skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You're doing the exact same thing: reverting to instinctive binary positions and name-calling. Throwing away the baby with the bath water. The thing you accuse the original source of, you're mirroring.

Sure enough, there really are people whom dislike minorities altogether for whatever twisted reasons. Awful people, no argument here.

Yet you're looking over a sizable group who have no issue with minorities, they have an issue with equity politics, which flies in the face of equality and is racist and sexist by design. People whom find it incredibly patronizing and insulting to call an entire demographic "marginalized".

Those people are not conservative nor are they racist. We use to call these people progressive. Center to center-left, classic liberalism. Many aren't on board at all with the postmodernist version of progressive politics. Yet they are lumped in with "racists", this is how you keep a culture war going. Just keep doubling down, and keep losing ever more support.
It might be immediate, it might be end of month, might be some other period. In any case COBRA kicks in and can be paid for retrospectively if you need it.
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/pfc/index.cfm
is code the only output of an engineer?

not everything is committed in a VCS: you have documentation, architecture, RFC etc etc depending on the size of the company and seniority of the employee.
The article does not explain what Boomin was, what they provided, or why it was ever a good idea.

tl;dr - owner sad because no money
Many things increase GDP without being good. For instance Oil spills increase GDP as suddenly a bunch more (cleanup) work is being done and paid for.
>There's a problem of adversarial attack right now.

>An adversarial person can flood people with rethoric of issues, corruption, crime, against all established political powers and institutions, and position themselves as the solution to all those ilks.

Appealing to emotions and attempting to label your opponents as corrupt and soft on crime is as old as politics itself. Convincing people to vote for you is not a soft-coup.

The platforms should be the ones who should decide how their algorithms promote information and shouldn't be pressured or controlled by whoever the current party is in power at that moment. The benchmark should be - would you want a Trump DHS with the power to change their censorship policies however they liked?

If online speech should be regulated by the government, pass legislation, don't backdoor it in a risky and unilateral manner through law enforcement.
That's like saying mathematicians miss the entire point of numbers, which is to enumerate your head of livestock, or bushels of corn.
To get anything done, it seems I must speak to >=2 people on any customer support line.
always relish a chance to share one of my favorite papers ever

https://www2.math.upenn.edu/~ghrist/preprints/silnikov.pdf
I, yes, that was their point. You're just saying the same thing with different numbers.
That's neither necessary nor sufficient for government capture.

It's also the wrong direction, as those are going from Big Tech to the government.
It's hard to see what else might have been intended, since this phrase seems to be linked to the "anti-witchcraft propaganda" phrase, with nothing else dangling there to apply it to.
I agree, but also make sure your life insurance is setup properly along with retirement/brokerage/crypto accounts.

I would also suggest things like your primary Google and/or Apple account to make sure she ends up with access to photo libraries and the like.

After that, most things are less important.
> The whole argument is that China can influence TikTok to change content to hide truths and harm other nations, which is soon going to apply to the US too, if not already.

Well, presumably the US government's argument would be that China can influence content to harm the United States, whereas the US government would only influence content to help the United States (pinky swear!).

I do agree with you that the ability of a government to censor at a large scale is likely to be bad for the people under that government's jurisdiction and the people of the world, even if that government is acting competently in its own self-interest.

However, it's not that odd for a government to be concerned about a foreign government exerting an influence on its citizens that it also wants to exert on its own citizens. As a crude example, it wouldn't be that odd for the US government to be very concerned if China started conscripting US citizens into military service, even though the US government has the ability to do that. Even if you believe that all military conscription is bad, it's hardly a notable "double standard."
But you’re describing exactly what I mentioned above: engineers whose job is not code, per se. Yes, the super-senior engineer who cracks down on bad code by others and sets the right path, etc, is very valuable even if they’re not directly coding themselves. I’m talking about the engineers who are directly responsible for implementing features and fixing bugs. I.e., most software engineers.

Sometimes a great engineer spends a month tracking down a 3-line fix, and that’s just what happens with complex software. But by and large, if an engineer averages only a few LOC a month (and I’ve unfortunately seen this way too many times) then we probably have a problem on our hands.
The definition of enterprise software is “the customer is not the user”. You don’t have to make the user happy, just the CxO.
> Interviewer: “There is this graph about the balance sheet of the European Central Bank, and the money that is on there now, and here it is what I would like to show our viewers and ask the question about is...”

> Interviewer: “This is going over 8 trillion Euros now, and isn’t what you just told us about the cryptocurrencies, don’t we see a gigantic bubble here on your balance sheet with the Euro and isn't this graph very nerve-wracking? [...]”

> Interviewer: “You say that’s what we needed to do, but how do you get it...?”

> Lagarde: “It will come, it will come. In due course, yeah.”

> Interviewer: “How?”

> Lagarde: “In due course it will come.”

> Interviewer: “Yeah?”

https://twitter.com/NoticiacriptoC/status/153495651318966681...
You understand that the relatively low cost of living until the last 50 years or so was built on the systematic oppression of minorities and women, right?
That also never happened, did it?

Is there a "standard" medical record, or does each system implement its own proprietary format? Are the records transferrable? If so, why am I asked to fill out a complete medical history form on paper every time I visit the a doctor, as if I'm a new patient, when all the doctors I see are in the same network and presumably use the same EHR system.
Yeah, but it doesn't conform to the "bad scary Israel" narrative.

And because there is no factual proof to counter this narrative ("well, just because almost everyone in Israel served, it doesn't mean that some of them aren't currently spying on behalf of the Israeli government"), just like there is no factual prove of the original statement, people will cling to this "bad scary Israel" narrative.

Your point about South Korea, sadly, will most likely fall on deaf ears, because "but South Korea is not Israel, it is different".

To make it clear, I am fully in agreement with what you are saying. It is just sad that there isn't much one can do to disprove that narrative, aside from some official list of all Israeli spies and where they work. Which, for obvious reasons, will never happen. And even if it did, people would instantly cling to the "nice trickery, this list was fabricated intentionally to convince us that Israeli spies aren't doing their work on behalf of Israel".

Do I full-on honestly believe there are no such spies working for tech companies? No, because there is no factual proof either way. So I believe in it just as much I believe the same unsubstantiated claims about South Korean and Swiss ex-military people working at foreign tech companies. Aka not much, but of course not with 100% certainty (until there is something factual evidence that will tilt these scales).
> These businesses should be paid by the landlord to occupy (and therefore maintain) the property for them.

Please, ELI5, how would there be any landlords left if they had to pay their tenants (rather than the other way around)? Or maybe you’re arguing that there shouldn’t be any landlords?
> These businesses should be paid by the landlord to occupy (and therefore maintain) the property for them.

Maintaining the property and occupying the property aren't the same thing. It doesn't make sense to equate the two.

Landlords are responsible for maintaining the property. Maintaining commercial real estate is actually quite expensive.

It's definitely less expensive to own and maintain an empty property than to own and maintain a property with $0 renters who are putting wear and tear on it.
You're not making a good faith argument.
I feel like this is a very real concern? In general I'm in favor of playing fast and loose with rules, and don't put a lot of stock into codifying anything because I feel like it's overall a huge negative when you're trying to get things done.

That all being said this particular arena is one that's so fraught with tiny little edges that all stack up to benefit certain classes of people unequally it unfortunately feels necessary to be explicit and precise. Ultimately this power is a zero sum game, and for and a more equal world means we must take power from some people and give it to others. That's almost never a thing that happens voluntarily, even if the will is there. It's very easy to argue for a status quo that benefits you, especially if the advantages you gain are easy to lie to yourself about.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
― Upton Sinclair
I'll try to steelman a few arguments:

1. Small businesses under a certain size avoid many labor/work related laws - for example, the requirement to buy healthcare doesn't apply below 20(?) employees.

2. Small businesses almost always have actually worse support overall, but they get away with it because they can "fire" customers. Walmart has a better return policy than almost anything else in the retail world, for example, because they can eat the costs related to idiots scamming them.

3. Small businesses often get away with treating their employees worse than larger ones, because nobody is going to care of Jane's Coffee Shop stiffed a waitress on tips on Wednesday, but if it happened at a Starbucks it'd be on the national news that night.

4. Small businesses enable people and families to be relatively independent of "large control" which is absolutely not desired by certain groups.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_subst...

See also: https://www.epa.gov/pfas/pfas-explained and https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/pfc/index.cfm

tl;dr: Long-lasting, persistent, linked to negative health outcomes, under (increasing?) regulatory scrutiny e.g. https://www.mass.gov/info-details/per-and-polyfluoroalkyl-su...
Probably their terrible labour laws. You can only grind people down for so long.
It’s a counterfactual question, so of course cannot be answered perfectly (or even well) – supporters of tax cuts claim (without very good evidence) that tax cuts spur growth and thus boost revenue. But for example this analysis suggests ~ $13 trillion of the debt between 2000–2025 can be explained by tax cuts after 2000, mostly during GOP administrations: https://itep.org/federal-tax-cuts-in-the-bush-obama-and-trum...

It’s hard to find any kind of careful analysis about the counterfactual question of cumulative differences in revenue and taxes if Carter-era tax policy had remained in place for the past 40 years. It requires making strong, almost certainly unjustified, assumptions about the rest of federal policy and the trajectory of the economy. But we’re talking about cumulative numbers on the order of 10 trillion dollars, to within say a factor of two.

You also have to decide what to lump in with the same set of policy changes (e.g. successive reductions in IRS enforcement capability, cumulatively leaving $trillions more on the table, changes to labor law and the minimum wage, ...). And there are certainly other large-scale sources of deficits.

Some of the Reagan tax cuts were offset by substantial increases in payroll taxes, shifting the tax burden from the wealthiest onto the working class, and depressing after-tax wages.
Yes but capitalism can also work to make things much much cheaper to almost no cost at all. You simply increase the amount of land available and make regulations that allow for cheaper buildings. 200 years ago, humanity had no problem at all making buildings cheap. Why now all the sudden we're so obtuse that we won't allow it any more.
> streamlining and flipping the profitable parts of the business

Good luck finding some at Twitter.
For some strange reason there exists a subpopulation of developers who hate goto/if/switch etc. statements and feel compulsion to replace it with an equivalent solution that does not use goto/if/switch even if this is done at the cost of readability.

They red somewhere that goto/if/switch is bad and now mistakenly think if they only get rid of it their code will somehow be better. Which is sad and led to a lot of wasted time on my part trying to untangle their mess.
Twitter is already just a subset of Facebook
"fazfq" accused SourceHut of "kicking projects out for political reasons". Drew rebutted, "We do not kick people out for political differences." (Emphasis mine.) I was pointing out that these can both be true, the former is clearly true, the latter does not imply the negation of the former, and the former can still be bad even though it doesn't imply the latter.

Kicking projects out for political reasons can still be bad even if Drew is right that crypto is bad. BDS can still be bad even if settlements in the West Bank are also bad. Al-Qaeda can still be bad even if US foreign policy is also bad.
This. So much this. In residency we are taught “document, document, document” and “this is a medical legal document” which leads to defensive medicine. Another point of why we spend more time documenting is billing. Coders/billers continue to come back and asking us to add more details about a diagnosis. More details = more charges to bill or up level. So the next progress note or office visit, I go back to add more. More time is spent fighting the notes. Terrible EMRs that destroy notes is one that leads to more time spent as well. Looking at you Allscripts (aka Allshits in my office). Overall it’s a sad state of medicine in the USA, which is terrible as when I was younger the whole point of medicine for me was to help people and focus on the patient and the issues that are ailing them. Now, patients are still important to me but it’s a race to the bottom trying to document while in seeing the patients so I can go home without paperwork and live my life. I got bills to pay, a 6 figure student loan that will take me another decade to pay off. At some point, it’s all going break down. Few of us are doing the concierge direct primary care model to avoid all this which will unfortunately lead to more health disparities and inequalities.
> Too many institutions now presume internet access

That should be (more of) a cause for concern, imho.
it reads "annual percentage change in labor output"... which I take to mean "rate of change of per capita productivity" over time, not actual measured productivity.

So that graph does not say we've dropped below pre-pandemic levels.... according to this report (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/prod2.nr0.htm): "Output and hours worked in the nonfarm business sector are now 3.1 percent and 1.5 percent above their fourth-quarter 2019 levels, respectively."
Some could argue the just okay docs were driving consulting business. Even the TFA mentions they started conversations with them because they were using react router! :p
Yeah, I remember switching from CVS to svn in.. the late 90s? I am not sure when? I think cvs was already a well established thing by 1992, with many people using it. (and others using proprietary version control systems). But it's true that it wasn't yet as universal as it is now, small shops might or might not use version control.
Yes! I think there’s too many underlying websites built on HTML/CSS that there will always be a need for it. Similar to how they say COBOL is used in some banking software.
I wouldn't really call that mocking.

Black Friday is typically the day when business' get 'into the black' for the year. Things typically get tight in October with having to both prepare for a November increase while being a lean month.

This doesn't seem all that different than the position all of the startups and small businesses I have worked at or had insight into from the past.

What is different is the Fed, media, and large corporations are trying really really hard to talk down the economy into a fear based recession this time, complaining loudly about the growing cost of labour and how that is the end of the world, yet bragging about record profits taken 'under the guise of inflation' on their earnings calls.

Meanwhile, consumer confidence is the highest since Feb.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-27/us-consum....

I'll go with consumer sentiment and historical knowledge over an artificial narrative and fake hysteria along with a Fed push intended to increase unemployed to keep down labor costs for companies posting record profits in this horrible (yet record setting) economy.
I think it would be very unlikely for the web and html to arise in the current political climate, yes. It only came to be in the first place because of a massive amount of government investment that was an artifact of the space race in the late 1960s and early 70s. For a time, all the major tech companies were trying to build their own walled garden alternatives to the Internet (Microsoft with MSN, Apple with eWorld, AOL, Prodigy, Compuserve, etc.) and they only failed because the Internet grew faster than any one of them could.
> Why does this actually matter?

Because it fosters innovation. Perl isn't innovating as an implementation. Why's that bad? Because you don't get better performance or capabilities, and you're spending more to run it, and spending more to manage it.

> Care to try with any of the others?

For example Mono is a full clean-room implementation of .NET including C#.

> tbh, I knew including Java on that list was a bit of a stretch

Sure. Sure.
> The worst case is that I say I can't afford you.

There are many possible bad cases. Possibly much worse than this is that the candidate lowballs themselves. Another bad case is that they price themselves out when they might have been willing to take a lower offer after learning more.

The candidate has just as much uncertainty as the employer. There's no reason the burden should be on the candidate to be the first to name a number.
I use a password manager. I regularly remind my wife what the passphrase is
Zig 0.10.0 Release Notes
IDE as root background is deep red (warning), as normal user terracotta.
Landlords != developers

Landlords != developers

Again, landlords != developers

Some entities are both of these things, but the economics and incentives of the two modes of business are completely different.
We've been trying to find ways to discover truth for much much longer than we've been looking for pollution. I think consensus is that there are some things that are unprovable - e.g., the existence of a god. We know with a high degree of certainty, thanks to Kurt Godel and others, that there are things that cannot be proven.
What's the base rate for this to compare it to? Ie what percentage of businesses can't pay all their rent normally?
You refer to your transaction as private and yet you use Venmo… I don’t think “private” means what you think it means.
> "just-in-time" inventory

That really was a net negative eventually. Covid managed to completely wreck the worldwide supply chains because of that idiotic approach. God forbid anyone keep any buffer in case anything happens.
Because one of the main issues with negotiation is that people have different idea on what's a good salary depending on their educational and cultural background, the environment they grew up in, etc.

For example a company might be willing to pay up to $175k for a certain dev position. This amount of money seems completely crazy to a developer who comes from a poor family and is the first one to have a skill that can pay so much. It will never occur to them to attempt to negotiate for this amount, because even $90k seems like a great salary compared to what their parents had. $175k would seem unreal, especially in a country where talking about money is taboo.

But if this number can be seen often in ads as an upper range, it becomes normalized in the eyes of everyone who is applying for jobs, no matter their educational and cultural background.
> There were only two popular programming languages: C++ and Visual Basic.

Not really. Back in 1992 I was doing mostly C and second was perl, with shell scripting thrown in the edges.
Election results come to mind.
Cloud development environments tame complexity by reducing state
My favorite thing about rust is how it encourages you to keep `return` at the end of your function. `return` is one of the most annoying syntax elements to me because you mostly don't need it, and it kind of has "side effects" in a way that's not obviously visible in the structure of the function.
This has never been a popular / well received message on HN, but jives with my experience 100%.

I've been a techie in the same company for 20 years; then I've become a lead and therefore hiring manager last few years.

I'll open a seat for something I need, and may be able to specify a range of levels/bands that we are acceptable; but the salary hugely depends on the person - primarily their skills, experience, knowledge, history, as well as (again unpopular but realistic) how well they interview. I may have a team of 5 ops managers and need a sixth one; I'm OK hiring a junior band 6 out of school to fully train up for salary X, or a reasonably experienced one for band 7 or 8 for salary Y; and if I happen to receive a resume for an exceptionally, uniquely qualified candidate with expertise with client or type of client and/or software/system/business we're working for, I might be willing to hire them as band 9 for salary Z.

With that in mind, what's the end-game here?

a) Publish full range of all possibilities - e.g. $60,000 -> $150,000? That's is true and accurate but it's not useful (and see human-psychology disclaimer below).

b) Publish a specific smaller range, and miss out on good candidates on both sides of the range.

To your point, government publishes their rate but that is because they aim, intentionally and knowingly, to mediocrity and not meritocracy. The bell curve is artificially flattened. It's a different system and goal. But I'm OK if my teams have a bell curve! Nobody is born at the edge, and I'm usually on projects big enough that I can train people up :)

(As well, what most people won't admit, is that very few of us are happily aware of our actual performance and will happily take salary that matches it - e.g. in the medium of range for medium of performance; so large companies may well end up moving to a boring average, depressed salaries for all, because if I publish range of e.g. 60-150k, how many people will willingly admit they only have experience/history/skills for e.g. 85k?)
Don’t you have something better to do than attacking color palettes? Like suing people for having the power outlets an inch too high or something?
I read this as "code termination" instead of "co determination" and was about halfway through the wikipedia article and quite confused before I figured it out.
Gross domestic product is a misleading measure of national success (2014)