skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yeah - I skipped the type inclusion, as I just viewed it as a misfeature, assuming we're talking about the implicit casts between different number types.

As to ':=' in Go, yeah - a new thing over Oberon-2.
Since assignment in Go uses C style '=' whereas Oberon uses Pascal style ':=', I certainly was not confusing them.

The characterisation came about because of an implicit complaint (from C programmers) about a choice of Go for a project. Now never having used Oberon-2, but having read the report, I used the comparison to a stripped version it as a way of showing how simple the language actually was. Something like 25 pages being sufficient to describe it.

The things which struck me were:

O2 MODULE becomes Go package (and similar syntax use)
O2 NEW retained as Go new, but &Foo{} generally preferred
O2 export of symbol via '\*' tag becomes Go export via capital letter.
O2 Open arrays replaced by Go slices or strings.
O2 WITH because Go 'type switch'
O2 'type guard' becomes Go 'type assertion'
O2 VAR parameters to PROCEDURES become Go pointer parameters to funcs

But in the end it is very much a subjective thing, so unless using the non classful parts of Oberon-2 reveals significant differences, I'd have to stick with my evaluation.
What's NS1? Is it related to the root zone hosting or is this just a company with a funny name?
I left at the end of 2020.
One bad thing doesn’t justify another bad thing.

And where is the welfare return? It is a transfer of wealth towards a lucky and already privileged subset of the population, paid for by present and future taxpayers, many of whom are underprivileged.

The idea of welfare is wealth transfer from the more to the less privileged. But this seems like the opposite.
It’s high up in the chain and miserable is a side effect of underfunded. I spent some time working at the CA dmv headquarters and can honestly say it’s actually kind of crazy how small the crew is that gets to decide how every other dmv in the state is run. They are running on a pretty tight budget (we had to fund our own drinking water and coffee) and they are definitely not trendsetters. These are people that have spent decades working in low paid government jobs and aren’t interested in risking much of anything. They have little resources, are not on the bleeding edge of anything, they know what works and mostly stick to that.

As an intern that knew my way around mail merges, outlook, and excel macros (around 2010), their minds were blown. But also they patted me on the head, gave me a phone, and asked me to physically call every DMV office in CA to ask them how many physical manuals they needed shipped to their office
1 million upvotes for the right answer. The printing press was the single, greatest factor responsible for the Industrial Revolution. It contributed to an exponential spread of knowledge that led to a rising tide of industrialisation. Most ancient civilizations had their geniuses, mathematicians and engineers - but they couldn't pass on their knowledge permanently.
You're barking down the wrong tree.

We're talking about the prediliction of one party in the US to bribe one group relative to another, not the other way around.

But since you asked, Democrats have well established intention of getting big donors out of the camapaign game. It's in their national platform and everything.
I think you need to consider that methane has a half-life of about 10 years in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide on the other hand is one order of magnitude higher than that. I understand now that what you are trying to say is that CO2 will still be a problem, that's a fact that nobody is denying here, but the way you stated your original post makes it sound like reducing CH4 emissions would be meaningless in regards to global warming.
With something complex like passports? That's the kind of thing that scales up. A small country that doesn't produce many passports, and doesn't have many complicated cases, doesn't need to be able to manage them very well. Something with more people going through the system is more robust and better tested and has the corner cases worked out.

For example if you do 1 passport a day you can't have a dedicated person handling for example issues caused by dual nationalities. If you do 1000 a day you can have someone who just handles that and knows exactly how to do it.

A tech example would be that Google knows exactly how to get a worker a visa as they do it all the time and they're very efficient at it. A little startup might have no idea what they're doing and would be very inefficient at it.
I think passports are seen as a normal thing to have in other countries. In the US, the government seems to consider it a thing you only apply for if you have specific plans to travel soon.

Other countries might require presence or a signed affidavit from both parents when the child is actually flying out of the country.
The “Wow” Effect in CockroachDB
I have no love for their repeated failure to live up to the minimal demands made on them, but let's not discount how cool it was to not be a charred wreck in 1945...
Since you’re already at Google. Why not reach out to former colleagues and see if they can create consulting gigs for you?
If a free market was opened for votes, 1) the price wouldn't be anything like 10 dollars, it would be thousands of times that, 2) people would be satisfied with government, because they would have been paid to be screwed, and 3) the environment would be destroyed and the US would be at war with every country all the time.

3) is a no-op, so I'm genuinely sympathetic to letting politicians buy votes.

> bribe voters from the public purse.

You're referring to bribing voters from the purse of the voters. That's the only function of government.
If by "do everything online" you mean print out a few forms and go do it in person, then yep you can do it online!
Reducing global average warming is not the same as reducing global average temperature, although that can be the result over time if the rate of warming is reduced below 0. 'X will reduce warming' is describing a reduction to the positive rate of change.

It's also true that increasing global average warming can result in reduced warming and temperatures in some geographic areas so it is important to be specific with terminology depending on which aspect of the climate change debate we're talking about. You are right that the title is unintentionally misleading in this regard.
Moroccan Wall: The Longest Minefield in the World
Who said anything about private jets? Who said anything about crickets? Since when are meat alternatives any more full of "highly processed chemicals" than ordinary meat products? Why does this read like a Facebook comment?
I don't blame them for not wanting what appears to be a mix of philosophy into science though - in the same way it is understandable that people who never knew what suffrage was would oppose women's suffrage because they think it involves torment. Ignorant but understandable. Unfortunately, philosophy has a long history of actively defining itself as willfully not referencing reality for validation. Not wanting that mixed with science is understandable even if rooted in ignorance.
Yeah, but that is mostly beside the point. In pure carbon, anthropogenic CO2 emissions are about 12 GtC/year, and CH4 emissions (from fossil fuel, agriculture, waste) about 0.27 GtC/year. So CO2 from methane emissions is only 2% of all CO2 emissions.
"Professor Deborah J. Lucas pegs the cost of the 2008-09 bailouts at $498 billion."

https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/heres-how-much...

Who paid that?

>The people that will pay is taxpayers and consumers through higher prices.

Are these the same taxpayers that now can't even afford cheaper prices because of the students debts or the debts of their children?
https://huggingface.co/spaces/stabilityai/stable-diffusion
The bureau of consular affairs is funded by passport fees most of the time. They started losing a billion plus per year during COVID. This isn’t necessarily a problem of anti-statism as much of resources.

Nobody wants their passport fees to triple and it wouldn’t be fair. There also isn’t always an incentive to make things more efficient in the short term, so it’s not quite as simple in this case.
My wife is a Mexican citizen. Last time she needed to renew her passport, she went to the consulate and came home with a new passport the same day. It seemed like some sort of black magic to me.
I thought you guys wanted government to be run like a business?
Maybe you have an allergy? For all of my life, I absolutely hated shrimp. Even smelling it from across a room would make me want to vomit. Then when I was in my mid-20's, I developed an allergy to crabs (which previously I loved) and I realized that reaction was the same I'd had to shrimp all those years.
Hands-On: Build a Real-Time Analytics Application
If I paid back my student loans in 2019 does that make me a sucker?
Yeah that's what the article mentions, but sounds like that's not available to most of the public (and the comment I replied to seemed to not be talking about that?)
Irrigation? Medicine?

Oh, and the wine.
Totally agreed on having options.

One thing I recommend to folks: have a high base rate and then discount for things you really want to work on. People really like discounts, and the high nominal rate establishes you as important/worthy. It's also a good way to work toward increasing existing clients. If you tell them, "My base rate is now X, but as established clients I'll give you the old rate for one more project," that lets them feel special and gives them time to adjust.
Alder lake is much worse temp wise. Look at the new Dell XPS design. They literally had to remove the F keys to make room for additional heatsink to get the newer Alder lake CPUs to work in a reasonable way.
Separately from the batteries, some other concerns I haven't seen discussed much:

We find charging at home to be one of the great benefits of having an EV (no need to go to a gas station) and without the ability to do so, the EV would be much less usable because of the extra charging logistics. Since we can charge at home we only take a charging logistics cost when taking unusually long trips. Having more EV charging availability improves but doesn't solve charging logistics simply because charging takes a lot more time than filling up with gas.

But for people who live in an apartment charging at home is usually not an option (and even if it becomes one it may well only be available at inflated prices), even people that live in a single family residence in suburbia may be unable to charge at home. If you are one of the many people who use street parking, again-- charging at home is right out.

All these sorts of things are less of an issue so long as ICE cars are still available: EVs get used by people who they fit best for, and ICE get used by people for whom the different EV dynamics don't work best.

From an environmental perspective, it only matters that total amount of distributed pollution sources are substantially reduced-- we don't need to eliminate them completely. (At some point pollution from tires dominates in any case, or from the mfgr/disposal of the car).
I'll bite - suppose that the only people supporting lower carbon output are jetsetting cosmopolitan filthy commy lib-ruhls. If one person convinces a thousand people or ten thousand people or a hundred thousand people to support systems that reduce those emissions and offsets their personal use by orders of magnitude would you still scoff?

I don't expect a sincere response since this seems to me to be just parroting of cable news talking points which tends to be a predictor of discourse level but I'd love to be surprised.
You don't intend on ever becoming an aged meat bag?
> In any case the stated goal of 'a rapid reduction in methane emissions to 30% below 2020 levels' would have little noticeable effect on warming rates over the next century.

> Just look at the global trend rate as well, methane's at record levels and the rate is steepening, not flattening.

^ This is the problem! Methane is 25x worse than CO2. Exponential growth instead of a 30% reduction (and then flat or still declining) makes a big difference!

Over the span of 3 years - not really. Over the span of 30 years, yes!
The one sentence of this article I zoom in on is that this increases the money supply over time. Well...yes it does, but that's not bad. The question is how much, who is getting that extra supply, and how is that changing things?

I have no problem with people under lots of student debt getting a 10k shot in the arm. We've spent more on projects that feel less good than this. However, it won't affect consumer behavior any time soon. Unless people's debts are ended, their spending habits won't change and this won't stimulate the economy. However, it does sound like democrats followed through on something, so it's a great political gimmick during election season. I say this as someone who tends to vote democrat.
I disagree with her on many of those points.

- "Young people pay for Medicare for our seniors."

Medicare is literally going bankrupt within the next decade, as is Social Security. When it was founded, there were 30 young people for every old person. Now it is 3-1, and going down still from declining birthrates. There is no guarantee any young person paying in right now will ever see a penny when they are old, unless you expect the government to print money for the next half a century.

- "If a person is blessed enough to be in a position to have paid off their loans, maybe they have a home now"

Wishful thinking. I have paid off my loans, have no home, and getting home ownership right now is horrible even with first time homeowners programs. There are plenty of people trapped paying off their debt, but can't afford a home, especially with current prices.
The title of the submission insinuates it. The comment just corrected that. Of course we should do everything we can to reduce methane emissions.
There's a section of "Ignition!" where the rocket scientists try out mercaptans as a rocket fuel, and get exiled to the far end of a huge empty field for the duration of their experiments.
The militaristic superiority of the US obviously has benefits. So does forgiving student loan debt. The above comment didn't say that the US should become isolationist and no baby was thrown out with the bath water. That's an assumption you've made yourself.

> I'm sure US DoD is worthy of many of its criticisms, including high budget,

That's precisely all that's been criticized here. The high budget of the DoD.
> C++ devs already uses templates, smart pointers, RAII, etc.

These are frowned upon in the game industry circles. Most of the game code is C style C++ with occasional function overloading and classes.
Be careful what you wish for. Solving harder problems for cash still comes with the expectation to solve those problems on a timeline, in a way that delivers value for the business writing your paycheck.

It sounds like you and your buddies may be experiencing nostalgia for the days when coding was a hobby and not a livelihood. The fun/hobby part is a fraction of the work of starting a new business—most of which is at least as boring as writing CRUD apps.

I switched to consulting/contract work and now have the freedom to work without supervision, no expectation of managing people, the ability to pick which projects I will tackle, and loads more free time (because of a higher hourly rate + nobody expecting me to keep a seat warm).
Can't speak to the state of Chinese academia but have had a few similar experiences at American conferences

When careers are on the line and one is expected to mischaracterize one's work or its impact, people will tend to do so

If this problem exists independently of cultural or institutional factors maybe there are potential solutions with an equally broad range of application
>Anytime the government spends money on anything it prints money to do so. This is how governments work.

That's just flatly untrue. This is one of HN's favorite misunderstandings about governments. If this were true, why would governments bother raising taxes or issuing bonds?
Passports should be automatic for every American and free. I'm not sure what the downside would be, other than the relatively small cost.
Democrats have a well-established pattern, however, of taking the most they can from the largest donors they can find.
1) I'm not sure I agree with you on that. Laws that are not based on evidence are doomed to cause more harm than necessary. If the evidence shows that Action X will increase harm to others by Percentage Y, then Action X should be regulated. And since professional researchers are the ones discovering that causation, their advice should definitely become legislation on those fronts. Keep in mind that medical experts tend to get their jobs through experience and proof of capability, while politicians tend to get their jobs through popularity.

2) I wonder what evidence you think is missing from the safety and efficacy testing of COVID vaccines, which you don't think is missing from the safety and efficacy studies of abstaining from drunk driving? And what evidence would you need before you'd consider them "equally understood"?
We seem to be talking past each other. Let's go back to basics:

Neither GC nor malloc/free (which I am going to start abbreviating as MF) are 100% guaranteed not to fail under all circumstances. As a trivial example, if you try to allocate more memory than you actually have physically available, both GC and MF will fail. That is not the only example of a circumstance under which they will fail, but that is irrelevant. The point is simply that there are circumstances under which both GC and MF can fail. This is true regardless of any real-time considerations. So the possibility of failure is a fact of life that cannot be discharged even with arbitrarily clever allocation technologies, and even in the absence of hard-real-time constraints.

Likewise, there are circumstances where both GC and MF are essentially equivalent. If (for example) you only ever allocate a finite amount of memory, and that amount is less than what is available, and you never free anything, and you never produce any garbage, then both GC and MF will work. As an ancillary observation, even the most naive implementation of GC and MF will return results in O(1) time, and the multiplicative constant will be very low. In other words, under these circumstances, both GC and MF can be reasonably considered to be "hard-real-time". Their behaviors will be essentially indistinguishable.

The only circumstance under which the question of GC vs MF becomes interesting at all is in more complicated situations, where you have complex allocation and de-allocation patterns, and the total amount of memory you are allocating over the lifetime of the program is more than the amount of physical memory available. Under those circumstances you have to be clever and re-use memory that has been previously allocated and freed, either manually, or by a collector.

Under those circumstances, the devil is very much in the details. It is not hard, for example, to come up with an allocation/deallocation pattern that will (almost certainly) cause an allocator that cannot relocate objects to fail, but which would succeed using a relocating allocator.

So although you are correct when you say that "if you care about pauses then moving objects makes everything harder," that is missing the point rather badly. The alternative to "making everything harder" is accepting failure in circumstances under which they would not have failed if you had "made everything harder".

Which brings me full circle to my original point: making things hard-real-time is hard, full stop. Hard-real-time GC is hard, but it is not the GC part that makes it hard, it is the hard-real-time part that makes it hard. And yes, of course you can make it less hard, but at the cost of having a system that is less capable, and which will fail in more circumstances. Making those kinds of trade-offs is part of what makes this problem hard. The differences between GC and MF are just part of the details. They are not the fundamental drivers of the difficulty of this problem.
> Anytime the government spends money on anything it prints money to do so. This is how governments work.

I'm sorry but this is complete, total and utter nonsense.

The government is supposed to work by collecting taxes and then spending these taxpayers dollars.

If the government wants to invest in something (like big infrastructure stuff), it's supposed to borrow money (for example by emitting bonds) and then pay that money back (even under keynesianism).

The European Central Bank's mandate specifically says that the ECB's role is to keep inflation in check.

Nowhere is it explained that any government spending can be realized by the government(s) printing money at will.
Cattle feed left to decompose on its own won't release nearly as much methane as the cattle. The methane produced will also end up released over a longer period of time. A ton of methane released in a day is far worse than a ton released over a year.
Wind powered factories: history (and future) of industrial windmills (2009)
> The entire post-WWII world order has been to their benefit at our expense.

The USD is the world’s reserve currency and the US has benefitted enormously from 75 years of peace in Europe.
NBC Considers Cutting Back Programming Hours in Prime Time
This is why I tend to think that the industrial revolution and technology is "the great filter" for the Fermi Paradox. Life, intelligence, agriculture, society can all occur with relatively high probability, but each planet has, at best, one shot at a technological society and a brief window solve the problems that it creates before everything collapses.

Also note that global warming is determined by the ratio of CO2 produced to the amount that was in the atmosphere before the industrial revolution. Planets with lower CO2 are actually worse off because the temperature will rise faster for the same amount of CO2. Also, Earth is helped by having a lot of oceans that absorb CO2.
Remove the legend to become one (2017)
By 'how marketing works' do you mean 'how every software sales VP I have ever worked with works'?
Deliberately starving public services so that they get shitty enough to consider eliminating or privatizing them has been going on since at least the Reagan years. Probably longer, but that’s when one of his advisors said the infamous line about wanting a government “small enough to drown in a bathtub”.
When I got mine a few years ago, it was a process. Mailing in forms. Going to get photos taken and having to mail physical copies in. Waiting for weeks.
They already transported the coal by boat, and they copied the idea of artificial canals as an obvious incremental improvement. I'd say the business aspects of canal mania might have been a bigger factor.

So the overly neat "its was all about coal" story doesn't really hang together.

One of the first canals in the UK was built, because someone blocked the river with a weir, so that they could run a watermill. It's all a bit fractal.
I asked, and that's what their spokesperson said via email.
I was under the impression that Amazon has a custom, proprietary hypervisor these days that's simply compatible with Xen's hypervisor<->guest interfaces.
I like Carl Sagan's "science as a candle in the dark." A candle can be used to light a house or to burn it down.

What these guidelines say to me is, "Too many people want to burn the house down right now. Our solution is to stop making candles. We'll make wax figurines instead."

But what makes candles dangerous is also what makes them useful.

To me a better solution (to those of us who use candles for good) would be to help reform the arsonists. Why are there so many of them? Did they get the same education as others? Where do they get their news? What do they believe? What resources do they have or not have access to?

Otherwise, good actors are deprived of tools that would let them, as you said, and I agree, reduce human suffering more effectively.