skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The very first guideline is

Month month() const; // do
int month(); // don't

I know I am in the outlier here but I very much prefer the second way of writing code. Sure the first one gives more compile-time safety but as someone who has to read the code, I have to go through an additional level of indirection before I truly understand how Month is implemented.

Others might offer a counterpoint that hiding such implementation details is exactly the point of OOP. True but as a developer who has to read and fix code, I do have to worry about the implementation details because the bugs could be in implementation details and hiding simple integers behind an extra layer of types adds to one more step when I am trying to reach the implementation details and fix bugs there. Multiply this experience by the number of all the layers in the code and maybe others might be able to appreciate why I prefer the second type of coding. Please someone tell me I am not the only one who feels this way!
Shawna, a Set Maker
A One Terabyte of Kilobyte Age retrospective on ‘Graphics by Shawna’ and the emerging use of ‘sets’ in early Web graphic design, including highlighting the important role of retired grandmas in the ecosystem.
And you will end up with monads anyway in FP which probably are about as error prone as missing null checks.

Many compilers warn about potential null problems as well.
A side effect for me was receiving a final warning for my work performance. For me WFH is like how most people would respond to being asked to sleep at the office. Im an architect and have a relatively enjoyable job but I would just procrastinate and do a whole project overnight before a deadline. I couldn’t do the things I enjoy because I would be working in the evenings. It was horrible. As a result, during the pandemic, I chose to be the only person present in a 25 person office, which meant I was answering all the business calls, which meant I couldn’t do much work when I was in the office, and even resulted in complaints about my phone manner.

At home I have an immaculate setup with multiple layers of internet blocking tools. I have my own office room with a standing desk and 5k monitor. One friend noticed how nice my workstation was and could not stop laughing when I told him I now work 0 days days from home. Covid made me realise I might need a formal ADHD diagnosis but also how much I value the office. I love helping people at work, giving and reviving advice, and learning from what is going on around me.
I think AI-Herzog is getting tired of AI-Žižek's shit:

> OK, but there's something about this film that you
cannot explain in the way you can with other films.
Let's say, for example, that I were to
take a knife and stab you in the stomach.
You would howl and scream and you would look at me and say
‘Why did you do it?’ And you would
look in my eyes and you would see
something like an ecstatic convulsion of the soul
and you would know why I did it.
But you cannot say it.
And yet we both know why I did it.
That's why I think that all these different kinds
of attempts at interpretation are a waste of time.

It seems that the conversations are recycled from a pool, because I've managed to hit the same conversation upon refreshing a few times.
This is fantastic!

I think the more someone bullshits and the more one engages in incoherent rambling, the more GPT-3 can be believable for long stretches of time :)
Hi, I work at USDS (and have worked generally on the hiring process for technologists). You're right about that for many agencies - the reasons being many and systemic, but it shouldn't apply with USDS.
(Disclaimer: I'm not a rust expert by any means so bear with me, I'm also genuinely interested in the language)

* While not perfect, C++ has a few package manager that are quite solid (personal favorite being conan).

* What can Rust macros do that C++ TMP (and macros even though that's a last resort IMHO...) can't do?

* From what I've gathered, it's similar in complexity to using the CRTP in C++, maybe a bit less verbose. Am I missing something?

* I feel like "interfaces" as in pure abstract virtual classes can achieve the same effect as Rust traits (though it could be its own thing and not a special case of a class specification), and the newly introduced Concepts goes even further that what can be achieved.

Don't get me wrong, I like the improvements rust brought, especially in terms of safety, but other than that... I don't think C++ is particularly far, or even actually behind for some of these.
What I'll say about the Quest 2 is if it had been marketed as a portable wired or wireless PC headset that can do standalone VR, I wouldn't have thought so poorly of its pre-Meta experience.

Now that the Facebook component has been gutted from it, I can log in again, so I've actually been using it.

My biggest complaints are that it wasn't designed for Asian facial features (I guess I could wear a prosthetic nose), and none of the three IPD settings are sufficient for me or my SO. Other models have a continuous slider for the lenses, but the Quest 2 has only a few discrete positions, and they don't work "in between".
I've had someone do that on this very website. I was assured that affine types in Rust are too difficult to understand without a solid grounding in Category Theory.

The years have proven that ease of programming and the burden of knowledge are the two most important elements of a programming language. FP zealots simply won't accept that their chosen paradigm is opaque to most for benefits that can't seem to be written out in human language.
> tensors multiplied by tensors

This argument is ignoring the problem.

What a neural network cannot do is to explain which invisible "rules" it has learned.

For example, when trying to classify movie reviews into good and bad [1], two invisible rules that it learned to apply were:

1. The word "horrible" indicates a bad review.

2. The term "Daniel Day Lewis" indicates a good review.

A human would judge the first rule to be reasonable, the second rule to be a mistake.

[1] https://www.science.org/content/article/how-ai-detectives-ar...
I don't prefer it either, and I am glad you're not in a position to understand why it is better than a switch.

However, my dad is pretty far into Parkinsons and doesn't have a lot of mobility. It's nice that he can turn off the lights when he goes to bed, or turn on the radio from his chair.

I hope to never be in a position where these tools are big upgrades for me, but my assumption is that we all will if we live long enough.
Google is working on ‘clear calling’ for Android phone calls:

https://www.theverge.com/2022/9/9/23344147/android-phone-cal...
Medium confidence is often close enough that you can formulate a hypothesis, but high confidence still isn't close enough that you'd stake millions of dollars of experiments on it anyways. Most of the people in structural biology in pharma that I have chatted with said they're still solving the structures of their targets even with high-confidence AlphaFold models.

For me, as someone solving structures on a monthly basis, AlphaFold is great because after I get back my electron density map, I dump my sequence into AlphaFold, get a model (of any confidence) and most of it fits well enough into my density map that I don't have to start trying to model from nothing, and it saves me honestly days of work.
This is a great list, practically summed up every issue I've found in my few days of poking around.
What impact does this actually have? Can you not get a credit card any more?
Can echo GP. Simply have not had this been a problem for me. I call. Other party picks up. We start talking.
Having unusual new concepts you need to explain is a negative point for sure, but that's a world away from the parent comment saying that having any new concept at all means it's doomed entirely.

Twitter had plenty of new concepts with replies, quote tweets, hashtags, threads, ratios. The evidence is that people can figure out this amount of new stuff.
What's is level of complexity relative to something like V2 rocket engine that was suppose to be scaled for 2000 per month. DOD can absorb a lot of exquisit missile engines even during peacetime procurement, I wonder if SpaceX is going to get into the weapons game. Almost everything Elon touches is dual use anyways, wonder what it would take for him flip.
Why waste time writing tests when you could be busy fixing bugs!?
The article discusses this. Yes, they do charge activation fees as well.
Beaming solar energy from space
The government is already tasked with managing roads and traffic.
Literally all UB is avoidable if you just "don't do" the things that cause it, and yet it still happens all the time. You might be right that this specific source of UB might not be a large issue in practice, but there are so many different causes of it that overall the strategy of "just don't write code that causes UB" is empirically not effective at scale.
I left my last job which was entirely C++ because of lower wages compared to the industry and low upside in wage growth potential. While I enjoy the lower level nature of that kind of work why stay somewhere solving hard C++ problems when I can go do some easier web backend stuff somewhere else making 15% more or become a kubernetes expert and break into new pay band all together?
amazing work!

Curious how you cloned the voices - tortoise? I've previously tried Herzog, but couldn't quite train the German accent...
InSight Mars lander has only 'few weeks' of power left
> Really, anything from the book Turtle Geometry would have a challenging time in a lot of functional languages.

https://github.com/sergv/turtle-geometry

Is an implementation of the book Turtle Geometry in Scheme. A Lisp dialect.

> Which is not that most functional languages are bad. Just they don't usually even try to abstract over the graphical. I hate that folks see how well the abstract over functions and assume that is all programming is.

There is an entire section of SICP dedicated to graphical abstraction using functions and function composition.
> This is just an appeal to the law of averages. I don't believe that you're actually considering ada, cobol and forth for new projects.

First it greatly depends on what "new project" mean here. There myriad of new projects within existing code base for which the existing used technologies are the major factor.

When it’s about creating a brand new product out of a blank slake, sure Cobol won’t be your first idea for a startup. Maybe Ada might come to mind if some high level of reliability is required, like in aeronautics and the like.

It also depends on the team skills. If you have team mates which are all Haskell advanced practioners, surely imposing J2EE for the next big thing might not be brightest move in term of crew motivation.
Consumers create demand. Demand acts as a pulling force in the economy causing increased supply as the market adapts.

But if that isn't sufficient on its own, elected leaders rule by the mandate of the electorate, making every adult in every democratic country share responsibility for the decisions of their elected leaders.

Take your pick. Or don't and keep enjoying the benefits of capitalism without taking on the responsibility. But then you are no different to those who stood on the wrong side of history in the societal transitions of the past.
You can get gloves that are touchscreen-compatible.
> in order to truly combat inflation (not just the CPI) the cost of borrowing needs to be higher than the actual inflation rate itself. So, if inflation is 10% right now, interest rates need to be above 10% to create a real negative pressure on the inflation rate itself.

Yes, but it’s not the interest rate today that needs to be higher than today’s inflation rate, it’s the expected interest that needs be higher than the expected inflation over the typical loan period. As interest rates increase the inflation rate will come down and the two will cross somewhere in the middle.
You know that in the past 20 years they basically took boost, a popular library that brings a lot of utility that the standard C++98 was sorely missing, put it into tr1, and then gave it language level support, right?
Possibly, it will take me quite awhile to fully redact it of PII.
If you're writing a GUI app, you usually don't need the exceptional efficiency that is C++'s selling point, so you are probably better off using Swift or C#, instead of either C++ or Rust.
>T-Mobile has always tried to separate itself from regular telecoms, but charging customers for essentially nothing doesn't sound very Uncarrier-like

It seems weird to call the process which is literally essential to using a device on the network "essentially nothing".

The unstated assumption might be that T-Mobile is charging for something that costs them nothing, but that also seems a little presumptuous. I assume there have to be some fixed costs associated with registering a device to properly authenticate with every bit of transmitter hardware on the network, plus KYC burdens - otherwise, T-Mobile has no incentive to introduce friction costs for new customers.
+++ ATS43=65

That'll confuse 'em real good
Those are one concept of and one method to achieve Deming's ideas. [0]

0. https://www.uthsc.edu/its/business-productivity-solutions/le...

Recommended podcast episodes about Deming: https://smallbatches.fm/search?query=deming
> have a student body that is somewhat representative of the overall national demographic

This question was directly asked by a justice (I think Alito) in almost exactly those words. The answer he got from the UNC lawyer was "no", followed by a bunch of handwaving.

The central argument from the schools seems to be that ethnic diversity is a priori good, and providing that environment benefits all students. The cost of decreased acceptance rate for Asians is the cost to achieve this good, and is a worthwhile tradeoff because it benefits the Asians who do get in.

I don't find this argument totally specious. But I think it reduces to: "bigotry is acceptable if the benefits outweigh the costs". I don't think the Constitution finds this to be permissible.
The Definitive Guide to Schrems II
I have a couple of gripes with these guidelines, not because I love writing unsafe programs, but because this way of writing C++ conflicts with the reality of how C++ is implemented.

1. shared_ptr is very slow. It makes it safe to share data, but at the expense of many tiny allocations for each object type. C++'s memory manager isn't geared towards that kind of abuse, this is something that can really only be performant in a garbage-collected language where allocation is an atomic pointer increment and deallocation happens "later". Pushing people towards using this abstraction is wrong most of the time, it is often much better to use arena-style allocations for most cases in C++. I've seen libraries written in modern C++ where malloc and free account for 80% of the runtime. I don't see a way to fix this without radically altering the memory manager.

2. The impact on code compiled in debug mode is often unacceptable. I expect programs compiled with minimal to no optimisations to be slower, but layering all these abstractions usually produces a lot of runtime junk that gets in the way. For example, std::for_each can often be optimised to a regular for loop, which can then be vectorised, but in debug mode it is compiled to a function call which in turn calls the passed in lambda for each element and operator++ on the iterator. The difference in speed between the two is several orders of magnitude and makes this abstraction unacceptable for hot loops. This is a more minor gripe that can probably be solved by marking some functions as "function-like macros" similar in intent to LISP's macros, so the compiler knows they can be always inlined and optimised. GCC's -Og flag also helps a lot here. Still, the world isn't just GCC and the standard should probably bequeath more library functions with special status, like how memcpy &al can be always optimised to inlined machine code instead of a function call.

You'll notice both of those concern speed. If the loss of performance from said abstractions is not a deal-breaker for you, then you probably shouldn't be writing C++. D, C#, go, Java, maybe even JavaScript, Python or Lua would be a better choice for your project. The reason to use C++ for a new project is because you want to build really complex programs made up of operations that closely match the semantics of the machine on which they run, for the purpose of going very fast. Or you're stuck using C++ because you have to interface with C++.
I was joking, but HN at the same time is filled with people that believe regulation only stifles innovation.

So just because AI is inevitable doesn't mean that we should abandon all regulation. There would be good merit in slowing down some progress, so we can actually maintain a good transition to new industries.
For anyone who lives anywhere else the situation in the US is a complete mystery. It's more expensive and order of magnitude shittier than pretty much anywhere else in the west
> TBH I disagree.

You may, but it's incorrect. Try to tell o365 about the Oxford comma, I tried, it's futile. Best to assimilate and maintain pay-stream.
Isn't this just a matter of plurality?

e.g.s:

"There is not enough talent"
"There are not enough talented developers"

"There's" is not correct when used to refer to multiple things.
Talent is a myth. The pool is only limited at a particular point in time. Employers who require skills in a particular language can just provide training.
We're (Cloudflare) working on expanding our URL scanning tool, currently located within the Security Center "Investigate" tab.

Any feature requests or things you'd like to see that Cloudflare could do differently?
So so good
But most implementors are hired by Big Techs, which means you have to be really good to get a decent job with C++.

In the meantime, JavaScript and Python is a lot easier to work with, with a higher salary.
> getting them to do functional programming is a pipe dream

I don't know if that was intentional but I'm upvoting!
How do we know who is in a bubble? :) When I walk around downtown, I see hundreds of people on their phones, and maybe one or two of them is actually using it as a phone. Obviously I don't know if they're on dating apps specifically, but they are enormously popular, so it seems plausible.
Val Town
Canada is so much like the U.S. that the subtle differences often feel kind of eerie and weird. One of them, which I see on TV whenever I visit, is how many phone ads there are, and how they're all basically trying to sell four phone plans at a time.

Bundling is a pretty ingenious evil way to make it very painful for a customer to switch away, especially when you've got your teens on the plan.
I have the opposite experience. It is considerably easier to write performant and scalable parallel program in unsafe language like C or C++, with libraries for parallel containers, than in Rust or even Go. Of course the price we pay is that it is much more probable to have bugs.
I already pay a monthly fee for my bank account, and other banks manage to offer instant transfers for free. I really can't imagine that instant transfers cost my bank 7€ per transaction.

They are just trying to make a quick profit.

Just like card payment processing fees, this is a case where banks are overcharging for a service, and the EU will fix the situation.
I use it, the main downside is that I seem to have essentially no service at very crowded events. I think because it's deprioritized. So it can be frustrating if I'm trying to look something up at a crowded stadium for example. But this doesn't happen a lot for me.
"usually" should not pertain to utilities like internet, electricity, calling, etc.... the US is the worst western country when it deals with scams in cell and internet service
Alternatively, web is generally more valuable. You don’t buy a new washing machine because the current firmware sucks, but you will shop somewhere else if Newegg’s website is terrible. That relationship is generally true where people rarely test embedded software until after a purchase, but people tend to jump ship more frequently online.

Net result a lot of critical infrastructure and devices suck as much as possible while still getting the job done.
>figured out that something is obviously beneficial?

Case in point for the problem with FP communication. When you speak in smug absolutes, it comes off as religion.

I'm pretty big into the FP world. I love Purescript. I dig Idris and exploring dependent types. I spend a lot of time at work teaching "functional" thinking. And yet, I still find most "hard core" FP evangelists insufferable for smugly explaining things as "obviously beneficial." ugh.

That is a lots that sucks about pure FP. It's not all upsides. The FP community can do a lot better at "evangelizing" by talking like engineers rather than sales people.
It’s worse than useless. This guideline says that one should not write code in the straightforward, idiomatic way, and should instead write ugly code. If the language spec is such that operator -> can’t have a sensible signature, then FIX IT. Or teach the analyzer to recognize the idiomatic use. (And the * approach still eventually sticks a raw pointer into this.)

I think this one is problematic too:

> Using the union keyword produces an error. … It was replaced by std::variant, which is safer.

Union is horribly unsafe, but at least union identifies its fields by name. Variant identifies its fields by position (unergonomic, error prone, and horrible for refactoring) or by type (unpleasant or useless when the type has no name or an unstable name, and even worse when two choices have the same type).

C++ needs an actual sum type, and variant isn’t it. Sorry.
Don't tell her the truth, make her puzzled.

Few days ago I had to help my grandma with hiding some utility cables behind a cover on a new door. I decided that a guy from tv cable company would be the most experienced with this and called their support. Please describe your issue? TV has no signal (it has). Are you at home? Yes (no). Let me check it... hmm, it's okay on our side. Did you try to rescan channels? Yes (of course not). I'll transfer your call to an operator, please wait. Sure, was nice to meet you too, stupid bot.

Make sure that you "have" a direct service problem and it doesn't align with scripted or online solutions.

As if anyone with half a brain would have have been stupid enough to shout at their phone for 20 minutes trying to get your shitty arse robot to understand them if they could have gone online instead.

There are plenty of people who call-first, to be fair.
I've experienced the issues with the weird connections issues, not being able to hear people etc, but the worst for me is when I call someplace and I have to suffer through the options spoken to me by a chat bot. Or worse it asks me to "say what I am calling about" in a few words, and it doesn't understand. Or I have to get through three different levels of menus before the option to speak to a representative comes up.
I use Apple Maps because Google Maps is littered with ads. And I assume Google apps use more battery than Apple apps.