double counted it wont be obvious at first glance that it is wrong.

Double Entry bookkeeping adds a layer to your lists to ensure that everything has been accounted for, you are creating the same list but also tracking the opposite side which is what it affected.

The most simple case here is that the income/expense also affects your bank account. By tracking the bank account you now can check that your "Predicted" bank balance according to your list is actually what is in the bank account. If they don't match then you know for certain something got missed.

It doesn't solve all the errors that can possibly occur, but it makes sure that the basics are at least covered.
A similar concept is the maintenance of physical world machinery, it's also often overlooked, but a huge industry even compared to manufacturing the machinery it self
I really love this point: https://yoyo-code.com/programming-breakthroughs-we-need/#pro...

In my day-to-day JavaScript programming adventures, I typically encounter issues around paths and how they're imported. There has been so much energy devoted to parsing a string and reading the file it (probably) points to, and we just assume that what we're importing from that file is actually what is in it. Maintaining all of my static imports in JavaScript feels like I'm doing something that a compiler or bundler should be doing, not a human being.

Go has the right idea, it considers every file in the current directory to be part of the same package. This is really useful because you basically don't have to think about file importing anymore. I love being able to compartmentalize my Go programs without having to worry about updating a bunch of path imports all over the place. It lets me just focus on the code and sort out the organization later on when the project gets bigger. Of course, when the project _does_ get bigger, that's when you start having to grok how packages work and how they're built. This isn't a huge problem but it's definitely a learning curve that you don't necessarily need to overcome when you're first starting out, so it's a bit of a skill jump.

I feel like there should be a programming language where the module system is deeply integrated with the package management system, and they are both baked into the language using syntax. This way, you can optimize those systems without disturbing how programs work, and the programs can specify what stuff they need from each package. Rather than deciding on some kind of folder/file convention for what a "module" is in your language, this one would put that responsibility on the programmer.

A package would be defined by specifying its unique name, and the code that can be imported out of it.

export package "fs" {
export module File {
export function read(path: string) {
// ...
}
}
}

And then the `read()` function can be imported like this in your own app:

import { File } from "fs"

export package "my-app" {
export module App
export function start() {
File.read("README.md")
}
}
}

You'd run this function on the command line by specifying it as your "entry point" like

lang --run 'my-app#App.start()'

Or, you can compile it into a program with

lang --compile 'my-app#App.start()' --output ./app

I don't know if a "registry" is really needed for these packages, as that might unnecessarily centralize the whole thing. Technically, since the language doesn't care at all about file paths, you can store packages however you want in your system. Literally `wget "https://github.com/some/pkg/releases/latest" | gunzip` should be enough to start using the package, but of course having a CLI for managing this stuff will also be table stakes.
3% of your credit card spend is a steep cost to pay for that security though, they can't clean out all your money if you don't tie all of it to the debit card, just put a months worth there at a time and you are better off with debit unless you get your debit card stolen every year or so.

It isn't more work than credit either, instead of paying it off every month you fill it up every month.

And for fraud protection, 3% is only worth it if every 30'th purchase is fraud in some way. Personally I've never lost my card and never fallen for fraud, so it would just be 3% of my money thrown away for nothing.
I’d be tempted to try official inks too. When you adjust the color, does the old color stick around long? Make your prints muddy?
Citi Double Cash is a 2% cash-back no annual fee card.

Interchange benefits merchants too - there's real costs associated with holding cash, and average cart sizes are significantly bigger for credit cards. They also miss out on fewer sales.

You may not value rewards programs but customers, card issuers and certainly those who operate those programs do. They're massive business. Frequently the only profitable part of a US domestic airline is its frequent flyer program - which gets the bulk of its money from credit card reward programs.

Credit card companies have even provided debtor in possession financing for airlines in the US by pre-purchasing multi-billion dollar blocks of frequent flyer miles. Here's when Amex did it for Delta in 2011. [1]

[1] https://www.eastvalleytribune.com/money/american-express-rea...
I think it depends on the scenario. If you’re buying $0.50 worth of bananas at a farmer's market, then maybe irreversibility doesn’t matter. Could be even a $20 lunch bill, I've never done a chargeback at a restaurant before.
If you're going to take a group of scammer's twisted, false interpretation of a v0.0.1 Bitcoin whitepaper as the absolute final Gospel truth and something which you put faith in regarding your money then you're going to have a really bad time.

> it's actually being used as cash in the real world (unlike BTC)

Simply not true, on both counts. Sorry.
EFTPOS got kicked to the curb when paywave-with-no-pin started. And then the pandemic reinforced that idea for a lot of people.

I don't know when I last used EFTPOS.
You are right that in practice it's a US/Canada thing, but it's available everywhere. Customers simply don't know about it, banks don't advertise it and if you try to take advantage of it it's very likely you'll stumble upon a clerk who genuinely thinks that "it's impossible". But it is certainly possible and universally available. Consumers should simply know their rights and refuse to be pushed over by banks.

Personally I have made use of "impossible" chargebacks in Romania, Austria, and Germany. Of course the process was obtuse and frustrating compared to the US.
I don't think it's reasonable for clients to cache responses across disconnect/reconnect, especially when the network has observably changed (new default gateway, for example), and even more so when the resolver has changed.

Based on my own personal experience I'd also say that no (modern) clients do so although that could be wrong.
I use it for cash back. It helps to significantly offset sales tax for me.

Yes, the money is always coming from somewhere and arguably products might be cheaper without credit cards. However, it’s the game we’re in, so why leave money on the table?
There are large benefits to not relying on a few redundant centralized servers in that case. We have "clearing houses" now, and in most cases they shouldn't be necessary. If you had something like a "permissioned blockchain", any financial institution could easily validate that everything was settled, in real time.
So PostHog is a platform with a lot of tools for SaaS products (feature flags, analytics, events, etc.). Never heard of them but sounds interesting.

One of their employee benefits is: "We'll be your first investor and biggest cheerleader, if you spend two years at PostHog and leave to start a new company. We're looking for entrepreneurs and a strong bias for action!"

I wonder if someone who has done this can testify how that process went. I assume these were all cases with very strong personal connections, if any, because the company is just two years old so any such person must have been a very early employee and (hopefully) a friend of the founders.

EDIT: LinkedIn shows zero employees who are "Past company: PostHog" and are also current founders. That doesn't mean the gesture isn't neat, but it doesn't seem to be a deep component of their culture (yet!).
>Lightning is absolutely Bitcoin

A separate network is not Bitcoin. And Bitcoin doesn't require intermediaries. The only network that fits Bitcoin's definition is BCH.
Does anyone know why macOS updates seemingly take forever? Even on the fastest Macs available, they are slow.
I see this largely as a language failure.

Alot of popular languages make it really easy to write code, but hard to maintain it .

It's one of the reasons I like Rust so much,even for relatively high level code. It has one of the srictest type systems and std/library ecosystems of any language in existence, which tends to make code very robust and easy to refactor.

I often wish for a language that has a similarly strict type type/ecosystem but is higher level. Swift is quite close, but very Mac OS centric. Haskell has exceptions, which are often used for error handling, making code less robust (plus the ecosystem is small). Other languages like Ada/Spark or Idris are way too fringe...
The ForcedCommand is server-side, the Match exec from ssh_config is done client-side. The server has no way to enforce which commands the client can run locally.
Whoever comes up with a way to encode this dynamic in a smart contract(s) could make a killing - or at least raise a lot of money hehe.
There was a paper I read about a decade back about the existential crisis of power companies. After everyone has the ability to generate and store power locally in their home why do you need power companies anymore? Or will they even be able to charge as much. How will they keep up with the maintenance of the grid? Some interesting questions but I guess we will see the answers in the coming years.
Programming is a bureaucracy. It is like saying "Fill form B7910-2A, go to room X830, get a stamp from the manager, get form H342...".
Following this articles advice will likely make your app render slower than not optimizing at all. Caching everything increases your risk of stale data through misconfiguration. Also the benefits of referential stability only apply to a limited set of components in your overall render tree.

Most data structures and components don't need stability. The issue people have with hooks is primarily caused by 99% of folks not quite understanding just how sparingly hooks should be used.

You should only worry about referential equality once you've profiled a performance issue from some high frequency interaction. This is the only time to useCallback, useMemo, or any form of referential caching.

An element walks into a bar. If your component accepts children or any react elements as props, quite normal, all optimizations around referential equality for its inputs will be flung out the window as that component de-optimizes at every optimization prematurely added.

Another big mistake I see folks of all levels make often is expecting more program design upfront vs. say just managing configurations.

- <Example><Test /></Example>

- <Example onTest={() => {}} />

- <Example test={{}} />

- <Example tests={[]} />

These all have the same render cost, so there is often no reason to extract function handlers/arrays/objects out of the jsx configuration.
It would be helpful to characterize them as "democratic" ideals - not "western" ideals. There is nothing intrinsically "western" about human rights.

In fact, calling them "western" ideas is exactly how autocracies belittle them to their people.
[Stable Diffusions interpretation of the second sentence](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1006094456799363082...)
TBF, is there any way to do fraud protection on personal transfers ? Imagine you sent 100 bucks to your cousin and 10 min later requested your bank to get your money back because you sent it to the wrong cousin.

I hate to say this, but there will always be loopholes as long as scamming js lucrative enough.
Sure, although this does feel like it's becoming painfully drawn out. Let's use a simple parallel example: If someone's having a laugh at, say, Trump. Then they use that as an example of how those those silly Canadians are always electing daft politicians. You're probably going to point out that Trump was not in fact the president of Canada. That the example is not relevant.

Likewise, it is a mistake to lump the Nazi dog case in with the other case. One occurred under Scottish legal jurisdiction, the other under English legal jurisdiction. The example is not relevant.
That's the thing; lots of businesses outside the US have no problem using bank transfers. I only have a credit card for internet purchases outside Netherland; every Dutch site (including many international ones, like Steam) supports iDeal, which is far safer than credit cards.
I would pay around this number if I would be renting my current apartments. My salary is significantly higher than average though.
The level of support is: install this update if you want to be secure. The idea is that you don’t need to know all that other information. Install the update to be secure.
I don't think you're wrong to say that if we keep dumping CO2 into the atmosphere then we're _eventually_ going warm the planet to the point predicted in the article.

But > 10 years out, unpredictable technological innovation (either improvements to decarbonization tech or other tech that would make a lack of decarbonization irrelevant) would almost certainly change the path we're on to a point where projecting the current path isn't useful. To that point, Deloitte's finding of "insufficient action" on climate change couldn't possibly take into account actions happening today that could build toward useful climate change solutions if their only concept of action is applying existing tech to the problem.
Both statements can be true, it’s a hallmark of nation states and humble anonymous researchers.
That's the same thing. It's just an arbitrary line in the sand you have drawn where you say if care about these issues but not these you must be dishonest.
Big Blocks Can Scale, but Will It Centralize Bitcoin? [video]
So your only arguments are denials and ad hominems. Got it.
>Everyone (with shoes) is counting on their shoes increasing in value. So the government becomes focused on raising the prices of everyone's shoes

That is not how reality works. Prices go up because people are paying them - it has nothing to do with government. A seller wants the highest price, no matter what the govt or local markets do, and a buyer wants the lowest price, no matter what govt or local markets do. Each is competing against other sellers and buyers. At no point is the govt telling a seller they're too low or a buyer they're not high enough. If either side dislikes the deal, they walk.

It has nothing to do with being an asset class - the causality is the other way. Houses are valuable, are a significant amount of money for most people, and increase in value because, if nothing else, inflation - thus they're an asset. So is holding cash (which actually deflates in value, yet is an asset), so are bonds, stocks, annuities, pensions, and on and on.

As to the shoe example - here's more what happens:

People would all love it for their cars to increase in value, but in reality they do not. The govt is not making this market out of magic to satisfy people's desires - houses increase in value at slightly above inflation because the market values them so.

By your reasoning, govt is magically making prices go up, but the market would not simply follow along.

And, if the govt were magically making prices go up against market wishes, they're doing a terrible job at it - housing only increases around what other assets do - and that's the market doing it.

People have tried using govt or other forces to misprice markets, but that never lasts very long before wise investors pull the rug out and crash it.

History has a lot of examples of people both trying to fake high prices for force low prices by law and losing out to the market. The market commands vastly more resources than any govt to put things in check.
> 50,000 Powerwalls

At 13.5kWh per powerwall that’s 675mWh, right? Anyone know how many minutes of electricity consumption that represents for the State of California?
It's correct that "debit" and "credit" don't have to do with "owing/being owed" money. But they do have to do with "OWNing/being owed". This apparently subtle difference provides powerful insight.

If you look at equity as money owed to shareholders, then the left side of the balance sheet is money owned, and the right side of the balance sheet is money owed.

Money OWNEd = Money OWEd

Assets = Liabilities + Equity

A debit either increases money OWNed on the left side of the balance sheet, or decreases money OWEd on the right side.
> Depreciation is very fundamental to business tax law. I'm not sure how you'd "fix" that without penalizing non-rental companies for expanding.

You can fix it by only deprecating the original cost. A person who buys a 50 year old house shouldn't be able to depreciate a second time, (then next owner again)
I use one for two reasons. One is that it puts a layer between my purchase and my bank. Any fraudulent purchases can be dealt with before any money is taken from my account. The second is for the rewards and the ability to build credit.
"Sitting with her puppy helped, but her teachers told her it was too distracting onscreen. Ultimately her mother decided to try her on Paxil."

Sad
"It's a very visual way to program. You drag and drop a UI together from standardized elements. You could data bind things like input fields to a data source. You'd double click a button and it takes you to the already created "onclick" event where you do the actual coding. In a way, this is still similar to how you can "program" Microsoft Access today."

Yes! I remember Delphi as my first language in school, too. And later in university I could not understand, why in all the other advanced languages like Java, C and C++ doing the same was so hard.

Then I discovered Flash and later Flex with Flex Builder. That was a even way more powerful experience.
You could draw up anything - and make a button out of it with a click. Or a sophisticated, reusable component.

And then it died, because of Adobes unwillingness to open source the technology (and their focus on performance and flashy features and not security). All the bad flash applets that were flying around existed, not because it was so bad, but because it was so easy even for total beginners to make something working fast.

But today?
I am back to hacking scripts.
Who is Zelle and what do they do with the information that they harvest from this service that they offer?
There are multiple fabs in the US.
> dockerTools

"Tags", "registries", "base images", "extraCommands"... no thanks

> ociTools

IIRC, this generates a runnable container (i.e. a directory, with accompanying config); not a container image, e.g. suitable for uploading to AWS ECS.
> but unwilling to brunt the cost that companies will then pass on to those same customer

HUGE "citation needed" here. Apple did a study years ago (when Obama was President) and the cost to manufacture iPhones in the US was well under 10% of the total cost, by their own calculations.

The cost of labor in China has only gotten worse since then (hence the move to Vietnam in the OP).
And yet, they are higher. Of course, not because CC fees, but regardless of the reason, as the price of virtually everything that isn't a staple is higher in the EU, the fact that lower CC fees make prices trivially lower in this particular case is somewhat of an irrelevant point.
We also have rupay, which is now international as an alternative to visa and Mastercard.

Credit card usage has been declining in India.
> Why should transaction "cost" anything? It is just running arithmetic instruction on a number in a computer.

Every dollar that crosses a payments platform has a non-zero chance of creating some combination of legal, regulatory and customer-service costs. Frictionless transactions are as real world as their physics counterpart.

> would argue batch processing makes no sense

It does, from a deeply fundamental level. The only case where RTGS is equal to net settlement is if we make some Econ 101 assumptions (frictionless transactions, infinite borrowing and lending capacity) together with zero or negative rates. (Even then, one could be a stickler about the cost of computation.)

> you might have already been bankrupt

Clearinghouses.

My point isn't that net settlement or RTGS are inherently better. They're not. But they're fundamentally tied, and net settlement on top of an RTGS rail will always be cheaper in the real world than that same underlying rail. On the cost side, net settlement will win. On immediacy and counterparty risk, RTGS. A strong system offers both options.
Pretty much every major bank in the US issues credit cards, so you don't need to deal with a second company. For most consumers, there are credit cards without fees (the CC companies charge fees to merchants, but unless you're dealing with a place that offers a cash discount, that doesn't affect you at all).