skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I have come to the very same realization as you in the "temp channel for a project" thing.

Before this, the devs would make a private channel without product and management people, to discuss technical things openly or just to complain. But product/management was unhappy to be left out of this communication channel.

Eventually we, devs, decided on our own to end the private channel and "banalize" the main team channel, by that I mean that we were going to try to make the main channel less "official" looking and more casual, like sending memes, talking outside of threads and so on. With the intention of making people mor comfortable in using it.

This had mixed to low effectiveness, some people were more comfortable speaking entirely on the main channel, some other people pretty much just started only using private conversations and never used the main channel.

So my solution was to create a temporary project channel, open, but only with devs explicitly invited (but communicated at the main channel that the channel existed). This channel is implied to be a dev channel, but whoever wants to join in can, or they can also just peek in without joining, being a public channel.

So far this has been working well, as long as you are in a reasonably long running project. I have archived more then one of these channels as the projects ended, and I'm thinking of maybe not even achieving the current one and just rename it after the project, let's see.

So, keep of trying to make this fly with your team, it did worked somewhat with mine.
That's a very broad statement care to back it up?
That’s the interesting part: all the images generated are derived from a less than 4gb model (the trained weights of the neural network).

So in a way, hundreds of billions of possible images are all stored in the model (each a vector in multidimensional latent space) and turned into pixels on demand (drived by the language model that knows how to turn words into a vector in this space)

As it’s deterministic (given the exact same request parameters, random seed included, you get the exact same image) it’s a form of compression (or at least encoding decoding) too: I could send you the parameters for 1 million images that you would be able to recreate on your side, just as a relatively small text file.
Dijkstra was the original HN flame warrior.
> One thing I really miss from my Java days, and which I don’t really think has anything to do with OOP, is the concept of package visibility.

C++ has that in the form of internal linkage. You can have all the symbols you want that are only visible within your own translation unit.
Here are some resources to read.

https://europepmc.org/article/nbk/nbk82767#_vaphysical_s5_

https://www.cfp.ca/content/cfp/63/11/824.full.pdf

https://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e7191?ijkey=34070a9e7bf5...
Foo fighters also released 29 tracks for Rock Band, which was really popular for a couple of years.

New toys are fun to play with, for a bit. That doesn't necessarily mean they're going to stick around or have much long term relevance.
For sure! I have no tattoos and probably never will. But "value for value" has such meaning for me that it would sure be a candidate.
Also, within the context of an individual class, variables can be modified and accessed anywhere in the class, creating all the same problems as global variables.
lol I've done so much of the same stuff. Especially method 2. I do it for turning decisions into tasks. I think of it as "going down the stack". If "Decide which city to move to" is staring at me, I can add "Come up with how to decide which city to move to." That might turn into something concrete like "Go for a walk and think about how to pick which city to move to." Somehow, enough layers of abstraction can circle all the way to "put on shoes".

The hazard is yak-shaving, over-investing in the pre-pre-pre-planning, or becoming interested in epistemology. The trick is to try to have each layer be a tenth of the investment of the layer it supports or less. Can't stack too high that way.
OOP is just a buzzword. There's no clear meaning behind "OOP" as far as I see, it's not even close to being well-defined, it just serves to confuse and fuel pointless discussions and arguing about semantics (see this thread, for example).
Sounds like it's all fun-and-games until someone realizes that Teslas have air in their tires too.
Was messing with mermaid and state diagrams only today. I don't use UML as a whole but some of the diagrams are really useful.
> Note that the shadow DOM is not a new thing by any means — browsers have used it for a long time to encapsulate the inner structure of an element.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Web_Components/...
I think he's trying to say that object methods now can refer to two different tenses of things - this/self/me, and everything else (it/that). In C there is only the latter. (And also "look at the clever words I know!")

It's nonsense though because this/self is barely more than syntactic sugar for what C programmers do anyway - in fact languages with UFCS let you choose arbitrarily. Writing free functions with `this` as the first parameter doesn't really change anything.
I was under the impression spam callers in particular actively randomize and spoof their numbers.
Once you start buying easy-to-program microcontroller gadgets from Crowd Supply and Adafruit Industries, it is hard to stop. Nowadays they all have bluetooth built in, so can be controlled wholly from your phone; no buttons, display, or even USB connector needed.
I wonder if this is why stores are assholes when you want a glass of water, and they give you the dinkiest cup.
Your fancy terms are someone else's terms. It was critical to their point about how deixis specifically being difficult for new language learners. Addutionally I enjoyed skimming the Wikipedia articles and considering programming languages as languages; I got more out of it than I do most HN comments.

I think it's fair to skip over a comment using terminology you find tiresome, be it because you aren't familiar, or you find it irritating for some reason, or for any reason; it's your time. I think it's unnecessary to insist we all use the same terminology, as that just limits what conversations can be had and who can have them. One of the things that makes HN feel magical is when people from a weird discipline jump in to give their two cents, and they add value to the community when they bring their terminology with them.
> However, what I've seen in the discourse of several programmers that claim to prefer Zig is the assumption that Rust is "not really that big of a deal". There's a constant minimization of the advancements both the ownership system and the safety approach provide, and a lack of recognition for the fact that the language is a "game changer" in the industry.

I think you have inadvertently worded this in a way that silently confirms what the parent poster was saying. But more generally, while I can't speak for the entirety of the Zig community, the people involved with Zig directly tend to be aware of Rust's strengths. The problem is that one of the reasons why Zig exists (and is having some level of success) is because some people just don't want to deal with abstraction-heavy code. Some people value simplicity over a complex language with a memory-safe subset.

And the value of simplicity is not just a matter of aesthetics. Simplicity is a defense against bugs, because memory safety is not the end goal, correctness is.

https://twitter.com/croloris/status/1568342336580755456
Right, I meant that people often track their street cars. I've already said that I don't bother with nitrogen, but it takes a special kind of person to run R compound tires on the street...
> Most of the time, you end up being wrong on how things should be segregated, and your behavior ends up fragmented across a variety of objects, making it difficult to easily see the flow of your program.

This can only become a problem if you pay little to no attention to modularization, software architecture, and even encapsulation.

The responsibility of a paradigm and a language is to allow a developer to freely express their concepts. The programming paradigm is not to blame if the developer chooses to express poorly thought-out ideas that are riddled with detrimental consequences.
The previous sentence: "The target of public shaming is very unlikely to change their opinion from the shaming, so the question is, what’s the point?"

That simple question was never answered, as far as I could see. They're unlikely to change their attitude, and they're unlikely to change their car. So what's the point?

To make the people doing it feel like they're doing something. That's the only point.
Self-taught programmers have an easier time thinking in a simple, direct, solution-oriented way. CS-educated programmers tend to think too much about whether this project gives them an excuse to use fancy things they learned in courses (how can I cram algebraic types into my recipe management program?).

The downside of being self-taught is well-known - you might end up convincing yourself that for loops don't work, strings with more than 10 characters are unreliable, numbers can only reliably be added using BigDecimal, etc.
I've had luck using Instruments whole system profiling to debug this kind of system process
Actually diesel in the US has had pretty stagnant prices the last four years. The big drop in 2020 (due to COVID wiping out demand) skews the averages and the Russian invasion of Ukraine has driven this year's prices high. But it's still $.09 cheaper than when my trash hauler instituted a "fuel surcharge."

2018 - 3.178
2019 - 3.056
2020 - 2.551
2021 - 3.287
2022 - 5.013

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_gnd_dcus_nus_a.htm
The "perpendicular to that point" is rather better defined as "perpendicular to all tangents at that point on the source curve".
They definitely do. But I'm usually searching the number of real people I talked to that put in a lead. Eventually I can find something usually, I just have to try various forms of formatting usually.
They are saying they favor the emacs model over that of vi, and that subsequent editors have not added any appreciable value. Well, that's what they said, after transpiling into an editor discussion about modal vs. non-modal editors against the backdrop of forking editors in order to add new features.
Yes, and I should probably add those links. Quadratics get you O(n^4) scaling, which is pretty good. Figuring out where to put the control point is easy, there's basically only one place it can go if you want to preserve tangents. Deciding where to subdivide is a little trickier, and Suchowolski's approach looks pretty good to me. You do still need to deal with cusps though.

You can of course change curve representations (I did that with the Euler approach), but there are downsides. Just how bad depends on the application. One place where you really want to stay in a cubic representation is in a font or vector graphics editor. If you just want to add a little weight to the font, ideally you don't want the structure to change, or lots of new control points to appear. In other applications it might be fine though.
Youtube allows unlimited videos with unlimited size and with good quality completely for free. You can also keep ads disabled if you want. No other service is even comparable.
Interestingly, I surprised myself browsing the website you posted and others, clicking on every link, ready each new page before going back to finish reading the page I was coming from, jumping from link to link just as I remember doing 20 years ago. That is something I don't do anymore.
Sure, I sometimes click on some links when I'm reading something, but I usually do it with a middle click (opens the link in a new tab) and continue reading the first article before closing it and seeing the new tab. And at this point I usually lost interest in the content I opened a few minutes before and just close the tab without reading.
I was just wondering why I usually do this and why I didn't this time, and I realise that the reasons I open links in new tabs and don't consume them directly are :
- opening it in a second tab lets it enough time to load completely, since everything is so bloated;
- a website messing with your tab history or redirecting you 6 times before allowing you to get the content you were waiting for means that going back to my previous article will be a pain in the ass, and I'd rather play with two tabs rather than quintuple-click that back button just to find my previous article.

Anyway, that didn't happen here, because I subconsciously knew that every link would load before I could even think of it, and that none would make coming back one step a pain in the ass, and that was refreshing and maybe even made me nostalgic. But more than anything else, it allowed me to read with more focus than I remember having the last few years. So yeah, I love that "bare ones" design.

(PS: I also realise my comment is so long it could have been it's own blog post. Maybe I should start one...)
If they’re cheap and you’re concerned couldn’t you just get one out of pocket ?
Cute, but I just ran both your suggestions through the HTML validator at https://validator.w3.org/nu/ and neither of them validated.

The first error read "Bad value data: for attribute href on element link: Premature end of URI."

The 2nd error read "Missing space before doctype name."

Depending on the context these hacks may still be useful, but I personally think that both production sites and code golfing should require valid HTML.
If the single responsibility principle is followed and cohesion is strong, it should help mitigate these concerns. Creating large uber classes can quickly become troublesome.
Exactly. The whole point about democracy is that it cannot just be mob rule. This leads to the tyranny of the majority problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

We mitigate for this by having separation of state powers, and completely separate judicial branch separate from the legislative, delegating day-to-day affairs to representatives, and having regular elections.

However we see this problem emerge in the US regardless (e.g. centralization and the abandonment of rationality). The Federal government is dictating affairs that should be settled at lower levels. When the States do something the Federal government does not like, the Federal government attempts to retaliate. When a court does something the Federal government doesn't like, it stochastically endorses violence against the judges.

It's an alarming trend, but one will most likely have to get worst before people realize how far away they've deviated.
Reminder that the author is criticizing the naivety of the advice "If you're hiking and you stop to let other people catch up, don't start walking immediately when they arrive.", rather than the actual action of doing that thing when it's actually appropriate.
It might not be a great language to create compilers, but python also has a pretty good structured pattern matching as of version 3.10:

class BinOp:
def __init__(self, left, right, operator):
self.left = left
self.right = right
self.operator = operator

sum_of_ints = BinOp(left=1, right=1, operator='+')

match sum_of_ints:
case BinOp(left=int(left), right=int(right), operator='+'):
print(f'Summing int {left} + {right}')
case BinOp(left=str(left), right=str(right), operator='+'):
print(f'Concateneting strings {left} + {right}')
case _:
print('Don\'t know how to sum this')
In general relative to a similarly aged reliable economy car? Absolutely. All older cars require work, and the work on luxury brands typically is systemically more expensive.

With Lexus you are cherry picking a bit though, their maintenance costs tend to be in line with other Toyota's, among the cheapest of all.

They are an exception though, for luxury badges. The germans are mostly terrible for this, and the "premium" american badges are pretty bad too.
On your very last point, you seem to be wrong. These commercial platforms are neither accessible for everyone, nor do they offer the sort of reach as youtube. The choice then is paid content somewhere, or ads on youtube.

By contrast, you now can chose between ads and no ads, both on youtube (and the former likely with algorithmic support).

That's a different calculus that - as it seems to me - should imply more paid content than before, contradicting your statement.
What would you compare it to?
This is the same reason why I think TDD is the wrong approach too. How do you test before you know what you're building?

I've tried everything but my favored approach these days is just to stream of conscious psuedocode in main() to get the shape of what needs to happen, and then backfill until there's something working. Once I know what I want, only then do I break things up so that everything is in the right place. It seems to end well every time.

tl;dr: bottom-up, and top-down are too extreme!
“Just don't eat eggs and pray.”

If you avoid smoking, have a healthy diet, get adequate exercise and consequently maintain a healthy weight you’ll do far more to prognosticate your MI risk than a calcium score.
Are there engineering differences between the hats that make them more suited for a particular trade? Or is this an aesthetics thing?
YouTube has had the content and engineering UI to beat Coursera or iTunes U since 2009. As a nerdy little kid from Bangalore, I remember _really_ learning how to write code from Mehran Sahami's programming paradigms videos from back in the day. (While we're on the subject of Mehran-appreiciate: we're all still geometers living in the times of Euclid OR we're all coders living in the times of Mehran? :)).

Couple that with benefits of YT Premium, there's a ton of engaging features they can build here that very likely make it a super sustainable product long term. I'm super excited!
It's far from needless - doing so enables syntonic reasoning [0] by the programmer, as originally explored by Papert in Logo's turtle graphics, which was one of the direct inspirations for Smalltalk. There's a reason this "last and most difficult linguistic skill" is so handy - with it we can refer to objects across space and time.

0. https://www.tech.dmu.ac.uk/~mjdean/notes/modules/education/E...
True: people rolled their eyes at anybody trying to field a commercially successful product not coded in assembly. Languages were for proofs-of-concept, and for toys. And yes, that changed as 1990 approached.
> Graydon also wrote Monotone, the source control system whose internal design Git is based on.

Huh. I wonder if that played a part in Torvald’s being open to Rust in the Linux kernel.
This is a very bizarre comment. They aren't saying there are 1M+ results that you can access. Who would even want to do that? The number is to give you an idea of how narrow your search was.

This reminds me of when I and a couple of other people watched someone look through 10 whole pages of Google results. Totally insane. But it got even crazier - he actually found the thing he was looking for on the 10th page! Doubly unbelievable.
I'm not sure what you're going for here. I'm sure that capitalism makes us all complicit somehow or another and of course I can't trace the supply chain for everything (or probably any) I use. But the small places I've worked have been much more human and egalitarian than the multinationals without exception.
The justification some youtubers (LTT comes to mind) use for clickbait video titles/thumbnails is that they feel that so long as the content itself is good then it doesn’t matter what techniques they use to get people to watch it. Their logic is that there’s nothing wrong with lying to get someone to watch your video so long as they enjoy it once they do.

To me it the race to the bottom of clickbait video titles/thumbnails feels dishonest and harmful but it’s hard to see what to do about it other than manual curation and/or alternative platforms which don’t use recommendations to exponentially amplify click rates.
I believe the logic is that it makes taxation something explicit that you are forced to notice. The idea being that an included tax would be invisible and allow for hidden changes and less recognition of the government's role.
I model systems that naturally have block diagrams (modulators, phase locked loops, power amplifiers, channels...). I came to an object oriented approach relatively late, but I would not go back. I don't know about general software, but for simulating physical systems it seems ideal.
I think the only bottled I can kinda stomach is maybe Fiji. I haven't tried the really expensive glass bottle kind... Though I'd probably do better with anything not in can or plastic because even soda tastes shittier when it's been incubating in aluminum or plastic.

You simply put coke in a glass bottle you get a totally less chemical taste. Probably a lot less bpa in your blood too.

I'll often get a fountain water 32oz though and add a sugar free lemonade packet and the sourness even if it's not sweet makes me drink more of it .

I'm not sure if you're supposed to drink distilled water but I tried it and it tasted the best of all the gallon waters at the store. I think it was because it was the most tasteless...
It's never unlimited, the terms and conditions for shared hosting are specifically designed to prohibit use cases (ex. file storage not connected with a website) that generate excessive usage.

And if you somehow find a loophole you'll quickly become persona non grata.

As the saying goes, TANSTAAFL.
Self-taught programmer checking in: OOP is about isolating private implementation details, akin to using local variables inside a function. Seems pretty direct to me.
> AutoRaise (and focus) a window when hovering over it with the mouse

Requires macOS 10.15 or later
Yeah. It’s an approach that bugs me too. “Sciencism” so to speak - making a name and phenomenon out of everything. It’s not all that bad…directionally speaking. But it tends to legitimize half-baked concepts (like restless leg syndrome or TENS muscle stimulation) and marries them with unmet needs (like anxiety or muscle toning). Same goes for nutritional fads (paleo, intermittent, etc).
RCT (Randomized Controlled Trials) was a breakthrough in scientific thinking because it’s an approach with which we can weed out snake-oils from actual cures. It seems we’ve lost the patience to employ that in the current rapidly-moving news cycle.

Back to mental health. We need to move slow and not jump to concept-conclusions. But the domain is ‘fuzzy’ enough right now that special interest groups continue to create nascent niches.
Yup! A previous company starting using Concur (with a shitty, minimal effort setup) around 2011. It would push employees to book a train + bus to go from LA to Palo Alto because it was some % cheaper than a Southwest flight. Thankfully we still had p-cards and accounts payable didn't have a spine, so our department ended up ignoring Concur and booking travel directly on the carrier sites.
Sure but people that track their street cars are rarely seeing any real benefit from nitrogen, either. It's a pretty marginal thing. Vast majority of people going to track days hit their own limits well before getting anywhere near the equipment limits.
Sounds like you are looking for a Zettelkasten [1], which is a way of organizing notes around a loose linked structure. I use Obsidian[2] for mine!

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zettelkasten#:~:text=A%20Zet....

[2] https://obsidian.md/
Sequence diagrams are great. Any time there's a multi-stage interaction with multiple independent pieces involved, they're hard to beat for communication.

It's not like UML was based on bad ideas. There were just too many cases where the added value was less than the added cost. But when a diagram does add net value it's great to have conventions already.