skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
First thing: talk with both the management or whoever non-technical you need to report to, and explain the situation and negotiate timeframe. Then talk to the techies too and kindly tell that things need to change immediately.

After you've got a working time window for getting things right, prepare a workflow that should take half the time you've discussed, as it will probably take twice the time than anticipated. (if you've negotiated on 3 months of fixing the mess, assume you have only 1.5 months or even 1 month and prepare 1 month's worth of work)

Then I think the very first thing should be moving to Git (or other SVN), setup development/staging environment and using CI/CD.

After making 100% sure the environments are separated, start writing tests. Perhaps not hundreds or thousands at this stage, but ones that catch up the critical/big failures at least.

After it start moving to a dependency manager and resolving multiple-version conflicts in the process.

Then find the most repeated parts of the code and start refactoring them.

As you have more time you can start organizing code more and more.

It sucks but it's not something that can't be fixed.

Also finally, given the work environment before you came, it might be a good idea to block pushes to the master/production branch and only accept it through PRs with all the tests requiring to pass, to prevent breaking anything in production.
The problem is that most developers are crap and self centered on working with the tech they like.

You need to work with someone who doesn't care about filling up their CV with "ruby microservices" and get stuff done.

If I went into a business to do a rewrite and decided to use $shinyNewTech because I want to build up rust experience I'd probably end up wasting years with little results.
you can also take advantage of transactions:

begin;
delete from product where id = 123;
--verify things are correct with counts, by issuing "selects", etc.

and then issue either a "rollback;" or a "commit;"... I've been happy to have followed this pattern on occasion ;)
That only works if the new pieces correspond to old pieces. If there's no good structure to build on, the units to be replaced will constrain the architecture of the new ship.

At some point you end up trying to change a pumpkin boat into an aircraft carrier, and there's no obvious way you can do that one piece at a time.
You're claiming that LC cannot implement a quoting operator. Which is quite wrong.

What you misunderstand is that a LC quote would not work on arbitrary lambda terms.

A Mogensen quote operator would take a Mogensen encoding, and output a Mogensen encoding of that Mogensen encoding.

Or a BLC quote operator would take a bitstring like 0010 which encodes the identity function λ 1, and output the blc encoding of the nil-terminated list of 4 booleans that represents that bitstring:

01000101100000110010110000011001011000001001011000001100101100000100000100000000101101110110
Even better, so you can't accidentally move out of bounds:

for (int i : nums) {
nums[i] = rng();
}

Edit: Ooops, I'm an idiot, this doesn't do anything useful (i is every value in nums, not the indices of nums...)
The only real limitation I see for Figma (4GB memory Limit due to 32bit address space in WASM) will go away eventually.
New shellclear version was released with more detect patterns
I have thought for years that I should patch dd to require some force option if it writes to a block device bigger than a typical USB stick/SD card. Never did, but now my development machines have NVME and I hardly ever use USB sticks anymore because my target systems have OTA updates most of the time. So the need has become history.
Page 32 of the pdf...omg the legends were true!

https://woodrush.github.io/lambdalisp.pdf
Amazon suffers from this a little as well to be honest. Search something and pull up a page, search again and you are in this obscure category that has like 20% of the Thing A you are interesed on Amazon because some stuff is listed in other categories. Sometimes it also doesn't seem to respect my price ceilings on search filters.
> Let's say you start to write tests and start to see issues crop up. Now what? How do you fix those things?

I assumed the tests wouldn't be for correctness, but for compatibility. If issues crop up, you reproduce the issues exactly in the rewrite until you can prove no one depends on them (Chesterton's fence and all).

The backwards-compatibility-at-all-costs approach makes sense if the product has downstream integrations that depend on the current interface. If your product is self-contained, then you're free to take the clean slate approach.
You accurately diagnose symptoms, but you blame the wrong people. Engineers and actors don't make creative choices, they merely obey directors and producers.
Do They Like You? Decipher their mixed signals and cryptic messages
Must be a very rare browser, it works very well on Brave (mobile).

Also, it is always more helpful to state the actual issue.
Yes you did. One of these a day, please. I really like the hand-drawn / doodled style.. it disarmed me, which was good because solving this required me to be patient and to unwire my brain a little
Ig Nobel Prize Winners 2022
This seems to support both sides of the argument, particularly the central part:

> It meant power among people who had no power. It meant perks in a working-class neighborhood that had no privileges. To be a wiseguy was to own the world. I dreamed about being a wiseguy the way other kids dreamed about being movie stars or firemen or ballplayers
I'm curious how things like Nix will help with this in the future, especially as the platform matures.

I took a bit of time a little while back to convert a wee app of mine to using Nix flakes to build, specifically because I was getting bitten by API changes in a key dependency. Once I nailed down the configuration to include the version(s) that worked with my original code... it worked. Took a while that first time, but got it done, and now it should be defined in a way that stays robust.
It’s not the same, but if those 20M is primarily generated by the software, then it’s those 3 ppl, who contribute to the top line. The rest, like sales, marketing, are irrelevant: fire them and the product will keep generating revenue off the existing customer base. It will stop doing so, however, if the product brakes.
So, the post above is right to an extent, this is the golden goose. ))
That was much much better than I could have expected, and I’m glad I used my annual YouTube visit to watch it.
I wouldn't describe it as a useless trick to know that sin(2x) ≈ 2x for small x. I'd describe this as a basic part of understanding what it means to say sin'(0) = 1.
A little off topic but it’s really surprising how so few of the shows and movies these days give off any vibe of sincerity. From the acting to the writing to the CGI, everything seems to be winking at the audience and trying to tell them that they are all actors and its all make believe.

The perfect example is Lord of the Rings vs The Rings of Power. I had no problems believing that Aragorn really lived in Middle Earth. But every single actor in Rings of Power feels like…an actor - just someone playing a part.

Maybe its the overuse of bad CGI, but so few of the worlds feel “lived in”.
You sound frustrated that you've joined a company with an absolute stinker of a codebase, because you're confident you could deliver much better results having refactored it first. You're managing a group of people probably enormously under-productive because of the weight of the technical debt they're under. Every change takes months. It's riddled with hard-to-fix bugs. It's insecure. There are serious bus factor problems.

Many of us have been in this exact position before, multiple times. Many of us have seen somebody say "our only choice is a full rewrite" - some of us were the one making that decision. Many of us have seen that decision go disastrously wrong.

For me, the problem was my inability to do what I'm good at: write tests, write implementations that pass that test, etc. Every time I suggested doing something, somebody would have a reason why that would fail because of some unclear piece of the code. So rather than continuously getting blocked, I tried to step into my comfort zone of writing greenfield code. I built a working application that was a much nicer codebase, but it didn't match the original "spec" from customer expectations, so I spent months trying to adjust to that. I basically gave up managing the team because I was so busy writing the code. In the end, I left and the company threw away the rewritten code. They're still in business using the shitty old codebase, with the same development team working on it.

If you really want to do the rewrite, accept how massively risky and stressful it will be. The existing team will spend the whole team trying to prove you were wrong and they were right, so you need to get them to buy into that decision. You need to upskill them in order to apply the patterns you want. And you need to tease apart those bits of the codebase which are genuinely awful from those that for you are merely unfamiliar.

Personally, I would suggest a course for you like https://www.jbrains.ca/training/course/surviving-legacy-code, which gives you a wider range of patterns to apply to this problem.
You could get an audio limiter. Would mean a bunch of additional hardware though.
That was never a commonly accepted form of writing, which is a material difference.

I think over 18 years of education it's reasonable to teach kids both forms of writing.

There is no lack of curriculum space.

Most things we learn we forget. Writing is one of those neat thing we keep forever.
Worked well on my Android`s Vanadium browser (chromium based).
Solved it on mobile, but no signal that game was finished.
On Firefox (android) here.
https://bitcoinminingheater.com/ is a thing. It even has a built-in thermostat to regulate its mining output to your desired temperature.
In the US, lifetime odds of dying in a car are almost 1 in 100.

I risk death by car almost everyday because I want a nicer house than I could afford if I lived within walking distance of my job.

Let people have their plugs. I doubt 1 in 100 buyers are killing themselves accidentally.
A lot of real estate management companies seem to use software that just spams craigslist with legitimate ads, but spam nonetheless because its 40 hits for the same apartment complex.
Yes, I know. I literally just articulated, in the comment you're replying to:

(1) That the invented classification was a mistake, and should be rectified, and

(2) How that invented classification — and the privileges it granted — was made in trade for something we never received (and never should have asked for): criminalization of “obscene or indecent” material on the internet.

I'm not sure whose arguments you believe you're rebutting, but they're not mine.
Please make that blinking after winning less... epileptic.
Speaking of shameful, anti-human behaviour related to closed captions, I have some pet peeves that would be trivial to fix, but major production companies simply refuse to implement.

(There are ZERO excuses for all of the below. None. It's just text on a screen, displayed by dedicated apps on Smart TVs, fully equipped with CPUs and GPUs! Netflix staff especially that come across this thread: You should be ashamed. Shame. Shame. Shame.)

1. English subtitles != English subtitles for the hearing impaired. I don't want "Breathes loudly" and "Bang!" over action scenes. I live in a household where everyone's second language is English, and if I turn the subtitles on for them, the extra sound-effects subtitles drive me crazy.

2. Can't have multiple subtitles for mixed-language households. My partner prefers subtitles in her language, but then if there's a scene in an English-language movie with a short foreign-language segment in it, I have to pause, switch to English for the hearing impaired (see point #1), and then pause and switch back when the scene is over. I should be able to select any two or even three subtitle languages, such as "auto english + japanese", or whatever.

3. Can't have subtitles in some languages. Netflix in particular loves to waste $500K annual total comp on data scientists who analyse their market segments to select the "top 5" languages in each market region. Don't speak one of those languages? Tough titties, no subtitles for you! It's not even a matter of copyright or distribution rights. They do this for their own productions too! They do it because some idiot at Netflix thought too many options was "hard to navigate". You know what's even harder? Trying to understand a movie when it doesn't have subtitles matching your language!!

4. Eye-searing HDR subtitles. Netflix again. On my Sony OLED TV the subtitles use the HDR max-brightness white. They illuminate my entire room and look like someone is trying to burn the text into my retinas with high-powered flashlights. This cannot be adjusted... for some languages. For like, no reason. English: can be fixed! French: yes. Japanese, Arabic, Hebrew, Korean, Romanian, Traditional Chinese, and Thai: BURN YOUR HEATHEN EYEBALLS! See: https://help.netflix.com/en/node/100267
"Lies we tell children." While the _force_ may not exist, it describes an effect that happens when something spins.

I still used the wrong term though. I was actually referring to gyroscopic motion.
A good example here is 1Password, which stores passwords and also allows storing TOTP.

Which means the something I know is stored in the same places as something I have. Granted it is protected by encryption, and another password, but it definitely increases the attack surface.

If the computer is compromised it becomes much more possible to get access to both of these items than if it was a security key, physical authenticator or even on a different device.
It wasn't necessarily written by those 3 devs. They're just the current team. Granted, they probably have been that for a long time because of the resistance to change, but the brightest minds are probably long gone.
That was fun. Where is the next level?
All very true, but at the risk of laboring the point, a legal person is not a person, just like a sperm bank is not a bank. A noun phrase is not necessarily a sub-category of the original noun. This is underlined by the use of the plural “legal persons”, rather “legal people” which is usually reserved for meat sacks with law degrees.
Previous discussion:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32873924
I think a rigid foundation is a good thing for reasons that might not be obvious. I have never had to use much calculus for any job I had over the past 30 years and the rigorous Dijkstra formal methods that were punched into me at university are not often practical, however, they do help me to understand things on a deeper level and allow me to document things in a clearer fashion. I recently needed proofs to show why one of our solutions was more secure than any existing solution in payments and the auditors were delighted it was written on 1 A4 pdf in terse formulas instead of the gibberish they usually get (they said they often get 80 page presentations (yes, actual powerpoint) they have to distill into something that even makes logical sense let alone passes, but that is what they get paid for). It is good for the mind imho.
Very nice! Really enjoyed figuring it out :)
Revenue isn't the same as Earnings Before Salaries either.

E.g. maybe it's an e-wholesaler or widget reseller, bought $19M goods and sold $20M. Or maybe it was much slower than expected, they actually bought $25M goods and are burning 500k/month on warehousing. Or whatever.
I could have perhaps more delicately put my assessment that there are facets to poverty you appear to gloss over, either willingly or not.

Can you address the first two paragraphs originally posted? You were upset with the third and opted to sidestep confronting the argument.
I am completely lost. How do you play this?
My wife loves having subtitles on for all the reasons listed in the article. I, on the other hand, prefer to just listen. I've found since watching with subtitles my ability to lip read and understand tricky accents has no dived.
What is your true objective? What will you be evaluated on?

Focus and think of any other improvement you could do.

It sounds like management doesn’t think there is an actual problem to solve, so I wouldn’t necessarily pick refactoring or rewrite as the hill to die on.

If you go the refactoring route, i have little advice:

0. Clean up the database, it will immediately impact performance and make management happy

1. Find vertical (feature-wise) or horizontal (layer-wise) architectural boundaries and split the code base into module, separated libraries. This will be an ongoing process for a long while.
Do it by touching as little code as possible - this is pure scaffolding, actual refactoring comes later.

2. Stick with PHP, at least until results from #1 aren’t good enough.

3. Use testing as a tool to pressure management, it works a surprisingly large number of times

4. Rewrite one feature/page at a time, once results from #1 indicate a good candidate.
It might be a good idea to introduce a new language at this point, or even some form of micro services (if it makes sense).
> Actors need to go do some stage acting and learn how to e n u n c i a t e and project their voices.

Watch some German shows (notably: Not Netflix’s Dark as that was untypical, I mean actually produced for the German market shows). It’s horrible. Everything sounds super fake. Yes, everything is easy to understand, but I (a German) can’t watch anything because nothing sounds real.

It’s usually claimed this is because German actors do more stage acting, but as Dark (or other German actors in US productions where they don’t sound fake) show, it goes much deeper.
Jesus, this is a silly take.

Lets phrase the problem appropriately, this isn't new. Every new technology will be used for good or bad and not a day goes by before someone tries to deceive another entity, be it another human being in a car dealership price negotiation or a prompt to a text model.

The reason models like GPT3 are so remarkable is that they learn a statistical relationship between incredibly vast amounts of unstructured data to mimic the semblance of intellect or reasoning.

The FRAMEWORK that underpins GPT3 and most modern "AI" is a remarkable acceleration of the compute and inference resources that, when associated with large clumps of data, start unlocking immense value.

To have such a strong assertion saying "I don't know how to solve this, but hey, i KNOW FOR A FACT it isn't more of this advanced compute paradigm that has been the topic of many a success in the computer science discipline" is a tabloid like take.

You are going to get angry reactions like mine, but reactions nonetheless, thus driving more views to your headline and cycling it through the system. Smart people will take a stand, and others, to be controversial or looking from a contrarian POV will extend the conversation leading to a useless cycle of a waste of time.

All we're seeing through these "Prompt injection" attacks is how loose the parameters for influence right now are, allowing for an open ended interaction with no boundaries with the statistical output of the model.

Is this solvable? Certainly.
Can we absolutely rule out "More AI" to solve it? Fuck no.
I actually thought 60 seconds was a bit too long. An easy to understand puzzle is probably more intuitive and < 15-20 secs from start/enough not to notice it took time.
Get out. I’ve been there and tried in earnest fixing things. Without management’s understanding and an “aggressive roadmap”, you’re doomed to fail and burn yourself out in the process.

It got this way exactly because management doesn’t see the point or the problem. The fix isn’t technical (not yet), it’s cultural and strategic first which isn’t something you have control over.
The wolf is already at work. Just go hiking in the Alps and look at the extend of the glaciers, take a look at the raining/snowing patterns over the past 50 years, everwhere you look you can see the effects.

You can call it what you want, but anyway if we want to live long term on this planet we need to reach an equilibrium with our environment. We definitely can't achieve this by pumping oil and gas out and burning it.
I went to school in 1990 in Poland. We were taught to write in cursive FIRST. Like:

"This is the letter "m", that's how it looks like, write it here in this line 1000 times in this pattern".

Something like this: http://bystredziecko.pl/karty-pracy/nauka-pisania/5/szlaczki...

I already could read books by then, but most kids didn't, so they learnt cursive first.

BTW cursive isn't any less or more readable than printed letters by itself. It depends on how fast you write. Printed letters force you to go slower, so by default you write them clearer. But if you go slow with cursive it will be as clear as printed letters.
> Also, the dog / rabbit dynamic (as used in the classic dog/duck/grain river crossing puzzle) made me think that I had to chase the rabbits with dog, or that dogs and rabbits couldn’t share a node.

Yes, I assumed first that no two animals could share a node at all until I was near the end (and saw that it would be necessary), and I still assumed that rabbits and the dog couldn't share a node ("the dog will eat the rabbit!") because of the river crossing thing, until someone in this very comment thread mentioned an unsolvable state that involved getting the dog a rabbit on the same node.
You don't not use source control because nobody directed you
to and you 'accidentally' .. what, forgot about it?

You don't use it because you haven't heard of it; = not competent.
> But calculus is not being taught to her by engineers.

30+ years ago, when I started undergrad, calc for engineers, pre-meds, and scientists were 3 different classes. Seems like your daughter should choose a more enlightened school.

(Math majors all avoid calc thanks to AP.)
Let's start by defining what Free Speech isn't.

There is no Free Speech if you can't speak freely where speech is actually happening.

So if nearly all speech is moving online to massive social media sites, and you can't speak there freely, but instead your speech is subject to the whims of random employees - there is no Free Speech in this situation.

> It certainly doesn't mean speech without consequences of any sort nor does it mean that you automatically get an audience for it.

But it does mean you can speak. Even if there may be consequences, and even if you don't automatically get an audience.

That's the right I'm supporting here, against an alarmingly large group that seems to consider this right to be no longer necessary, and even undesirable.
This guy wrote "the flight 93 election"!

> Their “opposition” may be in all cases ineffectual and often indistinguishable from support. But they don’t dream up inanities like 32 “genders,” elective bathrooms, single-payer, Iran sycophancy, “Islamophobia,” and Black Lives Matter. They merely help ratify them.

> A Hillary presidency will be pedal-to-the-metal on the entire Progressive-left agenda, plus items few of us have yet imagined in our darkest moments. Nor is even that the worst. It will be coupled with a level of vindictive persecution against resistance and dissent hitherto seen in the supposedly liberal West only in the most “advanced” Scandinavian countries and the most leftist corners of Germany and England.

https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/digital/the-flight-93-ele...

Amazing that both sides hit on this same metaphor:

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/01/06/trump-carto...