skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don't like this at all. The thing that bothers me is the UI appearance of authority. If they found a good algorithmic way to add context, apply it to twits themselves.

Opaque assertions of authority are a dark pattern. Getting someone's "context" stuck on your words when it's just another person's opinion, but your voice has an origin and their voice is given an authoritative appearance without origin feels bad. It tricks people into being more trusting than they should.
Ironically It's an implication that something of which is policed is a bad thing.
The point is that independent preservation is necessarily at odds with the way copyright is policed in the modern day. Modern copyright is centered around the dogma of "copyright holders should have the right to absolutely control everything regarding a work". The copyright rent-seekers have, at every step, used the available technology and legal framework at the time to exert maximum control and give the individual minimum rights, and push the "final payment" date of public domain further and further away.

If independent preservationists cannot legally archive material (and that includes redistributing it, otherwise the media is still at risk of loss due to the same mechanisms that cause it to be at risk of loss without independent preservation).

Preservation needs to be explicitly codified in copyright law as accepted and legal. My recommendation would be to gate it behind the original length of US copyright law - after 14 years, archiving and distribution (along with incidental monetization for the purposes of maintaining and expanding the archive) should be allowed. After 14 years, infringement should require specific commercial usage of the work (selling individual copies versus merely ads across the board, especially if there is an effort to pass it off as an authentic copy). It could also require transparency in the money involved, to assure that it is entirely going towards maintaining the archive (which could include purchasing digitization equipment, acquiring copies of media, a small amount for time spent processing said media and for any hosting costs one might incur).

Monetization is a red herring. YouTube is running ads on those videos whether or not the channel owner monetizes. Money is made either way. Money does not automatically erase fair use defense, either.
Stop paying your taxes and tell us the government doesn't own your land.
Lots of languages reify types as classes, but that's not necessary. You don't need classes to have types.

Using classes also leaves entire segments of type-expression on the table or makes them unwieldy e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagged_union

So it's orthogonal, classes are just one possible implementation of types.
It is, but it has the opposite issue. Wikipedia isn't a place for opinions and it doesn't portray itself as a "free speech zone". It easily rejects new information. Too easily, in that "notability" can bias it towards rejecting consequential but obscure historical figures, especially from people who were marginalized at the time.

That's great for making Wikipedia safer from abject misinformation, which is a huge plus. It's less good at ongoing discoveries and news.
To be clear, the conclusion begins on page 22 and ends on page 24. The rest of the pages after that are references, tables, appendices, etc.

Your premise here appears to be something like "no one can meaningfully discuss or contribute to discussion without spending a great deal of time poring over minute details of a dissertation."

I suspect that's an overreach. To be sure, anyone that is well-versed in statistical analysis can meaningfully contribute to the discussion (particularly of its statistical validity) by spending that kind of time, and weighing in with confirmation or refutation of the techniques and analysis used.

But I would offer the premise that reading the 2 pages of the conclusion, and pairing that with your own knowledge and life experience qualifies you to participate in and contribute to meaningful discussion.

An excerpt:

> Suggestive evidence is more consistent with peer socialization in college and long-run mechanisms than intentional efforts by faculty or curricula. Students who attend UC campuses as a result of the policy are exposed to more secular and left-leaning peers, live with other college students more often, and are more likely to attain a bachelor’s degree, earn higher incomes, and enroll in graduate school.

That seems like something that we can discuss without the entirety of the 135 page paper in our heads.
It doesn't matter to the mods of r/science how politely you put it if you are suggesting that not considering X would have significantly changed the conclusions of "the science."

As an aside, most of the mods are toward the "soft" side of science (biology, medicine, social science), and likely do not understand statistics very well. Papers with glaring issues regularly make it to the top because their conclusions are cool, not because they are truly good/impactful works.
It's not nice to mock people "doing real http calls in unit tests," even if they deserve it.
Incredible, I've never met anyone who could alter reality through the power of parentheticals before.
In Search of a Lost Spain
I currently have satellite with Xplornet and pay $99/mo for a 50gb cap.

For the target demographic, 1TB is more than fair.
I feel like the CO2 footprint for living there must be super high
Executive Order on Secure Supply Chain
Haha, your comment looked super snarky to me. I guess it's just because sarcasm doesn't translate well into text, so we assume it's there even if someone didn't mean to be sarcastic
This "everything old is new again" stuff gets a bit much sometimes.

Of course having ability to do strict typing is a good way to avoid bugs and write reliable code. This is not news.
My learning from test automation:

* The primary goal of test automation is to prevent regression. A secondary goal can be performance tuning your product.

* Tests are tech debt, so don’t waste time with any kind of testing that doesn’t immediately save you time in the near term.

* Don’t waste your energy testing code unless you have an extremely good reason. Test the product and let me the product prove the quality of your code. Code is better tested with various forms of static analysis.

* The speed with which an entire test campaign executes determines, more than all other factors combined, when and who executes the tests. If the test campaign takes hours nobody will touch it. Too painful. If it takes 10-30 minutes only your QA will touch it. When it takes less than 30 seconds to execute against a major percentage of all your business cases everybody will execute it several times a day.
Don't watch Fox and don't touch coke, neither cola nor powder (debatable which one is worse for you.) I took classes on social justice at Brown. When I actually understood what the profs in the space were saying, looking at what it takes to implement it in the real world, the results have been pretty horrifying every time we humans have tried it. The thing I couldn't get over is the idea of "class guilt" sometimes cast as "class privilege".
Asynchronous and generator-based HTTP proxy in Python
I would talk to the manager, explain what's happening, leaving my personal feelings aside.

Co-workers speaking non-shared languages in each other faces is not useful in any way and it leads to many problems, way beyond a non-welcoming and non-inclusive environment, way beyond just HR...

Moreover, and to answer some strange theories in other comments here, If you're to be excluded from a conversation, the speakers better get a room, where they can speak freely and leave you alone.
Just staying around and speaking a language you don't understand is plain rude, a nuisance, and will distract you anyway. (and probably become annoying, in the long term)

Having said that, I would also learn some Mandarin. If not enough to enter the conversation, at least enough to say "Would you, please, be so kind as to speak English for me? I'm learning Mandarin, but I can't understand you well enough, yet."

This worked wonders for me, in more than a few occasions.
I view it more as "only test one operation per unit test". If that needs multiple asserts (status code, response content, response mime type, etc.) to verify, that is fine.

IIUC, the guideline is so that when a test fails you know what the issue is. Therefore, if you are testing more than one condition (missing parameter, invalid value, negative number, etc.) it is harder to tell which of those conditions is failing, whereas if you have each condition as a separate test it is clear which is causing the failure.

Separate tests also means that the other tests run, so you don't have any hidden failures. You'll also get hidden failures if using multiple assertions for the condition, so will need to re-run the tests multiple times to pick up and fix all the failures. If you are happy with that (e.g. your build-test cycle is fast) then having multiple assertions if fine.

Ultimately, structure your tests in a way that best conveys what is being tested and the conditions it is being tested under (e.g. partition class, failure condition, or logic/input variant).
Inside of Apple Watch vs. Google Pixel
In terms of bandwidth, compute resources and also just the amount of time the modem has to remain powered on to transmit data.
Isn't this a deliberate model, and not only for pharma?

Govt funds the risky research, and then hands the baton to competitive industry, which is good at 'finding markets', making it a product, and optimizing costs.

Eg, google, amazon, etc, would not exist without the govt early (and continuing) funding of the tech their business is based on.

What is then supposed to happen is that profits are taxed sufficiently, feeding back in to the system, but that part appears to have broken down lately.
The article features a few that are inside stations that are presumably heated. They do still look cool, but in theory they could be lame.
Thanks a lot! Will give at shot. Really appreciate the repsonses on hackernews. Got a lot of hints how to move forward.
This seems overly dismissive of a solution to a rapidly approaching crises effecting billions of people.

Geoengineering can be studied like anything else. If applied, it will have negative externalities like everything else. The few millions spent is a small bet on something that could have a big impact.
Was the research group meeting about politics or did this randomly come up during them? And honestly it wouldn’t surprise me for college students to bash Biden as well. Why associate your political beliefs so strongly with one man? Surely someone saying Trump is a criminal business man says nothing about whether your belief on income taxes is legitimate.

Not to say my college experience was typical, but it was largely apolitical. There were student groups for Republicans and Democrats and if you didn’t want anything to do with politics you didn’t have to. I didn’t spend my time discussing politics with my friends, my professors didn’t lecture about how much Bush sucks during their Operating Systems course, and my classmates weren’t bringing up how immoral the Iraq war was during the single philosophy course I took.

I come from a conservative state, the school population would likely have only slightly leaned left. I didn’t feel pressured about my conservative beliefs. Looking back at the time, though, I shifted from center-right to center. Not because of being clubbed over the head in arguments, but from exposure to ideas and experiences and beliefs that my rural upbringing sheltered me from.
I'm curious why so many companies and products come out of the gate with pricing too high. Are they so overconfident in their offerings? Are they just that desperate? Why not start at lower-than-expected pricing, cause an uproar and influx of new customers, and increase cost to keep the new customer numbers in check? I would think we have a better handle on the launch process by now. I wish you and your team well.
Nothing like machine-enforced nitpicking of the worse kind

But even this rule/plugin has a default value of 3 which is a more sane value.
Yes https://www.npr.org/2022/07/13/1111341161/how-trumps-will-be...
IMO the difference between types and objects is that objects have state and behaviour, whereas types only have state.
Not the same.

At nest he was the founder.
It's a very related problem.

I agree: All models are wrong; some are useful.

A string is a wrong model for an email address. But it's a pretty useful one.

A custom type sitting lonely in an isolated codebase IS ALSO A WRONG MODEL. Arguably, it might be more a useful one than a string. But that's debatable.

And on that debate, I'll argue a string is a better model because it is a better UNDERSTOOD model by more PEOPLE than whatever MyEmailClassForThisProject you just came up with.
I'm glad OSC have listened, and reversed their decision to require two "administrators" per project. Even though I've received $0 from OSC since registering my project with them, I like the fact that OSC is more than just a financing mechanism - that they're there to offer advice on how to grow a community (and contributors/maintainers) around a project. GitHub Sponsors (also $0 to date) just doesn't have the same supportive feeling about it.
Depending on the language yes, or probably, or definitely not. A class is one of several ways to represent a type. Some languages have structural type representations and a class/instance is equivalent to a “plain old ___ object”; some languages have types but no notion of classes at all.
In the last two years I have come to put much more importance on the freedom of association.

The linked article is a fantastic example of what. "Partial truth" and "missing context" can be said about absolutely everything.

Who was it that chopped up a journalist and enjoys the association of a world figure? Quite a few people. Let's condemn the lot.
The reality is there is NO single solution that will get us out of this hole. The first thing we need to do is drastically cut our emissions every single way we can, as fast as we can. This is not comic pie in the sky, it's realism.

Squirting acid into the sky is pie in the sky. Nobody knows if or how this might go, because it's impossible to test at less than planetary scale. And again, we come back to the problem. Why does one country, mad person or whatever have the right to decide to spray this toxin across a whole planet?

This is exactly the same faulty thinking about tech solutions that have stalled progress so far, and led to billions wasted on carbon capture tech.

Stop emitting CO2. If we were prepared to reduce our comfort and convenience, stop looking for constant 'growth' and start to plan for a sustainable future, we could turn things around really quickly. But we keep kicking the can down the road, and electing politicians who pay lip service to tackling the crisis.

You know how we know we could do this? Because our pandemic response was unparalleled and comprehensive by and large. And it reduced emissions as a by product by 17% or so.

Geoengineering is just another egotistical pipedream from the tech brigade.
Why ban tiktok ?
> Anyways, I actually tried it out and... I don't really get it. I would find it frustrating to use when blender is so much snappier and more powerful.

Why would anyone use Canva when there are plenty of other more powerful options?

I believe the answer is that it is simple and not scary for people to learn, and that there is a large number of people who could use this and create something that looks pretty good but that would be intimdated with Blender and have no clue where to start. Blender isn't really designed for a casual user to be able to pick it up and understand it in 10 minutes.
Nobody has said this is an easy solution, just that it might be a possible solution. If this one is as bad as you claim, what is the better solution you had in mind? Is that solution actually feasible? If your plan was "massive cut in emmissions", my response is how do you plan on making that feasible when it hasn't been tus far?

Or was your plan just to shoot down every solution proposed and to do nothing at all instead?
> I can argue whatever type you use in place of a string will similarly be "not a great type".

All Types are wrong, but some are useful.

Will Money type solve all problems?
Is it better than decimal, from POV of prevention of mistakes - yes.
I don't agree with you. Or rather, I agree with "just waiting" - we don't have any choice about that. I don't agree with "letting someone else deal with it".

The spent waste we've already produced needs to be stored in a way that puts it beyond the possibility of access within 200,000 years. And we need to stop producing new nuclear waste. Note that modern humans have been walking the Earth for just 200,000 years; we can't hope to be able to label it with readable danger warnings. The oldest languages we can read are only a few thousand years old. And we can't just pop it into orbit - there are many thousands of tons of it, sitting around in cooling ponds.
I wish I'd have had stuff like this when I was studying logic.
It would sure make learning the subject more interesting especially if one's not a born logician (wading through reams of logic can get a bit tedious).
I also fail to see how AI will be all that helpful in this problem. But I suppose it's not all that surprising to see such a message on a site that's about AI.
> Documentation for the Mathics system is provided in the PDF format (download the PDF).

Seriously? I'm already tired of latex packages only being documented as PDF, but at least there's a technical reason. Here, this is just contempt for the users.
The fact that the average community member is a moron doesn't mean that you should delete the posts from the people who are not. I'm sure they get tons of "biology doesn't replicate" posts that should get removed. They also remove posts that are polite, technically correct, and specific, and point out glaring issues in the paper.
The Philharmonic’s Home Gets a Tune-Up
Subs definitely can make your content in that sub (including everything you post in that sub) disappear in a way that isn't just "without explanation", but explicitly in a way that makes it appear as still online to you to make it harder for you to notice. As the demo OP provided demonstrates.

As far as I know this is not a feature Reddit officially provides, but creative (ab)use of the spam filter, moderation queue, or similar features, which reddit doesn't effectively prevent.
Which just makes Antarctica a more hospitable place in the long term.
How about they make the app completely frictionless to try out, and then charge money for it? I don't want to sign up for something before I try it, but if I'm using something I don't mind paying for it

Problem solved
Unfortunately language has become a stand-in for race and culture, and it has somehow become an icky topic because, as you exemplify, some people are downright scared to even approach that subject for fear of being labeled a racist or an “asshole”. Let’s just completely separate the two and focus on the facts: your teammates are speaking in a language you don’t understand, in a more or less official capacity; it doesn’t matter what language it is, but what does matter is that it’s a problem and it leaves you and possibly other team members feeling uncomfortable. And believe it or not it’s ok to feel uncomfortable. I speak another language as well, and I would be ashamed to speak it with ANYONE in front of mixed company because it’s just rude. So your colleagues are being rude whether they realize or not. If I were the TL or PM I would politely mention in a team meeting that some people feel uncomfortable when others speak a language we don’t all understand and to please be considerate of others in those situations. No need for a reprimand or direct confrontation.
> Testing is hard when the code it tests is OOP, has mutations everywhere, and has big functions that do too many things.

Yes, that means the software being tested is not very testable. And should probably be refactored.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testability
That's not how capitalism works. Their business should be providing value to their users, which, in turn, would make their platform attractive for advertisers. Trump provided a lot of engagement and popularity to the platform, so banning him was igealogy-driven and was very much against their business interests.

Now, advertisers come from different parts of the political spectrum, and if some advertiser would decide to vacate their spot on the platform, some other business would fill the spot.

You know, earlier this year a lot of western companies have quit the russian market, like Macdonalds. Do you think there are no burgers in Russia now?
>Test sets are user-friendly if they dump a single specific error message for a single specific failed assertion, thus allowing developers to quickly pinpoint root causes by simply glancing through the test logs.

As if this actually happens in practice, regardless of multiple or single asserts. Anything that isn't non-trivial will at most tell you what doesn't work, but it won't tell you why it doesn't work. Maybe allowing an educated guess when multiple tests fail to function.

You want test sets to be user friendly? Start at taking down all this dogmatism and listening to the people as to why they dislike writing tests. We're pushing 'guidelines' (really more like rules) while individuals think to themselves 'F this, Jake's going to complain about something trivial again, and we know these tests do jack-all because our code is a mess and doing anything beyond this simple algorithm is a hell in a handbasket".

These discussions are beyond useless when all people do is talk while doing zero to actually tackle the issues of the majority not willing to write tests. "Laziness" is a cop-out.
I had similar case recently, in C++. I ended up spending a few hours writing a simple JSON differ - a bit of code that would parse two strings into a DOM object graph using a rapidjson, and then walk down them simultaneously - basically, I implemented operator== which, instead of terminating early, recorded every mismatch.

Then, I packaged it into a Google Test matcher, and from now on, the problem you describe is gone. I write:

EXPECT_THAT(someObject, IsEqAsJSON(someBlobFromADifferentFile));

and if it fails, I get output like this:

Expected someObject to be structurally equivalent to someBlobFromADifferentFile; it is not;
- #/object/key - missing in expected, found in actual
- #/object/key2 - expected string, actual is integer
- #/object/key3/array1 - array lengths differ; expected: 3, actual: 42
- #/object/key4/array1/0/key3 - expected "foo" [string], actual "bar" [string]

Etc.

It was a rather simple exercise, and the payoff is immense. I think it's really important for programmers to learn to help themselves. If there's something that annoys you repeatedly, you owe it to yourself and others to fix it.
> If you seek any goods or services in today's world, if you use any aspect of industrial civilization, you're contributing to the warming of the planet.

That's not always true.

My neighbours are true eco warriors. They have planted literally hundreds of acres of trees and they live a carbon negative life. Granted, they are unusual, but it is not true that everyone is contributing. Just 99% of us.
Question: isn’t a rich type system as described here similar to OOP?
I keep it simple by using the AAA pattern:

Arrange: whatever you need for the setup.
Act: a single line of code that is under test.
Assert: whatever you want to assert, multiple statements allowed and usually required.

We put the 3A in code as comments as boundaries and that works more than perfect for the whole team.

Oh and it's readable!
The EU even has its own Mastodon server.
There's a lot of safety concerns, but not exactly the same level of danger.

I suspect the biggest danger, is passing out, and dying of exposure.

That also happens here, in New York. Every winter sees a few corpseicles.