skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
People usually link those out-of-the-blue messages with being fired or asked to work extra for free. The rest is your own projection and a "kids these days!" rant.
Build your own temple
I've tried to implement documentation using Markdoc, but failed to understand what are the advantages that it brings over tools like mkdocs [0] and Material [1].

[0] https://www.mkdocs.org/

[1] https://squidfunk.github.io/mkdocs-material/
I'm gonna check that book, I bet I will learn a lot.

I sometimes wonder how we are going to solve the scaling problems around silicon and energy for this kind of AI applications. Think about this: a life-saving cancer drug may need to be custom-designed for a patient by using a few Giga-joules of energy to feed a data-center.
Because it's easier to fix yourself than fixing everyone else.

It would be nice if everyone added context to messages. Unfortunately, a lot of people just don't do that, and it's going to be very hard to convince them to change their behavior.

It's probably easier to work on your anxiety instead.

I'm speaking as someone who also suffers from this type of anxiety occasionally. I find that it helps to tell myself that I'm just being unnecessarily anxious, and that makes it easier to deal with.
I once worked under a middle manager who had the policy that any meeting invite with no agenda should be automatically rejected. Sadly they were never able to extend this outside of their department.
I'd just decline a random call. First I have to pull out my airpods and wait a bit for them to sync
There is nothing intrinsic about financial regulations that needs to be customer unfriendly. Checks can work both ways and what happened at stripe could for example be avoided by a statue which requires a reasonable explanation and a clear path and timeline towards resolution for the customer, regardless of the company they work with.
Like that wallet scene at the end of Sideways?
> Results showed that the most effective way to put a baby to sleep was to carry them and walk around for five minutes, sit and wait for five to eight minutes, then put them to bed

ok cool, as a father i did already figured it out…
NBA Top Shot is more like a collecting game and it's officially licensed by the NBA IIRC. So like a digital version of baseball cards, except you don't need to worry about shady ebay sellers
if the lines are strictly identical, you may just use

cat foo.csv | sort | uniq
Talk about projecting… this has nothing to do with politics, especially USA politics.

I’ve have had this exact conversation with colleagues from extremely varied backgrounds. Some people mind it less, some more, but most are annoyed by it at some level. It’s like calling and saying “can I ask you a question?”, followed by thirty seconds of silence.

This is a bad pattern of communication introduced by modern chat with presence features (and amplified by remote work), not something that is part of natural conversation.
Tauri 1.1.0
Yes, and people still fall through literal cracks and die every day.

You can't force people to be truthful online, just like you can't fill up every crack on the Earth with cement.

If I ask you to confirm you haven't changed your number and you outright lie then I'm sorry but it is what it is.
> I doubt EU could do anything about it unless one uses paid services

Just because a service is free does not mean consumer protection and data protection laws (including GDPR) no longer apply.

Why would you think otherwise?
clutches pearls

spit-takes tea

drops biscuit

Ghastly!
Reminds me of being called out of the classroom for a meeting with the head teacher when I was 12. I panicked immediately, because "go to the head teacher" was usually just to be told off.* Then my teacher specified "it's for GOOD news" and it changed completely.

* in itself very wrong, the idea that authority is there just to punish you and head teachers should be something you're afraid of.
I think the missing "why" is an issue. Like a commit message needs a "why".
The downside is that if every significant bit of communication is straight to the point and in public ... how should sensitive personal infomation be handled ?

It's either:

- out there in public, OR

- clearly sensitive as it's the only bit of communication the other party is masking.

Depending on your environment workers may or may not want open signals about sensitive events being telegraphed.
I'd recommend trying to get to a room where family member/friend etc. is in their environment, throw casually "hey, can we talk" and move outside of the room waiting for them to come over.

They will expect something is/was wrong. Simply because people organically don't communicate like that. There is no N minutes pause between prompt and the message. Having separate communication prompt is signaling for bracing or softening, i.e. delivery of bad news.

Sure, a lot of people learned to cope with this, but that's definitely not normal communication. It's also wasting other people's time and showing lack of respect. Having someone wait on hook for 2 minutes while thoughts are being typed out is exact same type of power move as "yeah, I called you, but wait a sec till I finish my crossword". Is the other person online presence really indispensable to a degree that the thoughts cannot by typed out without it? As a counter move (if someone wants to be mean) you can respond "Hey, I'm here, but I'm starting my focus session right now, so I'll check my Slack/E-mail/IRC/Teams in 45 minutes, what's up?"

So yeah.. don't do this in professional communication.
Speaking from the company side, this is our main method of hiring! It works great.

A key factor would be that we as a company support and maintain an open source framework. I'm not sure how well it would work without that.
The thing is, this is easy to say without context. But often there is all kinds of surrounding context that may or may not give cause for anxiety. E.g. a "can we talk?" right after a major project you led failed is far more likely to cause anxiety than the very same "can we talk?" right after a major success. But a lot of the time you as a manager will not even be aware of the context. E.g. all kinds of rumours might be circulating that you've not heard of, and given a staff member cause to be worried, or said staff member might think you're unhappy about something you've not even thought about.

If you don't give context, chances are they'll fill in their own.
> All of this falls apart if the goods/service is free...

That was very true, but I think this is changing. Recent dealings with Facebook and the privacy regulations give some hope there.

> And one can't really argue Google is a monopoly with regards to email services

EU regulations do not care about monopolies. The main issue is abuse of dominant position, which Google definitely has. The mobile carriers is an appropriate comparison, I think. None of them has anything like a dominant position across the continent, but their collective behaviour was suboptimal and costly for the customers, which was a strong enough motivation for the EC to intervene. I can see a blanket regulation about the processes that need to be put in place to close or recover accounts. In the same way that these companies are required to have dedicated people for GDPR requests.

Also note that EU regulations are much less concerned about random customers than American laws. The EU framework is all about competition and how to preserve it, under the arguable belief that quantitatively increasing competition will benefit the final customers.
Back in the 90's I used to use MLDBM as the database for simple CGI apps that didn't call for a full-blown RDBMS. There are some obvious limitations, but at the time it was a pretty powerful setup for simple applications.
Passports - issued and verified by centralised entity

Fingerprints, I infer that's basically digital signatures in use today - also controlled by centralised entity

Social networks - to base your auth on the bot moderated and bot infested 3rd party platform with zero support functions is a laughable idea

Stake based bounties - what does this even mean? Inferring from stake based, you meant that the auth will be based on the stake, meaning on the wallet with tokens? Then that's precisely the problem I've described above.

There is no clever technical way to solve social problem. Human identification is a social problem. You can't anonymously identify a person, unless dragnetting through his life with spyware scripts and fingerprinting (great idea for privacy, I'm already dreaming about it).
Of course it is. The fact that they would write an article about it and don't have the self awareness to recognize they have a problem - but worse - the number of people on HN that seem to think there is a material problem in behaviour of the manager is a bit shocking.

It's ridiculous. It's not even a 1 out of 10 in terms of inappropriateness, it's fully a 0. It's 100% within the preoperative of anyone frankly to say "hey, can we chat for 10 at lunch?"

Anyone who has difficulty with this should seek a bit of help, and those implying there is something wrong ... they have a different problem entirely, I don't know how to describe it.

My grandparents were born on farms without electricity or plumbing (common for the area), no public healthcare, retirement, social assistance, unemployment, radio, refrigeration, TV, barely any cars. etc.. They were kind and generous people but also resilient and self assured. They literally wouldn't understand the author's concern. It would have to be spelled out to them. They would be empathetic (it's in their character) but wouldn't think anything other than the author has some kind of issue.

Complaining about "Can we chat?" as some kind of 'unreasonable thing' is getting absurd.

People above are commenting 'what kind of stressful world we must live in' - I think the complete opposite: we have reached a threshold of material abundance and prosperity such that the most vague, imperceptible form of nuance in communication is now worthy of demarcation. Only extremely privileged and wealthy people could afford to go on about someone asking them 'if they have time to chat'.
> Ridiculously high roaming charges, for example, have been eliminated through regulation.

It should also be noted that as soon as that regulation no longer applied (Brexit), high roaming charges were immediately brought back in to effect.

EU-style regulation works.
So, not reasonable at all?
Very sad this happened to you.

To everybody else reading this: Get your own domain, get an email through it on fastmail, migrate all your accounts to it.

It will happen to you!
How come they get to keep money for the service not provided? Should be strictly illegal.
Don't ever move countries.

I set up a business account in one country and then moved to another country. Several years later I need to re-enter credit card info. It doesn't let me now because my billing address is now from a different country. Google's only solution? Create a new google account.
Yeah,that's what I think too : It seems hard (impossible) to register user's credit card at each payment provider (Stripe, Adyen, etc) and then start a subscription at some place (Stripe) and automatically switch in case of issues. There is high probability that in this scenario, Adyen will see the credit card refused because it never did a single payment for, say, 2 years, and suddenly starts a 300$ monthly subscription.

And I'm not even talking about 3D Secure!

As mentioned in the comments, a solution would be to migrate from Stripe to a merchant account with a bank where your service is vetted upfront.
> Well: that's Ethereum; like, that's precisely what Ethereum is doing.

Then why does OpenSea etc. exist?

It seems to me that Ethereum just solves the trivial problem of providing an API to do the trade itself. You could easily have a trusted company providing the exact same service cheaper and more efficiently with a centralized database. If having a unified trading backend provided was something game companies actually wanted, it would have existed already. You don't need blockchain for that. You may have problems with the company providing the platform going belly-up and the backend disappearing, or that they messed with the trades and broke trust. Then you could say Ethereum would be a good replacement providing additional value (in exchange for cost/speed/efficiency though). But the thing Ethereum would be replacing and improve upon never existed in the first place, which tells me nobody really wanted it.

Building a service on top of Ethereum that facilitates the trades, lets you view items, lets you store the data behind the items in a robust way.. that's what would provide most of the value. But that's hard. And it seems we're pretty far from having a really robust/universal solution built on top of Ethereum, for anything more than URL to JPEGs. And even when we do, I'd argue that we never needed Ethereum as the backend to begin with. Most likely the items on the Ethereum blockchain will still be completely meaningless and without significant value without a huge frontend built by some large corporation. And then that corporation might as well have used a centralised ledger to track those items. I.e. something we could do 10 years ago, and would have been done 10 years ago if there was interest for it. Enthusiasts could build open-source replacements, yes, but by the time they get there the items will probably have lost most of their value, the fad will have passed.

Creating collectible/tradable cards and items is hard. It takes physical work. You need convince shops to get it out in the market etc. That's what provides a lot of the rarity of those things. When Ethereum makes it easy to create new collectibles, you'll flood the market continuously. Fads will come and go much faster. It'll be harder for the items to have staying value. Ethereum might ruin the very thing it's trying to facilitate.

Or I could be completely wrong. We'll see in a decade or so I guess.
One important reason is the ease of delivery. If you're selling a desktop app you either need to build for different platforms (like JetBrains do), or limit yourself to a single platform (as attested by the many MacOS-only or Windows-only tools). Additionally, you need to support mechanisms for remote updates, and even with that there are many customers who fail to update for various reasons, so you need to support old versions.

With SaaS, you have full control over your product, at the cost of being limited to the in-browser (and mobile) front-end. Your backend can be written in any technology you want, and you can release new updates with any cadence you want, even continuously. And you can even replace the whole backend overnight, with your users being none the wiser (assuming it has full feature parity with the old one).
I have the same question.
Definition from Wikipedia "Free will is the capacity of agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded."
If your actions and decisions are a result of chemical and electrical activity in your brain, it does still mean that you are in control and unimpeded.

Free will seems to exist in a middle state where you do not think of yourself as a soul separate from your physical form and where you accept yourself as a carbon based organism reacting to processes.

Who is supposed to have this free will?
It's a sad state affairs when people are so anxious that a simple inquiry can cause them distress.

Everything we see around us teaches us that people want to be kind and break bad news in a gentle way. The consequence of that is that when someone seems to be hiding something from us we, quite rationally, think they have bad news - we screwed up, we're getting fired, we're getting a ton of work dumped on us, etc - because they're trying to break it to us without upsetting us. We don't assume it's something good because we're conditioned not to go around thinking we're amazing and do good work all the time. We learn thinking that way is egotistical and self-centred. Our brains think "If it's something innocuous why wouldn't they just say?! It must be something bad."

The anxiety we feel is a learned response to situations we encounter (or see, because we learn this from TV, movies, etc as much as real life.)
The boss doesn't have the problem with their behavior. It's easier to change how you react to something than to change others.

I'm not excusing the behavior, it's just one solution is a lot easier to achieve.
You mean bomb disposal and bomb delivery bot? It could handle both tasks, once it's already there... rented part-time by different customers, one the mafia the other the local police tipped by an anonymous bot...
Is Russia Winning the Economic War?
Video is by Patrick Boyle who has experience as a hedge fund manager, a university professor and a former investment banker.

Since it is hard to get real economic metrics out of Russia he uses Yale University report for his summary [1].

[1] Business Retreats and Sanctions Are Crippling the Russian Economy – Yale University https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4167193
Also much better than the version we see in Europe where people carry the baby on the front side for reasons that I can’t fathom…
That depends on frequency and can be both good and bad thing.
Text don't convey emotion well, emojis don't really help with that, direct calls are much better.

But then focus wind-up and wind-down matters too, so receiving random calls throughout the day might be a recipe for no work done whatsoever. In the end if there are serious agreements made it should be done in writing though.
What's the advice she gives that men don't listen to that isn't easily googleable
It doesn’t matter: it’s very easy to change the communication to be more explicit, and even if 90% of the people would not be distressed, helping the other 10% comes at almost no cost.
Z1's CEO, Héctor Giner, talks with Michelle Reid, VP of Partnerships and Growth, about what they've learned after seven years of helping entrepreneurs to build products that boost their businesses.
Ha, one of the most relatable HN submissions in a long, long time.

Many people, me included, link those out-of-the-blue messages with "you are fired" or "can you please work weekends for one month", and both are not welcome news.

But there's also very often another thing: a creator/maker like the programmers are (or should be) assuming that the other party will not interrupt you if it wasn't for anything important -- because you know you wouldn't want that for yourself and are trying to be considerate towards other people's concentration.

Turns out however, people send these messages for all sorts of random unimportant things. With time I learned to respond immediately so I don't allow any anxiety to take a hold in me -- but then when I see that it's something trivial (and is not blocking the other party) I also immediately reply with "sure but I'll do it later since I got plenty on my plate right now". A few people took offense but I got over it. They too.

---

But then there's also the other extreme. My last long-ish contract I was in a company where the CTO and his second in command were literally impossible to reach outside of biweekly scheduled meetings -- and even then nothing they deem off-topic is allowed. I get that you have to preserve your focus and concentration but they took it to the other extreme and it was very, VERY not okay because super important decisions only the CTO can make were being dragged out for months, leading to improvisation by the rest of the team that was then criticized by the said CTO.
It ends when you have an internet that has consequences. To get proper consequences, you need all users on the network to be identifiable and every device linked to that identity. With ipv6, you can give each person a (few?) static ipv6 address(es). This will basically allow you to determine where and who originated every piece of information on the internet. Next to every comment/photo or other upload, your real name/surname and facial photo needs to show. For each country you travel to, you get an IP address and you are bound to all laws for that country. Your IP address basically becomes your online passport. Anonymity is a source of massive amounts of nastiness online, there are things that people say/do online that they would never do in real life as there are social consequences. The same rules can be applied (or even stricter ones) to businesses or any server, that way you know who your attackers are. It should also be easier to block out whole countries from connecting to you, if you want that (not enforced).

Obviously, no children should be allowed online even in a clean / locked down version of the internet. Ideally no ads/marketing should ever target children either.

I have the same impulse as most people that locking the internet down is a bad idea, but it seems like that is the only natural outcome eventually. We either stop abusing the internet and keep some form of freedom of speech / freedom (some countries values this more than others), or eventually the internet might become heavily regulated/controlled, which is the path we are currently on. Companies are already testing the waters with this, in some cases they are all ready committed to this (see self-hosting email vs big providers blocking small sender).

The problem of security is just an arms race towards the above, it is just a side effect because it is tolerated / no real consequences for misuse of the internet in most countries (that includes leaking data, being breached and data stolen, or just plain ol phishing - companies face zero consequences for data breaches).

Another way to think of it, you have a scale: on one side you have ultimate control, ultimate safety, no freedom - on the other side you have less control, less safety, but absolute freedom. The security arms race is just the shifting of balance between the two extremes.
Advent(2) – The System-Call Advent Calendar
Can you imagine how complicated this is, and controversial?

How to do this exactly? Do you want Google to be proving who people are by fingerprints, irises? Google has never gotten into this business. There would be so many issues. And is collecting biometric info an absolute bulletproof way to verify identity? And doesn't have pitfalls compared to current system?

Then how about just ID documents? Who would provide the locations to verify these documents? How many hundreds of types of documents would be suitable to prove identity? And thousands of locations would be necessary to serve everyone. Would they be honest / absolutely trustworthy?

Do you know how many people out there are waiting to try impersonating people by forging documents, given the money at stake, and how many outlets (that you'd have to employ as verification agents) would be susceptible to corruption to defraud people who'd relied on these documents as proof of their identity (and keys to their online accounts)? If you register with an identity document, and that becomes your method of proof, what if someone located in another country asserts that they're you with some different form of a document that says your name on it?

It's extremely complicated.
When I saw a video yesterday, I was surprised: IIUC, it's an emergency scene from a purported shooter, and they're letting something like a drone with a big box drive right into a cluster of several responding police officers?

In this case, even if they're already confident that the shooter is a hoax, and also somehow confident that the delivery bot is innocuous (e.g., the hoax wasn't to lure them there, like in some Hollywood story), I wonder whether it'd still be good practice to intercept the drone by the time it crosses the police tape?

And keep/get it away from people, and/or contain threats it might pose?

(The reason I ask is not to presume to know better about emergency scene safety than the people with training and experience in these things, since of course I don't. But knowing a bit about tech over the years has sensitized me not to assume that some risk that seems obvious to me is obvious to everyone else.)