skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This sounds very similar to how Jetbrains tried to improve on Java but in the end deciding to invent Kotlin; a new language with more consise syntax, better defaults, some new features, and great interop back and forth with Java.
> Seems less like "Buterin is a fool for not Being An Academic" and more like "Buterin is arrogant enough to assume he can solve a really difficult problem without understanding why nobody's solved it yet."

Whether or not Buterin knew that the problem was unsolved shouldn't influence his decision to attempt to solve it within the constraints of his research area. Vitalik is very smart and works for a research foundation who spends time on complex things that might pan out if they work on them.
Roberto Calasso, the Art of Fiction No. 217 (2012)
There is non-advertising-supported television and (especially) radio. The BBC and other public broadcasters fund themselves with tax or licence fee income. And when you have small children, avoiding the incessant advertising for toys by putting on CBeebies is a godsend. It's also has really good shows, as it turns out.

Radio is easier because radio broadcasting is much cheaper. At least over here there are BBC stations (locally and nationally), and things like student and hospital radio that are run by volunteers and have no or minimal advertising.

I'm not saying these models are better than ad-funded media, but the ubiquity of ads isn't an actual prerequisite of media. There have also been subscription channels without advertising (before cable companies decided to double-dip) and you can imagine other funding models like television-as-propaganda (either by an oligarch or an unfriendly state), or as philanthropy (why not run ad-free 'worthy' television as a modern version of the Carnegie Library?)
Like everyone, I agree that Gates' pledge to donate his money is a goodness.

I also think you have stopped being critical too soon. It's very optimistic of you to imagine that the Gates foundation is 100% efficient at delivering money to poor people. They actually ban giving money directly[1]. I don't mean to say they are doing badly exactly - just to point out that the fact that all of that money runs through a single set of philosophical principles has impacts on how it is used and distributed.

I suspect that distributing the money to Microsoft employees would noticeably drop the total dollar amount devoted to charity, and exponentially increase the number of charitable experiments the money funds. I believe that's a good trade off - reasonable people can disagree.

[1] https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/how-we-work/what-we-do...
Actually, the primary objective of the ACA is in the name...Affordable Care. And if that's the metric, it's not achieving its goal. We should also remember that the promise was to lower prices by legally forcing the younger (read: less likely to use services) to sign up. That didn't last long.

Editorial: This is why everyone calls it Obamacare. The Reps love the knock. The Dems are not wanting to remind anyone Affordable is in the name.

Note: I'm not knocking ACA per se. We should have health care. The issue is ACA is a fine example of: good idea, poor execution. And no one has the will to fix what is by most accounts not living up to its promise or need.
Conversation has become a game of who can contribute the least by making useless witty comments.
It used to be, and should be again, that the hospital owner or physician would foot the bill if you couldn’t pay. Much more direct charity, a beautiful thing.

Taxing everyone to hell to cover every health expense is immoral.
The state has the power to enforce laws and court rulings with violence. Perhaps tech companies should be made aware of that fact.
But, do you have fun at parties?
That doesn't make sense. For example, the government can tell construction companies that they have to provide their workers hard hats and proper safety equipment. This does not mean that the government should necessarily have to provide this safety equipment themselves (although it might be a good idea for other reasons).

Governments regulate indirectly like this all the time, there's nothing "weird" about it.
Even the CPU itself has different processing units which it uses to delegate such tasks and achieve parallelism for tasks which don't have data dependencies
Because that requires enough votes for Democrats. There's a good chance we'd have this if we did.
I'm not seeing the hand-in-hand here.

We're looking at 2 different moderation processes.

Daddy

Voting

There is no necessary connection that I can see.
Would you like to talk more about the things you're working on? I am interested in performance, the architecture of software and solving problems.

One problem I have with computer systems is data liveness and synchronization. You want to react to change in many situations but don't want to do things inefficiently such as polling regularly.

You kind of want to react to change given an event, when that event happens. So you don't need to poll and compare.

You also have the problem of identity, how you map data to other data and keep it in synchronization.

If you can capture events at source, then you could do the right behaviour. But it's very hard to capture events at source in modern computing systems as not every API has a callback or event log mechanism.
>pride in lacking social skills and tact or lack of awareness of one's surroundings or not understanding power structures

LOL, projecting too much I guess? I never implied any of that.

>What constitutes being a dick or an ass hinges on culture.

Nah. Or are you talking about circumstances like "I didn't knew that a handshake was offensive in this remote village"? Those things are extremely rare in business contexts, and even when they happen both parties usually laugh it off, as they both understand that the intent was not to offend.

"Don't be a dick" is hard to describe, as you cannot put a 500-page book with all the specific situations written literally, which is the kind of thing that will please people like you. But, at the same time, every single person that's at least 12 years old have a sense of "this is right" vs. "this is not right". Don't lie, don't steal, there's a place for everything, if something ain't yours don't touch, I don't know, that sort of thing.

If you don't get those things, or pretend not to get them because of some weird and extremely particular circumstances that you have to make up to justify it, well ... let's not work together then :).
I'm surprised by this blog post. There's zero analysis, and that's explicitly what Lawfare is about, isn't it?

This is essentially just a post of the ruling.
Design an Application with 3 Layer Architecture
What is and How to design an app with Layer Architecture Paradigm
to me concepts and coroutines really reduce the amount of boilerplate needed.

- just the ability of doing

if constexpr(requires { T::some_member; }) { ... }

to check if a type has a member variable / function / whatever makes code infinitely clearer than the previous mess requiring overloads.

- coroutines finally enable to properly abstract the data structures used by a type's implementation, e.g. you don't need to spill out anymore that your type stores stuff in std::vector or std::array or boost::small_vector or std::list etc etc to client code, and they simplify async code very well. for instance with Qt: https://qcoro.dvratil.cz/reference/core/qprocess/#examples

- three-way comparison and automtic generation of comparison / equality function is really great for removing needless boilerplate

- void f(auto arg) { ... } instead of template<typename T> void f(T arg) { ... }

- foo{.designated = 123, .init = "456" }; (although it was already more or less supported on every relevant compiler for years
Yes.

I started with a very low salary and basically climbing the ladder slow and steady.

With my attitude and I do believe I'm climbing that ladder because of it.

You need to be ready when opportunities arrive.
“Othering” has moved from race to political viewpoint, but the human tendency to exclude others from discourse/commerce/society is still alive and well.
I love portmanteaus but that is incredibly tortured.
I find this all really bizarre that so many people are so quick to jump to this kind of thinking.

Honest question: why does anyone think these people are being taken advantage of? Why would you work a gig job if it weren’t a) desirable for whatever reason or b) if you had a better offer.

Where do we draw the line of interfering with an agreement between two competent, free parties?
That's not charitable, that's obsequious!

You have never lost your First Amendment rights in the context of a corporate venture. Citizens United goes substantially beyond affirming that fact: it establishes a separate notion of 1A personhood for the corporation itself.
By contemporary standards they’d be guerillas and terrorists.

But sure; they broke off from England. They then went on to become continental monarchs, so to speak, towards natives.

Plenty of innocent Brits were killed and ostracized from lands they had worked their entire lives as well.

Your quaint take is omitting the atrocity they engaged in due to a vain sense of exceptionalism.

Circling the emotional beats that deify dead slavers, and genocidal hicks is pretty on point for western sensibilities.

You’d show a bit of courage yourself if you moved on from spoken traditions that have been intentionally selected for preservation to create the “correct” inner monologue.
The real answer is for government to make employer sponsored health insurance "optional". As in, employers no longer need to provide health insurance and for health insurance enrollment to be open 24/7, much like car insurance. This will cause a large population in America to shop around all the time, reducing prices pressures.

Simultaneously, they need to reduce the regulatory burden on health insurance companies (but always accept pre-existing conditions). This way more health insurance startups can compete with the large legal entities that are health insurance companies.

With these two in place, no employer will ever control healthcare for employees, insurance companies will need to learn to live in thin margins and medical providers don't need to bear the administrative burden of insurance, this, reduce cost or pay more to the providers and nurses. In this way, insurance companies that cannot compete on price will fail and that is healthy capitalism.
Why not, but:

- despite actual blog usage blogs was named as a contraction of web logs in the sense of human being web life logs, or "just post what are you doing, what you've just done" etc, they NEVER succeed for that of course, but that's was their original idea and design before "infinite scrolling" was a thing. Personal publications are more articles from a personal website and it's purpose unfortunately remain not that defined...

- I do not state tie a domain to a home nor to a human, but ideally I hope a day we all have a home server, we actually have outside ours control in general and improperly named "router" (well, improperly in the sense that such 'boxes' are actually multi-purpose small servers not just mere routers) but "at least any humans should have at least one domain name starting from the high school beginning" and it's purpose should at least be for emails/federated IM/file sharing/* the user want from it's own iron...

- I understand that static IPs might represent an issue for some reasons including file sharing coupled with other activities, privacy etc BUT dynamic DNS is an extra layer and honestly I prefer a real dome IPv6 deploy for anyone with privacy extensions BUT also with a global per any device we own...

Essentially: IMO it's hard to find a real unique and clear purpose for a personal website but since we more or less have all some set of needs to have a personal machine accessible from the internet and the web is the most common tech over internet... Well... At least "please try to integrate tools we have widespread to do something useful" to make the modern real Mundaneum Otlet/La Fontaine and many others have dreamed for more than a century :-)
Sure but it moves the goalposts, away from employees. I think it's better if individual sub-networks selfregulate
I believe this. A lot gets said about the standards that people of each gender have, especially when it comes to the standards that good-looking people have, but most people of any background are normal people looking for basically compatible partners, with particularly picky people being a highly visible minority.

The problem is that ceteris paribus, tall people do have an advantage in the aggregate, and "short king energy" is about having the requisite physical traits (ex. facial hair, body hair, muscles), confidence, and compelling personality to make the cetera not be paria.

I also think part of the problem is A) that dating, especially on apps, places physical appearance front and center when it comes to getting your foot in the door to talk to people, and B) a lot of other people are instinctively judgmental about certain dynamics in heterosexual dating, especially when shorter/younger/less successful/less dominant men date taller/older/more successful/more dominant women, and homosexual dating is comparatively a blank slate in terms of how your friend group/family will perceive it.
thanks for considering the feedback!
What i was trying to explain is Server not giving up is never a good thing under congestion.

This is why in ip switches they drop packet when the outbound queue is full. And letting the caller retry sending the packet.

When there is no congestion it’s ok for the server to not timeout at all and wait for the queue to drain and let the client decide when to close the tcp connection.

but when there is congestion you don’t want the queue inside the server to get too long. Because the server ( including caddy) might be behind a tcp load-balancer so it’s better for the client to queue it’s request inside another Caddy instance that is less busy.

feel free to reach out to me at maxime.caron@gmail.com

I would be happy to try to add it to Caddy if you are interested
Forgot all about Orozco the Embalmer, from Wiki:

It follows a Colombian embalmer named Froilan Orozco Duarte, who is shown living in El Cartucho, an impoverished and crime-ridden area of Bogotá, Colombia, where the homicide rate is high and corpses can be seen on the streets.

This does show him working on corpses, children included very NSFW.
The decision in discussion explicitly references a California case where the mall owners were forbidden from kicking out some leafleting teenagers.
I think the only thing that is clearly not political is people sharing pictures of pets. Everything else including Insta Thotts and what have you have been co-opted.
The only research that has been done on this found that on Twitter the conservative voices were amplified more than progressive voices:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/10/27/twitter-am...
White men are now having to do what every other ethnic/gender group has had to do for hundreds of years; that's not cancel culture, that's growing equity. Thinking before you speak is a great idea, and a lot more people should do it.

And when it comes to technical conversations (the topic of this post), literally none of this is true at all. White men are absolutely and completely free to say literally any work-related thing they want, there is no chilling effect present there.
> What you mean like saying that the only explanation for disagreeing with them is not being capable of rational thought?

Honestly, what are you talking about? What am I disagreeing with exactly? Could you be a little more specific?

> I agree with you that that other countries have better healthcare, and we should try and make ours like theirs. But ad hominem attacks on the other side are not productive and do nothing to convince them.

How is this an ad hominem? I’m making these statements in general to a certain audience on hacker news. I’m not making it to any specific individuals. Just because I think many Americans are idiots doesn’t mean I tell them that directly. I pretend like their nonsense isn’t nonsense because they’re more receptive to that. In other words, I do basically the opposite of ad hominem attacks when engaging with these people. I talked to them quite patiently. But yes I do believe many of them are morons.

Edit: The more I read your post the more confused I get. What side am I on exactly? The side that believes that American healthcare outcomes could be better? I could hold that opinion even if I thought more—not less—deregulation is necessary. I’m not complaining about people who want to improve American healthcare even by making things “more free market”. I’m complain about idiots (and yes they are idiots) who can’t fathom that other systems might have better outcomes because they are “socialist”. They don’t even consider statistics and analysis they just conclude the US is better because our system must be. That is inexcusable and basically incompatible with any progress in society.
>Rooftop solar is dangerous because people are putting stuff on roofs and can fall off in the process, so rooftop solar probably shouldn’t be subsidized IMO.

What on earth does the installation risk have to do with whether or not it should be subsidized?

Reducing reliance on the grid by decentralizing production of energy, and in an environmentally friendly way at that, is definitely a step in the right direction.
I do think there's a rationale middle of the road here. Hear me out.

I think if you provide a service that basically creates a free public sphere, and you don't charge for it, it makes sense to consider what you're offering a public sphere and that just mean it has to be treated like one, where you should be free to speak up and mobilize peacefully.

If social platforms charge a fee, or subscription, then it is a private sphere, and I think platforms should be allowed to do whatever they want in that case.

Finally, the constitution only applies to lawful citizens of the US, which means that in order for platforms that would provide a free sphere of discourse, to be excluded from their enforcements, you would need to have performed full know your customers, and proven to the platform you are a real citizen of the US, with regularly having to re-proove that your account is still owned and used only by real citizen of the US. If you didn't provide this info and proved your status, the platform should be allowed to apply enforcement, because you could very well be a bot, or a foreigner.

Lastly, you should also have to speak non-anonymously, if you don't reveal your true identity to others in the public sphere, enforcement would still apply to you, because in a real-life public sphere people are not anonymous either, you should be able to know who is speaking.

Lastly, you shouldn't be allowed to make it look like you are more than one person, so use of multiple accounts and various pseudonyms if found should also make you eligible for enforcement again.

I think with these, it's reasonable on both front, prove you're a real US citizen, have a single public account that's not hiding your identity, go ahead and say what you want unrestricted, you're right to free speech applies. Otherwise, it's not clear you're someone who has a right to free speech, and therefore enforcement should be taking place.
They did this only for alibi reasons.

Everyone Noncrypto is a long term customer getting the middle finger from them because they used the opportunity.
> when dozens of other countries provide socialized healthcare that beats American healthcare across practically every metric

Plenty of counties also provide market healthcare with private insurance without the American issues, e.g. Switzerland [1]. If we want to keep a market-based model, there are reforms that point the way forward.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland
Are you sure? Seems like Twitter&FB and the like were more likely to promote the reactions to conservative ideas, which by necessity gives more airtime to those.
Once they figure it out they'll write a special case against using bots, but troll farms will be alive and well. At which point the site will switch to more stringent sign up requirements, as another post said.
If this court case is over a state law, is Citizens United even precedential? That was a ruling about a federal law, and this appears to be a matter of Texas law, adjudicated with Texas court precedent. I assume it's only in federal court due to diversity jurisdiction.
And I'm talking about the fact that those are the very people with whom you should be discussing these things the most, no?
Would it be possible to recreate the ULA logic in a modern FPGA? And if so, to use it as a direct replacement in an original Sinclair/Amstrad?
Nothing is working. I thought that I'd be "nice" and login and cancel my account. Can't do that either, you just get a 500 errors from the sad Kiwi who now has to go live with his new evil masters.... Poor kiwi.
And we should be clear... it's not that Dave Thomas doesn't use humor in his courses or books to lighten what can be bit tedious. His humor tends not to be condescending or overbearing which is why I think it succeeds. Just good touches of lightness here and there.
Fiverr (and similar sites like Upwork etc) are more of a contracting marketplace, where workers can set their own prices, etc. I believe the FTC guidance here is tackling more captive gig working environments.
I’m old Gen Z, and admit that I don’t have the time or perspective to really compare past and present, and despite how often this sort of take is reasonably dismissed as grumpy cynicism: I am inclined to agree.

I’ve made a priority of improving the way in which I communicate the last few years, and think I’ve made genuine progress. Stuff like actively listening, avoiding interruption, making peace with someone explaining something I already understand, etc…

But after all this, I’ve come to realize that I wasn’t as relatively bad at conversation as I thought I was when I started. So many of my peers struggle with this. There is so much showing others this thing or that, always asymmetrically. There is a pervasive fear of wasting the other persons’ time - I think this has to do with us growing up with instant dopamine available in our palms. There is so much anxiety in communication. There is a fear of being wrong, or a fear of speaking without trivial qualification. And most importantly: there is a failure to understand the effort required to listen well.

This is just my experience, and my own analysis as it relates to my life. I’m aware that it comes across as cynical, but thought it might be worth sharing here. We need to get our attention back, and see the value (without forcing) of relating to others.

It makes the gems stand out even more, but I wish the art of conversation was something people actively considered when they thought about their own personality, or when they examined their anxieties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALGOL_58

ALGOL, the := in programming languages used for assignment comes from IAL which became ALGOL 58. It's definitely not a modern development. Go reintroduced it to popular mainstream languages, sort of. Except they still use = for assignment and := is used when it's also declaring a new variable.
The apparent disdain for Texas in this thread is bizarre.
I don't think this is great, but I also don't think that's quite what the Court of Appeals said. They distinguished censorship as conduct, not speech.

It's not obvious that moderation decisions on websites that allow the public to post content for public consumption are "speech." We analogize to that result by looking at case law that was focused on publishing decisions of newspapers. But what the New York Times chooses to publish is obviously much closer to speech than moderation of user-generated content.