skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Then how do you ensure mobile homes are not allowed anywhere near you? Overly restrictive zoning areas? At any rate, many of my own family members have lived in trailers or currently do, and I'm rather disgusted by your comment above.
Housing as a savings for retirement only works if you retire at the right time. Many people in 2008 could not retire because of the housing crash.

Right now, money that would go into other investments is going into having to buy inflated housing. So while this might help people who are currently retiring, it hurt the people looking to use it as a method to rite in the future.

Forbes has some good insights here:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adammillsap/2020/02/28/treating...
Marriage in some countries comes with a bunch of legal rights and obligations, so you do need the government to agree if you also want it to enforce those things.

In New Zealand, marriage has no legal value as far as I know. All the law that I know of, such as for property rights, immigration, and social welfare that would usually be about marriage is instead about being in a "relationship of the nature of marriage". That's kind of scary because you can sleepwalk into becoming effectively married and then suddenly you lose some of your property rights.
Requiring the shift amount to be unsigned is very sensible.

There are two other issues. One is when the shift amount is greater than or equal to the machine word size, for example 1u32 << 32. Java and Rust (release mode; debug is allowed to panic similarly to other forms of arithmetic overflow) take the position that the shift amount is masked to be modulo the word size, which happens to match Intel and aarch64 assembly instructions but not 32-bit ARM, so (unless the optimizer can prove the range) requires an additional mask instruction. This is the motivation for not explicitly specifying the behavior in C, though I believe a very strong case can be made that it should be implementation defined rather than undefined. In any case, it sounds like you are making the opposite decision as Java, so there's extra logic needed to correctly implement it on Intel and aarch64 but it should work efficiently on 32-bit ARM.

But I was specifically referring to the fact that -1 << 1 is UB in C. It was fixed in C++20 (so the value is specified to be -2, as arithmetic is now defined to be twos complement), but that fix is not in the C23 draft. I consider this perhaps the canonical example of programmer-hostile UB.
Line of cars to drop off at elementary school I pass by in North Texas:

Silver, silver, white, black, tan, silver, black, white, white, grey, black, beige metallic…

It’s totally true. That’s why my car is bright yellow. I’m not yet dead inside.
This isn't strictly true...you can use either. Libby's for example is 100% pumpkin.

I think a lot of people use butternut squash because it's sweeter, more available, and has a nice texture.
JPMorgan, Deutsche Bank are turning off hot water, prepping diesel generators
I'm not an expert but whenever I need to use SQL it seems to be complicated enough as I need at the time to do the job. When the job becomes more complicated, so does SQL.

I think it is a remarkably well designed language. I often get decent results for minimal effort. It isn't something I use day to day but more often month to month and I generally forget what I learned a couple of years ago.

For example, I wanted to clear down some records for a defunct client from our backup results database. I started by using SELECT to reliably find the customer (not as simple as it might sound). Then I construct an INNER JOIN (in this case most joins are the same) to link to the jobs. A SELECT COUNT(*) experiment looks about right. I snapshot the VM and change my experiment to a DELETE.

SQL is a bit strange but it lends itself to experimentation ... to results, way better than any other language I know.

Then you get into functions and views and the like. SQL has just enough complication for whatever job you have at hand and no more.

I recently ran up a query in Icinga2 (Director) against a MariaDB and it seemed to write itself. I get far fewer syntax errors in SQL than anything else that I try to abuse!
that’s what i meant.

what makes this plane unique is its single jet engine. this also makes running costs lower.
Intentionally right or accidentally right? I have a hard time seeing any intentional successes.
Ah great thank you! I only scanned the article. I will see if they have published anything.
They are the same, but the material wealth is not increasing anymore. What happens then? Taiwan conflict is edging from posturing to cold, hard steel.
Interesting, never heard of that reputation being associated with more modern turboprops like TBMs.

Definitely have heard of it for older piston prop planes, especially from the early 2000s, which I always understood is partly a mix of factors re: the affordability of GA piston planes, how common it was to fly without IFR training etc...

I would imagine with turboprops like the TBMs, quite a few factors filter out their ownership by folks who aren't IFR trained, + the fact jets are as I understand generally inspected with much more rigor on more frequent basis?
> Downvotes aren’t supposed to be for “I disagree”

That’s incorrect.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16131314
> A first hand account of the firefighters who were sent to cap the oil wells that Saddam set on fire during his attempt to invade the country.

Just watched the first few minutes and this line strikes me as inaccurate, just based on other things I've read/watched about Saddam's burning of oil wells:

"In a final act of vengeance, Saddam ordered the detonation of almost 700 oil wells"

I could be misinformed, but wasn't Saddam using the burning oil wells to limit visibility from above once it became clear he was doomed as long as the eyes in the sky were unimpeded? AIUI it wasn't some purely vengeful act.
Well yes, but that's not what your parent comment said. Normal people watch the news and see all the prime ministers.
Small planes are often flown under visual rules without a flight plan, meaning that pilots are free to basically dick around... with prohibitions against unauthorized entry into controlled airspace and flying too close to people and structures on the ground. And that's totally fine when done responsibly.

But the free-form nature of the vehicle operation provides more opportunity for screw-ups. Maybe someone was buzzing his house or not paying attention to flying while giving a sightseeing tour to his friends.

Compared to commercial flights, it's no wonder that GA has a far higher accident rate. Commercial flights fly extremely predictable and repetitive routes and procedures, which reduce the number of variables into the mission. I'd liken the comparison to that between personal cars and buses, except commercial air travel is even more regimented than bus travel.
You can get metadata in order to preserve the comment tree, but it won't show the text for quality control reasons.
Just me, or does the definition of “Bounded Context” read similarly to typical recommended architectural boundaries for microservices?
I don't have the time to read through the whole article right now but the first section I skimmed 'Hard to build data structures' was wrong:

-----------

@b=([(0.8,0.9,1)],2,3,4);

when we created the list. The []s enter a reference to the inner list as the first element of the outer list instead of flattening the inner list into the outer one.

OK. So we try again:

$b[0]

gives us

ARRAY(0xb75eb0)

So obviously we manage to find the array, but something still goes wrong along the way. The problem is that we use $b, which makes Perl think that we want a scalar and so it gives us a reference to the array instead of the array itself (which is not a scalar).

Aha! Of course! We must use

@b[0]

because @ tells Perl we want an array value. Not so. We get

ARRAY(0xb75eb0)

once again. I've never managed to understand why this is so and at this point I gave up on the entire thing.

Some weeks later I saw a helpful posting on no.perl: one should request a reference to the array, like this

@{$b[0]}

--------

You don't need to dereference the array to access an element of the nested array. All you need to do is:

say $b[0][1];

0.9

The reason $b[0] returns ARRAY(0xb75eb0) is the nested array is stored as a reference (references are sort of like pointers in Perl) in an element of the outer array but Perl automatically dereferences the nested array when you access an element of it. Now just like a pointer you can still directly access the reference to the nested array and deference it which is what '@{$b[0]}' does but it's not required.
Turn showdead on in your preferences and visit your submissions page, they're all there

> This has been censored by the moderators a few times

I'm not sure this is accurate, I'm pretty sure moderated comments just show as [dead], whereas things flagged by the community show [flagged] in addition to [dead].

As for why you're being flagged, from an outsider perspective your recent posts are accusations of an unknown person with no further discussion being possible due to a lack of info.

I'm not sure there's a conspiracy theory following you around, your posts need more of a to and fro than just a to. Try optimising for discussion rather than soapbox

E: Happened to see your latest flag in real-time.. try being less pissed off about stuff too when you post.

It's a site for discussing interesting things, not really for rants about whatever just got you wound up. I understand you're charged and ready to go but from an outside angle that's kinda boring if I don't already agree with you, and if I do agree with you then again there's no discussion to be had

--

Not really too relevant other than I think you might like the read, there's an article here that looks into Hacker News moderation which includes some clarification from HN mods on how stuff works https://drewdevault.com/2017/09/13/Analyzing-HN.html
> Just trust me for once, please.

Why should I? Trusting random people is exactly why C(++) libraries are under constant attack through use-after-free and buffer overflow exploits. You can use `unsafe` in your code just fine, but don't expect others to just trust that you know what you're doing. There's no clear way to distinguish an expert in ownership and multithreading semantics from someone who copy-pasted their unsafe code from Stackoverflow.

I trust libraries that don't use `unsafe` more than I trust libraries that say they know what they're doing. It's nothing personal, it's just a preference for the type of bugs and vulnerabilities I'd like to avoid if I can.

As for whether the user sees it or not, that's irrelevant. The library can be buggy and I would never know. I'd rather have the borrow checker verify that the code isn't buggy than take your word for it. I know the borrow checker isn't perfect and I know there are good reasons why one would use `unsafe` in their code, but if possible I'd like the code I (re)use to be as safe as possible.

Actix is a library that very loudly proclaims "trust me, I know what I'm doing". Some people believe the authors, I prefer to use safer alternatives at the cost of minor performance penalties. Power to you if you disagree, but that's your choice and opinion as much as the authors' of libraries.

I don't think writing linked lists is enough to learn how to use `unsafe` code. You'd have to write multithreaded linked list at the very least to get an understanding of why safe Rust code has all of these limitations. Even then you may never encounter race conditions when you run your code but at least it's a start.

I, for one, know that I'm not capable enough a Rust programmer to write well-tested, provably correct, multithreaded pointer magic code for performance optimization and I don't care enough to learn that art at the moment. If I were to publish a Rust crate, I'd much prefer the code to be at a level I can trust myself to maintain, which means no unsafe code. You may be better versed in the necessary semantics than I am but as a library owner I'd need to be able to maintain your code if you create a PR for my library which means you'll have to dumb down your unsafe code for me, sorry.
Right, I think the timestamp with timezone type is a great example of one of these short comings.

I’ve generally used it as a step in a data pipeline, where some intermittent state or aggregation where being stale/stable for a period of time is ok. Did this recently for a daily trends report on some news data - live querying the data is slow, but baking it off into a MV makes it much faster and keeps the query result from changing too rapidly to new data.
I actually like the idea, but unfortunately I have to dampen your expectations:

- It will disqualify your package from boarding an airplane unless you put the necessary stickers on the box (and sometimes the will not allow it, period).

- For international shipping, it will basically make a lot of customs agencies angry. The reason it is printed on paper is for reasonable permanence, doing this (assuming it passes the source country) will a) basically label that package as contraband and b) might talk to the source country on who the heck sent this and if they could file charges for endangering shipping (see lithium batteries warning above) or simply due to not following customs rules.

- It adds weight, which might matter (especially if your shipping rates is based on weight).

- Finally, even ignoring or mitigating everything on this list, your package could be simply handled so badly that the ink actually centrifuges away.
*NIX
I've often thought I should make a reddit bot that posts all the r/askhistorians comments to r/dontaskhistorians so I could see all the comments that are removed. I've chanced a few comments myself and the mods would rather have no information than some information (no matter how well referenced) that isn't entirely academically rigorous; their choice, it's not awful. I think that a lot of proverbial babies get thrown out with the bath water and a lot of interesting comments probably get removed.

Someone said "nothing was known about X until $date" or words to that effect and I replied with two sources, available online, that spoke about X prior to the date and that it was from my own recollection that I knew the sources existed. The incorrect comment stands and I got the usual "your comment was not complete enough for us". Every now and again I'll post something, especially when there are no responses and I have a source to share -- but I've taken to messaging the OP now instead.

Maybe it's all chaff, but I'm curious to find out.

I like the Slashdot way of having scoring and a slider so you can see it all if you want, and the "boosts" they do so you can see humorous stuff even if others want to see serious stuff. User-level filtering makes much more sense to me.
I've seen so many digital calipers destroyed by careless engineers and humidity here in Guangdong in the last few years (mostly cheap Chinese ones), I just bought two new extended digital Mitutoyo. I intend to keep them carefully secured in boxes with dehumidification salts and zealously restrict their use. Heading to the US shortly so was sure to obtain the metric/imperial option, which is amusingly cheaper than metric here in China as nobody wants the hassle of the extra button - and presumably, the corresponding increase in chance of error.
All of the land we’ve bought has included clauses from the sellers that require that no mobile homes are allowed to be visible from the road. It’s the community working together to keep things pleasant.

I grew up in a mobile home so I know firsthand what I’m trying to avoid.

I’m not responsible for your emotions. But if me sharing my opinion about living near a mobile home truly does disgust you, perhaps you’ve had enough internet for the day.

You shouldn’t allow me to have that kind of power over your mind. I’m just a stranger after all.
Teslas are in a very similar position and you can get insurance for those.

It's a total loss if you need any kind of body work (due to absurdly long wait times and Tesla considering damn near everything on the car structural) or anything related to the battery (due to replacement cost).
This question breaks down across 3 completely different lines.

But first, SQL is a descriptive language: You describe what you want, you don't describe how you want it.

Instead, you rely on extremely complicated optimisers and a lot of using `EXPLAIN` to see what's happening under the hood. This is fundamental in the very _point_ of SQL.

Keeping that in mind, what do you mean:

[1] You feel the general notion of doing relational queries using a descriptive language is just broken. In which case, the fact that so many 'simpler' systems decided to add SQL support instead of just relying on the fact that folks will program their way into efficient queries is telling. People like being able to do this.

[2] You think the general notion is great, just, SQL specifically is badly designed. This then breaks down into two explanations.

[2a] You haven't actually read the spec, specifically your DB engine's spec. There's a ton DB engines can do - you can make your own procedures, your own aggregator functions, add triggers, and use VIEWs to combine it all (and VIEWs can act entirely as tables, including letting you INSERT or UPDATE them). For example, I'm pretty sure you can do precisely what you want, or at least get quite close, by only adding a little bit of extra definitions in postgresql. Either you just don't know enough (I'm just guessing here, based on very little info, please don't take it personally), or you do, but you find all that 'needlessly complicated'. In which case I think you're just misjudging how varied (and therefore complicated) your average DB user's needs are. Add the ability to do everything you want, but then for all use cases of people like you, and it is so complicated, you yourself would say 'yeah but not so complicated', and we're right back where we started.

[2b] No you really do know your way around SQL, including all the various exotic features that DB engines, particularly really good ones like psql, offer. And it's not good enough and you think you have a good grasp on how to make SQL specifically better. In which case: That has been done. Multiple times. The XKCD with the 14 standards comes to mind. Here is a REALLY long list of query languages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Query_language - pick your poison.

But first, think about the fact you didn't know about any of these. Whatever you're planning to 'replace' or 'fix' SQL, isn't that just doomed to be the 19th entry on that wikipedia list, just as forgotten as all the others?

In which case, [A] many, many db engines have extra syntax you might want to look at. You can make recursive queries, windowing functions, define your own procedures, and more - and use VIEWs to let you do precisely what you want. I'm pretty sure you can do precisely what you desire with postgres, using only a fairly simplistic amount of
Oops! Something went wrong! Tee-hee, looks like autopilot.exe is down right now. fail whale. Hope you don't mind crashing:)
Rene Meyer's paper books are a subset of the website, https://www.amazon.com/Ren%25C3%25A9-Urs-Meyer/e/B016S8ZOT4

> I have personally repaired over 35,000 indicators in the years that I have been working. My father easily matched that number along with tens of thousands of dial calipers and micrometers which he and my brother have repaired. What I learned during all these years has all been put into this repository: www.longislandindicator.com Here you will find charts of manufacturers’ specifications and spare parts lists, critical evaluations of brands and models, instructions for cleaning, servicing and calibrating indicators and hundreds of web pages of information which often exceed what manufacturers’ catalogs provide. In fact, we have had manufacturers refer to our website to learn things about their own products!
Was this to move to the other side of the dateline or something?
You can see dead/flagged comments via a setting, perhaps only exposed to users if their own score is high enough(?).
I happened to be in charge of organizing the translation of one of Celko's books to Hungarian. I even translated some chapters myself and proof-read the other chapters.
It was indeed an eye-opening exercise!
My background at that time was DBase, FoxPro and reading the Postgres docs. It was great to read don't recommendations about how to use the toolkit of SQL to answer real-world questions.
And to save everyone from having to read that:

| Can someone explain why the BOOLE function is a single function with sixteen ops rather than sixteen functions.

It's because there are only four possible inputs to a two-input boolean gate, and so there are only 2^4=16 possible boolean gates. Furthermore there is a straightforward representation of those gates as an ordered sequence of four bits that specify the output of the gate for each of the four possible combinations of inputs (though the CL standard does not actually require implementations to use this representation, and not all do).
Well, in the nfl they’re called head coaches although some have higher, secondary titles involving personnel.
Stereo Reconstruction

It's the algorithm(s) for how to compute a depth map when you have images from two cameras spaced some distance apart (for e.g., our eyes). It's gotten really good recently and it's fascinating on a technical level. Check out this YT video/playlist if interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hr6xpOU-uw

Also, great question! Should do it every week.
I think the main problem with SQL is how it tries to be too “human like” and “non-programmers friendly” with all the English words, when it’s still used by programmers in the end.

I don’t see Malloy fixing it as it’s still using many English words and trying to be too much “sentence like”, but maybe I read it wrong
I don't know, because my memory of it is vague at this point. The octopus is definitely fascinating, I love all that stuff, but the narrative didn't really grab me and I think maybe it felt long winded and all that combined with the hype left me feeling a bit high and dry.
That's new in 2019 (0/8 was prohibited), and there is a story... https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin...
Traditional desktop ui idiom implies enough space for all controls to fit. Frameworks could include similar width-breakpoint sets of constraints, or e.g. a type of H:a|-|b constraint which could transform into V:a|-|b plus H:parent|-|b when parent is too narrow, essentially wrapping an element.

But they usually don’t. It doesn’t mean that constraint-based layout lacks flexibility. Only specific engines do, but so do specific table engines. It’s easy to forget that css also sucked for 20 years straight, and still does, if you dig an inch deeper than usual. E.g. grid is cool, but did anyone try to page-break it in media print? Can we baseline—align divs & inputs that are not direct children of a flexbox? Not to mention internalized bugs like when your grid gets a parasite scroll when its scrollable child has large padding specified in particular units.

All that said, I think the best toolkit is the one which contains all of the tools and not only a subset.
Here is the follow up blog post where the post mentions De Bruijn sequences specifically: https://www.expunctis.com/2019/04/01/Not-so-random-followup....
Euclidea, in my opinion, has genius game design where you have to use the existing tools to make new ones. It basically teaches you, “you can do all this with just a few basic functions. The rest are just time-saving aggregates.”

I learned a lot from the game.
Your response here is very kneejerk and innappropriate. It would have been much better if you left out the name calling at the beginning and end and just kept the part in the middle that was focused on explaining how you came to the "100x" number.