skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Happy Flexport customer here.

I'd say, yes, to a point. Maybe it depends on the definition of supply chain. Transportation is, in my opinion, a very small part of the chain.

Moving atoms is very different from moving bits and bytes with software. For example, we buy custom aluminum extrusions and other custom-manufactured metal components. The design, validation, sourcing, manufacturing and inspection process is months long.

Transportation is that little --important, of course-- sliver of time that happens at the very end of all of that. There's a lot more complexity in an end-to-end supply chain than most people realize. Even buying a screw isn't simple. Software can only touch some of these parts. I'd say very few of them, actually.

A recent case. Custom aluminum extrusions. Flexport air-freighted the shipment for us because ocean freight would have taken a million years. The shipment was --we are told by those we contracted to do it-- inspected per our specifications. Well, the shipment was crap. We probably had to throw out half of it. It didn't matter how efficiently it got from point A to point B. The failure happened way before that.

This is why very large companies have their employees on site to manage quality. If you don't operate at those scales you can be victimized in ways I cannot even begin to describe.
> The issues laid out in this[0] email thread are pretty concerning

Can you describe what is concerning? I'm not going to look into email threads just because someone says there is something concerning there.

What are your concerns? I'm not here to defend them, but I am lazy. If there are concerns, what are they? I figure if they're concerning enough, they can be described in a few sentences.
There is no such thing as a trustable trustless database for anything except money. For every other piece of information that we care about, trust in the source is inevitable.
Over the years I've actually found duck typed code bases to end up, for lack of a better word, less of a mess than those based on typed languages.

I feel like readable dynamically typed code is more easily "trained" onto younglings than typed equivalent.

I understand no typings allow for much much worse code bases, but my experience has been the opposite.
Have you looked at Pekar's full numerical stack yourself, as described in their supplemental materials? If yes, then why are you confident that their choice of the Barabasi-Albert algorithm to generate a fixed infection network correctly models the earliest spread of SARS-CoV-2 in humans? In particular, why choose to study robustness against doubling time (which seems intuitively like it wouldn't affect the shape of the tree much), but not robustness against that connectivity (which seems intuitively like it would)?

The rest of their arguments depend fundamentally on the polytomy thing, because nothing else excludes an earlier (even September) first introduction into humans. With an earlier introduction and thus more extensive unsampled spread, it's much harder to insist that A and B would be first sampled in the same order in which they evolved in humans, or make any similar early claims with confidence.

You are correct that I hadn't fully understood their polytomy argument before you brought it up, and I appreciate you bringing it to my attention. I still don't think it's very good, though. I later found Erik van Nimwegen's criticisms, which roughly followed my own; so I don't think I'm taking a fringe position here. Indeed, I've never seen anyone citing or defending Pekar engage in any way with the numerical complexity of that model. It seems like anyone who's looked inside the box becomes a critic, thus my hope that you'll do so.

High-impact publications have shown unfortunate willingness to publish low-quality work that would exclude research-related origin of SARS-CoV-2. For example, I assume you followed Nature's publication, editor's note, and ultimate extensive correction of their pangolin paper, and that you agree pangolins aren't the proximal host. This makes me less inclined to trust in their reviewers here, and more inclined to trust my own judgment (or that of the two Twitter threads I've linked elsewhere).
Yeah the past couple days have been pretty shocking. In another thread someone effectively evinced support for child labor (i.e., four year olds shouldn’t be prevented from sweeping chimneys).
Also worth mentioning (not discussed in the article) the awful, memory-hogging Spotify Electron app on MacOS.

(For clarification, I meant the performance of the desktop app isn’t discussed).
Note: this is from 2017.
Projects with Most Lines of Codes Comparison
>> The trick to improving YouTube recommendations is to regularly prune uninteresting videos and channels. Eventually this should start surfacing videos you're more likely to find interesting.

Unfortunately, Capitalism doesn't work like that :-(. Back in the old days, Google searches used to be organic searches in the genuine sense, and that was the best Google we ever had. But today's Google is the Big Tech Capitalist and so will be their algorithms. The organic logic should follow your prunes and show you what you want but the capitalist logic will only show what they're paid to show to you! (i.e. propaganda, politically motivated content, inciting content, etc. etc.).
Pro tip: you're not a generalist. A big chunk of specializing is how you package/market yourself.

I consider myself a "full stack employee". I've done backend, frontend, hosted live events, some sales, marketing, a dash of HR, pretty much everything.

Do I write that on my LinkedIn? Heck no. A year or so ago I looked at all the experience I had, saw I had a through-line story of how I've worked on video projects over the past 7ish years, and decided "I'm the frontend WebRTC guy." I identified the spots of knowledge I needed to read up on to be confident (just a few gaps here and there) interviewed at a job, and within 10 minutes into the interview my future (now current) boss said "You're the perfect fit!". Because I was. I'm the frontend WebRTC guy with some sales/marketing experience, and they needed a frontend WebRTC guy with some sales/marketing experience.

Before that, I was the Frontend DevOps guy. Before that, I was the Backbone.js guy. And before that, I was the Sharepoint guy (shhhhh don't tell anyone!)

If you're interested in AI, just go poke around and find something in AI. Don't sweat it. We all got plenty of time, and like you said, as long as we can center divs and set up click tracking on a Wordpress site we'll always be able to put food on the table! :)
Now I understand better what you are saying, but I think your complaint is less about requiring an app, and more about the app requiring a web-service to operate.

Having said that, I think the market has spoken. This isn't an issue for most people. As you have said, most customers are not concerned about privacy, ignore if they should be or not...they aren't.

We're actually looking at privacy and communications around privacy as a selling point.

Most consumers like the idea of being able to control their devices from their phone, or just see the data which ends up in the cloud.

I understand your rant, but most people are not technically adept as you are, and want the simplicity that an app and a login give them.

The points you mention are valid, but if the majority of customers don't care, why should the company? ....to a certain extent, yes, there are the just be good to your customers, but beyond that, if the customer expects an app, as a business we need to satisfy that need.

The example that goes to your point is the smart home company that bricked everyone's house a few months ago. That was insane. But most companies are not operating like that, and don't have the level of consumer purchase commitment as the items you are describing.
Unless they make you a founder and give you say 5% to 33% of the company, quit.

It makes no sense to get a 1% equity when you are making the same sacrifices and taking the same risk as them. They may say they are able to raise money, but you are able to build the product. And unless the product reaches product-market fit, there is no business and no company.

You could be working at 100 other well-funded or established companies and learning a lot and making a lot. Do not underestimate yourself.
I've been thinking: the number of websites I want to stay logged into are quite few, and most of them I don't need to keep being logged into when clicking external links. From my point of view, that is what _I_ need cookies for.

E.g., I like to be able to go to facebook.com and be logged in, but when I click an external link, I kind a like to open a tab where I am not logged in. Same for hacker news and Youtube and my email.

When I'm "outside" those websites, sure, just accept all cookies and delete them when I close the tab

I imagine this can be done with Firefox containers and a bit of smarts, but I don't know how.
That implies that the current functionality is broken, for Google's purpose.

My guess is, they calculate that they make more money with this configuration than the alternative.
ESL speaker here, could you please expand that acronym?
Thanks for the link. I have updated the question to talk about front-end only.
The US has indeed done a lot of damage abroad. However I can't really see anyone else using a gentler approach. Far more the opposite.
Not to mention some of those variables auto-included are pointers to arrays/objects which won't trigger a change if their contents change, so you actually need a hash (or something more clever and specific) of the contents which should trigger a re-render... e.g. rendering the contents of a list sorting would want to listen to the 'sortBy' state rather than the list contents - even if the component wouldn't have used sortBy otherwise...

(this is all just bringing back painful memories - hopefully which aren't the same problem now? - from a project where I was the only developer on the team learning these intricacies, and having to figure out why everyone was getting infinite render loops or static components in weird situations, even as they blindly followed their linter useEffect suggestions... Needless to say, our code lucked ugly as hell after all this was done "right".

In retrospect I might have done all this at the app state level, pre-processing the inputs for each component with something like a 'usesEffect' boolean and a 'changeTriggers' array, then some generalized auto-reader util functions to parse that with default boilerplate behavior, just to get that stuff out of my frontend components... I suspect that would only move the problem up, but at least then you're just modifying json instead of also muddying all your templates. Subcomponent wrapping or something like that could work too. Idk. Gross stuff. Was unfortunately necessary with a ton of asyncronous calls and big data lists.

Maybe DB/API-fetched State > Frontend Parser & useEffect/Async Logic > Actual JSX Component Rendering separation...? (so - Model Controller View?) If it wasn't all already inherited legacy code mighta structured it like that more, instead of just rawdogging API results in JSX.
I was labeled "Gifted" as a child. I was in accelerated programs from 4th-12th grade and then went to a state university after. One thing I noticed when I was in college is just how smart the general public is compared to the people I met in these programs. I also observed how emotional skills are just as, if not more, important to nurture in students rather than focusing on the hard academics. Seriously, probably only 1 out of 5 of the people I grew up with and met through friends who were all considered "above average" in intelligence is living what the general society considers a "successful" life.

I think its a sort of self-fullfilling prophecy to be labeled as Gifted. It means your parents think you are smart, so they pour resources into grooming you to fit that narrative. There has to be 5 or 10x as many people that could rise to the same level of "gifted", but their parents don't care enough or don't have the time or resources to bring it out in their kids.

I knew a family that tested their kid's IQ 3 separate times to get into an accelerated secondary education program. Turns out IQ tests are just as easy to game as SATs or ACTs if you have the tutoring.
What makes you believe TikTok's goal is not to trick users into spending their whole lives on the platform?
I think this is an important point. Generalists are more valuable at smaller companies where everyone has to perform multiple roles. I'm not sure where that stops being true though. I've been in a few startups now and at the 50-100 person mark, I think specialisation starts to become more important.
Brilliant jerks almost always have a net negative impact on a project when you factor in their adverse effects on their teammates.

The existence of a competing fork might be healthy, though. Having competition can make your priorities a lot clearer.
Which is why when the Chrome team finishes fixing these edge case tickets related to MV3 proxy features, there won't be major issues with uBO anymore.

Note that per its author himself, uBO Lite on MV3 already does the vast majority of the work uBO was doing on MV2, largely enough for regular non-power-users people.
It's more relevant than ever.
That would seem to make democracy pretty important, then.
Literally millions of dollars available to anyone who can find and prove fraud.

In a country of 150 million voters voting in dozens of local, state, and federal elections over the last 20 years, there have been less than 100 convictions for voter fraud, and almost all of those are inadvertently illegal votes by felons, new residents not correctly registered, students voting in their college town elections, et cetera.

There is NO significant fraud in American elections. ZERO.
Game developers do not, as a rule, have "overinflated salaries". They generally work below market rate.
Someone uses Bing?
Raspberry Pi-Powered Pi-Picking Robot
The feature comparison says that Thunderbird "Can only send plain text and HTML", but when I check the source of my outgoing mail it's sends it as plain text (Thunderbird client 102.2.2, not upgraded yet to 102.3). Perhaps the BetterBird feature is an extra per message inline option?
Somewhat hoist by his own petard there - it’s not at all obvious that ornithology has no use to birds… Not sure if underneath what he said he meant “philosophy of science is not at all useful to science” (which is doubtful) or the more restricted “pick a working scientist, they probably have little to gain by devoting time to philosophy of science” (maybe reasonable, if a little dogmatic to insist that is true in all cases).

If we took the comparison seriously though, it might actually turn out to be a reasonably insightful metaphor - eg. ornithologists don’t have the same primary concerns as the individual birds they study, a bird is not going to understand or get any profit from studying ornithology (and yet that it can still be a good bird) etc.
That was my first thought, too. OP is describing the view layer of an architecture.
You can tell whatever story you want. They’re not changing anything over there. The factories are open, the coal is burning, and there’s nothing we can do about it.
I don't feel like they were saying that was a good situation. Rather pointing it out as an instrument of control.
It is not that simple, there is a lot of nuance here.

I suggest a study of Samkhya (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samkhya) whose Worldview is the basis that has most influenced the worldviews of the other systems within Hinduism. Kali/Vishnu/other popular Hindu gods are later conceptualizations meant for Popular culture. The Intellectual culture behind it is quite different.

Samkhya defines the Purusha (consciousness) enjoying Prakrithi (everything else) through the interplay of three Gunas (characteristics).

The imposition of a Worldview on a Social Structure is what defines Morality/Ethics/Values. Here is where "Ahimsa" i.e. "non-violence"(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa) comes into play. You don't condone "cruelty" but are fully aware of its existence (in the interplay of the gunas) and take measures to control it. Kali is one of those concepts who destroys evil by any means but herself is not evil. The idea is similar to Wrathful Deities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrathful_deities) from Tantric Buddhism.
Environmental, Social, and Governance
That is not why it was cancelled. A newspaper chain downsized their comics, and cancelled their serialization of other comics as well.
You don't think having a black character that "identifies as white" and according to the article makes his boss happy to have met his diversity quota is political?

I liked Dilbert a long time ago (90s-early 00s, where I saw it as kind of a window into adult work life as a teenager).
You're quoting someone — you should use quote marks and add an attribution.
You're reframing this to make Tor look a lot better than it is. The signal:noise ratio for Tor is epsilon. It's almost entirely garbage. If a network generated spam at rates analogous to network traffic from Tor, yes, I guarantee that network would be on every single email service's block list.

Tor's advocates in this thread keep trying to argue it from ideology, as though anybody's obligated to deal with Tor traffic on principle alone, and not one of them so far has tried to argue that Tor is not 90+% bots and garbage. Funny, that.
JavaScript arrays are heterogeneous and TypeScript permits covariance here because the underlying language lacks any mechanism to freeze any shared references to the array to prevent it.

TypeScript could restrict this to be through an operation that creates a new array (e.g.: via .slice()), however that would impose a performance deficit versus vanilla JavaScript. It's not acceptable to the TypeScript project to impose a cost on what would, in JS, just be array assignment or argument passing.

It would be a neat idea to allow a "strictCovariance" mode to allow covariance only with readonly arrays - I think that might solve the issue? i.e.: I can cast "Cat[]" to a "readonly Animal[]", but not to a mutable "Animal[]".
I'll add this just as a reference point. 3 Banking/Insurance apps on my phone:

Home Banking 1:
- App Size 129MB
- Docs & Data 19MB

Home Banking 2:
- App Size 98MB
- Docs & Data 8MB

Insurance:
- App Size 102MB
- Docs & Data 12MB

< 150MB seems somewhat reasonable to me

And since you mentioned other apps: Telegram is 98MB, Airbnb 218MB, Spotify 143MB, 1Password 128MB just to name a few I have on my phone right now. So Around 150 seems about normal.

All three the apps I mentioned are for Italian based companies, not sure if the situation is different in other countries.
Do I need to read a book to learn to use Linux?
I was reading askubuntu answers and everyone was like "just read online and ask help online". I did that for 1 month and what I've realized is that I am memorizing solutions rather than understanding them.

But I also realize that there'll be no books about ubuntu because they get outdated fast.

So, someone in linux forum recommended me this book.

https://rlworkman.net/howtos/rute/

can you recommend some good books about linux that will help me to use linux as a desktop use firstly.
The Queen’s Funeral (and its power symbolism) analysed by Russell Brand [video]
YouTube in challenge to TikTok to give Shorts creators 45% of ad sales
The main page on why he was banned: https://www.betterbird.eu/faq/former.html
My favorite part about being a generalist is that I get to work with incredibly talented specialists and we tend to complement each other very well.

In some ways I find that I _do_ specialize - just not along a specific field. I tend to specialize to the project. 8-10 years ago, I was building a video rendering project. I got to build the engine prototype (in an early version of node.js!), the UI (early version of react!), the data formats, the databases, the video / audio processing systems, and so on. And when we proved it all worked, we brought on specialists to help improve the UIs and optimize the rendering engine.

At the end of that run, I knew more than I would ever want to know about video file management, video rendering, generating video formats, etc. And once that startup sold, I was able to move on and let all that knowledge sort of fade.

I'm presently "specializing" in a project where we scrape POI data from around the world and combine it in useful ways for locals and travelers. So now I'm working with geo data, reasonably large data sets, merging data from thousands of sources, and I get to dabble in / and learn about ML, while the specialists do the more detailed, more difficult ML work.

That said, I've found it's good to be better than average at some things to keep busy. For me, besides general coding, I'm decent at API-based software architecture, Ops, and planning / maintaining / optimizing Relational Databases.

As for the work - Most projects need both. Someone else on this post mentioned that there can be higher pay for specialists. That's probably true. I've seen it. But generalists can have more stability as industry trends adjust.
This may be a habit picked up by people writing more-modern-than-C89 C code that also has to be compiled by MSVC. Since MSVC is foremost a C++ compiler it was stuck in C89 for a very long time (I think it's better now, but old habits probably die hard).
When we have to find issues in code we have many option on the strategy to follow.
Using the debugger is only one of them and often I is not the best approach. Let see some alternatives
What if you know you /can/ learn how to do that but make a conscious choice not to take on that ability? Then what if you know you can but rank that ability as being too far down the list in terms of its benefit to you, your family, your neighbors and the human race to supplant time spent learning X or doing Y. For whatever you feel are a good values of X & Y?

This more "not invading AND you can't" rather than "because." Seems like a reasonable thing to me.

"I decline to shoot anyone with a gun and I can't." That seems like a position taken by some large number of pretty reasonable people in a many contexts that seem, at the very least, justifiable.
Rarely, but yes. Some people simply can't grasp that if you say "Yes, I've done this for 5 years and I've done that for 5 years" that you will indeed be able to fulfill both roles, even if you're maybe not able to give answers that are 100% correct in the details and up to absolute latest standard, but can easily get back into it. (Not fundamentals, just actually "yes, I worked with X, but 3 major versions ago")

This is generally not a problem and many people are actually happy to get someone who has not just seen 15 years of one thing.

The T-shaped thing is a bit of a meme, but I do believe you shouldn't be a complete generalist and not be quite good at some things, so I guess the depth of your one or few specializations is up for debate.

But in summary I don't regret it. I don't want to call it "easily bored" but I can really not imagine myself as still doing the exact same thing as 2001, when I started working, even with the technologies that were around at the time. Sure, even there things change (looking at you, Java and PHP) but still. The only thing I don't recommend is hopping from language to language every 2-3 years, that's simply not enough time to go deep enough.