skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The article however, does not show anything comparable to lispy metaprogramming.

I do not see a single new keyword being defined. I do not see anything changing the order of evaluation. Only to give 2 examples.

Recently I implemented a new kind of "define" in a Scheme, which allows for specifying contracts for a function. I don't think such a thing is possible using the tools shown in the article. As such, the things shown in the article are not really that meta, but rather parts of the Python language already. It is not like it is adding anything to Python, which was not there. It is just usage of some concepts Python already has. This is conceptually different from transforming source code to other source code, which then creates a new concept in the language itself. It is not like I can mold Python into whatever I want, but rather stay in the corset of the language facilities. Which of course is not as nice as lispy languages with good macro system, when it gets to creating DSLs and other conveniences.

So overall I am not so blown away by the article.
I'm not sure I agree with the prior that blog comments, twitter/facebook posts, youtube videos, messages left behind to other players in dark souls, etc are Speech and I'm curious to find any legal opinion about this.
Yes, the correct term is reactionary, which many modern "conservatives" are - they don't want things to remain the same, they want a return to "the good old days".
That's how you do LCAs, nothing fallacious about it. Solar or wind isn't CO2 neutral either.
Saul Kripke has left us ...
This is an actual argument that nuclear PR reps make in detail:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/05/06...

> The goal of renewables was to turn modern industrial societies back into agrarian ones, argued Murray Bookchin in his 1962 book, Our Synthetic Environment.

> The reason renewables can’t power modern civilization is because they were never meant to. One interesting question is why anybody ever thought they could.

I guess it works in certain political bubbles, even if it appears insane from others
It will certainly look unusual. It's not clear to me that it will look artificial (we are pretty bad at deciding that one), but it won't look like anything else around it.
@dang can we get this merged with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32874551 ?
European Central Bank to go large with 75 bps move on Thursday
In your country I guess it would be lawful, but I personally wouldn't say it's morally okay.

For instance, I have no problem with the Catholic church banning gay priests. But I'm not outraged because doing so isn't banning gays from society.
No this is not what he said. You don’t need to treat the group differently. Since all people have free speech in the group, then the group effectively has free speech as well no?
I wanted to learn more about the CO2 impact of wood burning, and I found this article which does a great a job at explaining the current situation: https://www.science.org/content/article/wood-green-source-en...
It's a little difficult with this article, to clearly understand the chain of responsibility. Does meta employ the vendor that employs the service staff? If so, who really decided to make staff cuts? And how does the union intersect with this?

Unrelated, there are approximately 200 service people cut, making approximately $20/hr. That's roughly $8M a year. Certainly that's a lot of money, but I wonder why meta would choose to cut this cost and not some other. For example, why not lay off 20 engineers? Or is this related to fewer people being in the offices now, so there's literally less work?

It seems like a compassionate capitalism approach, wherein there's a bit more preference for preserving the jobs for the lower economic class would be worth considering here.
If someone paid me $50 to admit on camera I've broken laws in the past, I think I'd probably be more than happy to. Are you under the impression the police are going to start arresting people on Soft White Underbelly because they admit to doing drugs? That's not really how the American justice system works, from what I understand.
Considering wood is at most as expensive as petrol per kWh (at least here in Belgium, heating fuel is not heavily taxed), I have a hard time understanding that it takes more fossil fuel energy to manufacture pellets than burning the fossil fuel directly.
Never heard of Rebalance. Thanks for the tip!

Though, after playing XCOM2, I don't know if I can go back to LW.
The version published by Stripe Press is beautiful, but the font is very small. I bought the Stripe Press version and 30 minutes into it I went looking for a digital version to read on my Kindle where I could choose my own font.

I absolutely loved the book.
His example is wood shipped from US to EU. This is bogus in many cases as wood for pellets is sourced and processed locally, hence energy input is much lower.
My non-lawyer perspective is that the issue, in the context of modern realities, has to have an element of scale applied. Two-hundred years ago, nobody could even remotely imagine a business or individual having control of what millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions or billions of people could see or read every day.

Even worse, they could not imagine being able to monitor their every reaction with fine granularity to then apply adaptive algorithms.

Worse yet, they could not predict the above effectively inserting every member of the audience and entire groups into a Pavlovian operant-conditioning program under the control of those controlling the methods of communication.

Clearly the first amendment is not —could not be— designed for this reality.

At scale, these companies have more power to influence thought than they should. That much should be clear to any neutral observer. All you have to do is imagine a reality where they favor a side, cause or ideology opposite yours.
My day job just built a WhatsApp bot to interact with customers because our super app was too big for low-end devices. Meta also subsidizes internet for WhatsApp in developing countries, so they don't have to only use the service on wifi.
This is great news, which of course will generate a lot of heat in some circles.
Before someone screams "playing god" and similar nonsense, I would ask them if they would have the same reaction when a new advanced weapon is introduced, because you know, if playing god applies when giving life, then it also does when giving death.
HN has a human moderator who decides what is and isn't in alignment with the HN community. His action to remove posts he finds egregious is his personal expression of speech - he very frequently writes comments explaining why he chose to remove a comment.

The act of removing content is itself an expressive act which deserves government protection.
People aren't upset with corporate personhood in citizens united. They're upset that it allows endless amounts of money to be pumped into politics, further separating the lower classes from the positions of power.

In any case, the supreme court ruled it. So if they have personhood, they have a right to restrict speech on their own property. Unless, you think, I should be able to go to your property and put up my political sign at will.
That looks really interesting, thank you very much!
IHP, a batteries-included web framework built on Haskell and Nix
Try it again with cookies disabled. It looks like they only do the browser fingerprinting if cookies are disabled.
When I'm involved in running an event, my number one priority is an abundance of decent food and a variety of beverages. You don't want your guests feeling anxious about whether they'll be able to snag a bag of goldfish crackers before they run out. Also, even if you're trying to throw a healthy event, it's good to have at least some of the provided food and drink be decadent. For example, buy several cartons of sparkling water, but at least one carton of coke. Once a few people start walking around with a coke, other people will see it and suddenly feel thirsty, even if they have the impulse control to grab a water instead.
1. Great!
2. Using the latest iOS (and thus, Safari).
3. I was just using your suggested demo book. You might want to replace it with one that works. It's interesting to me that the functionality would depend in some part on the book. Why is that? Are they not all the same sort of ePub?
We Are Dispensable Due to Deterioration of Values
that's 'symbiosis' like using a hammer to put a nail in is symbiosis.

I guess that's fine if all your life is work.
I doubt your neighbour has a machine that requires no energy input to go from tree to logs.
Asking permission to disagree? Are they our parents?
Peat is only arguably renewable though - it grows at something like half a mm a year in thickness. Vegetation takes a long time to come back in those environments, and there's also so many more high-value things the peat could be used for instead. We must leave our grandchildren a world with Laphroaig..
>But at no point will the phone company cancel my telephone service

This isn't correct. I work for a tier 2 telco and both CLECs and ILECs regularly cancel accounts known for fraudulent traffic. At first they'll block the originating traffic from routing across their switch, but after review and positive confirmation they will terminate the subscribers account.

There is a constant arms race to detect and prevent fraudulent traffic. The idea the LECs would knowingly continue to provide service to these accounts is nonsense.
That's not what the decision says, nor what the legislation prohibits.
I know many people who oppose "socialized healthcare", and they definitely agree that the current system is broken, but they think the solution is to decrease government involvement and/or make it more competitive.
Just asking because I'm curious: What are the parts of C++ that you actually use? To me RAII and managed pointers are by far the most useful features in C++, followed by templates (think of them as type safe macros with slightly less horrible syntax, not as generics).
This is such a perfect example of a pro-blockchain answer in that it's entirely based in fantasy.

The blockchain hype cycle peaked nearly five years ago: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=b...

There were many pilot projects that soaked up vast sums of money. But in reply to a comment saying I haven't been able to find any practical results, what do I get? No practical results, just the same sci-fi guff.
> Google as a whole... has a slew of services entirely comparable to WeChat

> they miss a couple of things like a marketplace

Really all there is to it. Google offers disparate services instead of bundling and lacks essential parts of WeChat (e.g. commerce, social media).

The comparison comes up short.
Plex: The easy home media server
Not really true, about no other way. In such waters an ultralight spinning rig with a small hook and single split shot, with just a worm on the hook, is far more effective.

So effective, fly fisherman consider it "cheating".
The point is small communities should be able to have local renewable solutions, even though the solution would not scale to large communities.
I'm a longtime MeFi participant and I'm thrilled Jessamyn is involved again.

Another bit of trivia: her father was Tom West, one of the engineers chronicled in Tracy Kidder's The Soul of a New Machine.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/28/business/28west.html
Makes sense to me.

It's no different than not distributing a physical product to Europe.

Or having a website entirely in Japanese.

Or a storefront only business.

And people who want what you are selling have the similar option taking on the risks of acting through an intermediary and accepting responsibility for VAT and GDPR.

If you're lucky enough to survive and even luckier to thrive, you can always expand to serve that market later.

Good luck.
This is a really flawed analysis, it ignores things like the cost and disruption of transition (both internally and to customers), the constant R&D needed to continually improve the compute base hardware and software architecture, the people needed to do all this and their skills (which need constant improvement) and availability (the best people are not easily replaceable units of work and it takes time for new people to come up to speed), security, and more. It basically only looks at _estimated_ costs based on a very few cases. Many big software projects fail, and moving from cloud to in-premises (and vice-versa) is a big software and hardware project. Some of these factors are pro-cloud, some are anti-cloud depending on circumstances. Cost should not be the only determinant.

My personal opinion is that cloud is currently a major security vulnerability. In a time where computer security is very obviously not a solved a problem, betting on a monoculture (similar to mono-crops in agriculture) means that if one major attack is successful then everything that depends on that cloud architecture is at risk (potato famine). So far we've been fairly lucky (as far as we know; it could be that compromises exist and are being exploited without doing anything so obvious as crashing the cloud). But all the eggs are typically in one basket. If the basket falls all the eggs break. On premise data centers can be compromised in the same way, but it's more work for the attacker and less profit, raising the barrier. Until we figure out how to truly secure compute infrastructure, security through obscurity (strangely enough) and diversity, by having every company build their own data center, seems to be better for the security of society overall (though any one company can still be compromised.) In part, it's the old distributed versus centralized argument. A highly variable distributed set of systems is more robust against attack than the monoculture and single point of failure of a centralized system, though a centralized system offers more control (and wow, CEO's really like centralized control for obvious reasons! It's a major flaw in their outlook, similar to why the Russian army is having problems because of their rigid top-down hierarchy.) Look to nature for examples of what survives. Insects are considered likely to be the last survivors on Earth, dinosaurs are (mostly) gone. /rant
It also doesn't look good that they put a clip from said virtual event where its clear they couldn't kick out of Bluetooth headset mode and proceed to have all your attendees listen to them in glorious 1990s PCM quality.
In most organizations the gravitational pull of Conway's Law is so overpowering it forces every team to have at least one repo.
Sorry, this didn’t make any sense to me.

The reasoning about non-neutrality is that a tree has captured some carbon (its growth), then we burn it and release that carbon back into the atmosphere (1:1 equality).

However, anything on top of that (production of pellets, transportation, retailing) takes significant carbon, too.

Solar panels don’t take carbon from the air, and we don’t burn solar panels. We do manufacture, transport and retail them, though. So yeah, solar capture is non-neutral.

The merits of one are independent of the other. Neither of which are carbon neutral. Last point, some might argue that solar panels reduce the carbon needed to combust; it’s hard to see that as carbon neutrality, that’s a broken argument. But, I’m not sure who’s making that point.
The Founders lived in a world where it was much harder to distribute writing. How many printing presses existed in Philadelphia during the drafting of the Constitution? What, in inflation adjusted dollars, was the cost of sending your opinion to anyone who asked for it in 1787?

If the biggest local printer didn't like your opinion, what could you do about it?
> Browser hype is all good, but you have a memory limitation. And nothing beats a native app responsiveness.

I learned from the other HN comment that Figma is faster then Adobe XD (probably written in C++ as other Adobe software). Actually, Figma is also written in C++ then compiled with Emscripten to WASM, so it can run in the browser. Also, they skip DOM/SVG/Canvas 2D and use WebGL for fast rendering.
If that's not your opinion please explain what you mean by courts being more "proactive"
obv, this is just a minimal demo (i don't name my classes A!); in actual codebase, there's a complicated calculation that throws up under some circumstances
I mostly agree. The telephone company did not commit a crime through inaction but rather they indirectly facilitated a crime by not fixing their architecture with known security gaps to prevent it from occurring in the first place. These gaps have existed since the first non-telco SS7 private links were permitted.

I say this knowing full well that SS7 will never be fixed. I maintained SS7 switches and understand the international complexity this dated system brings. Its a full topic in and of itself but I believe it is time to move everything off SS7, to what exactly I am not sure.
> I wonder why meta would choose to cut this cost and not some other. For example, why not lay off 20 engineers?

It’s likely that meta sees less issue with removing janitors than engineers. One question they probably asked themselves is: would those missing janitors have any impact on any project or revenue stream ? Would it be hard ton re-hire and re-train them if we need to ?

With engineers, they would probably have to answer « yes » to the impact question and « no » to the re-staff question, while it is really hard to even notice few missing janitors and re-hiring them is trivial.
You mentioned pricing as your primary driver, but don’t list any pricing data or price comparisons on your site. Am I missing something?

EDIT: Nevermind. Used a throwaway email to signup and it’s “100 Free requests per month, then $0.01 USD per request” - which unless I am missing something appears to be more expensive that OpenAI’s pricing:

https://openai.com/api/pricing/
Sorry, who do you believe is preventing Stripe from charging higher fees to riskier accounts? Please be specific.

Also, what's your evidence that some payment processors don't handle porn because of government pressure, rather than just natural market forces? I had a friend who did tech for a porn company, and from what he says, even a well-run porn company has much higher rates of chargebacks (e.g., next-day regrets and "no honey I don't know what that charge is") and fraud (stolen cards, fraudulent affiliate program participants).
I think many people who dislike this kind of research would also dislike weapons research.
No I did not like the tone of the author.
I learnt to do that in elementary school for fun, I would personally do it by doing it concurrently fast enough that the bottleneck was my hand writing instead of the thought, so all I was actually doing in parallel was writing things I had already thought out, so I don't know how much this brings to the concurrency/parallelism conscious thought question.
The largest issues I’ve had with ITAR are:

1: I’m building this myself as an amateur, not a university or company, this seems to instantly put everyone on high alert and I suspect I’m getting “ITAR” as an excellent stonewalling/excuse instead of just saying they don’t want to talk to me.

2: I’m working with an orbital imaging systems which could in theory be used as a very ineffective spy sat (the optics aren’t designed to look at the ground but it is a telescope)

3: I’m not in America, so I have to deal with the “international” part of ITAR. It’s not like I’m in an embargo country, I’m in Australia… but a lot of people want to minimise their ITAR exposure so they just don’t want to work with anyone outside the USA, they are effectively “outsourcing” the ITAR problem to the downstream customers that build systems using their components. Since they aren’t exporting they have a much simpler due diligence process, like just making sure they confirm the buyer is an American citizen.

Overall it’s just been less of a complete dead end but more of a minefield of bullshit I have to dodge any time I’m forced to deal with American companies… dual use technology is ok to buy, until your using it for one of those special purposes, then it’s a mountain of paperwork.
> As I recall, random entities have no rights, humans have rights but there is no corporate bill of rights.

The law in the US as early as the late 18th century has recognized that associations of people have rights separate from the rights of the individuals that are in the associations.
I have tried fly fishing, and although it is difficult to learn, I have been very successful.

To enumerate the species I have hooked into:

Fremontodendron californicum, Buxus Sempervirens, Acer Circinatum, Quercus Alba... and more
Seems like C++ is having an identity crisis lately
This is exactly what I was waiting to hear as I was scrolling. It's is the first sound I think of when I think of CDMX now that I've lived there.
Europe isn't really a continent though.

More like a subcontinent of Asia, like India.
> In Western markets, Apple and Google use app moderation to forbid apps from doing too many different things at once, so as to preserve their platform advantage.

I’ve never heard about this before. Is this an official policy of either company? Do you have any citations to share for more reading?
No, because the topic at hand literally includes Nazis. The speech being censored, which is being discussed, includes Nazis and the like being free to spout their shit on Twitter/Facebook or not.

(And they should not, I don't know how that's even a debate)
Certainly. Every manager understands that when you hire an employee there will be situations where, in the heat of the moment, they have to make decisions without consulting a higher rank and sometimes you won't like those decisions. That's the nature of being an employer. If you weren't willing to take that risk you wouldn't hire someone.

However, when an employee doesn't do what you like you can tell them to stop going forward. There isn't much will to have the employees stop in this case because nobody is thinking about the security implications outside of HN where you have professional security researchers able to provide their unique perspective. Security is a fairly hard to understand topic if you're not deeply engrossed in it and is not something people casually think about.

Venture out into the world where you find millennials in construction, food service, retail, childcare, etc. and listen to what they are talking about. I can almost guarantee it is not this.
My own experience is that most of the times people view this subject as a matter of personal preference. They do not see this as a technical choice that may (or not) solve problems or help reach particular goals. Thus, when discussing this subject from a logical/engineering perspective, laying down pros/cons arguments, the other party may take it personally.
While writing the Tractatus in the trenches, even. Most people would be satisfied with a stream-of-consciousness brain dump, hoping that enough insights are contained within to justify one's work. Wittgenstein cooked it down to just seven terse statements and further terse sub-statements. And numbered them nicely. Who does that?
Of course. Once it becomes too expensive because too many people are choosing to use it, then nobody will choose to use it.

At that point, nobody will go there anymore because it's too crowded.
That's what golf courses do.

Well except for the environmentalist part.
In his talk he demos mixing syntax 1 and 2 (his terms) in the same file. Preprocessor macros work fine unless you enable "pure" mode.

He also demos error messages, and was able to get errors from a cpp compiler (msvc) that point to his cpp2 file with a line number and readable error.