skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Even then the quotas here are extremely mild. If you don't meet them you need to show how your selection process isn't biased, and in cases where there's not a clear winner you need to go with the underrepresented gender.

How this then goes into law in the countries is a different thing, but the directive seems like a reasonable nudge.

The linked report talks about the effectiveness of quotas: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/fs_22_...

And the page with more details about the law here: https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-r...
GANs Didn’t Fail, They Were Abandoned
I thought that was a limitation that Apple put in place.

You can either run an alternative architecture or an alternative OS. Running MacOS software for x86 is running through an interpreter.

If you want to run x86 Linux software, then MacOS on Arm is just one too many steps away.
>But more diversity in trash collectors is unlikely to result in more diversity in CEOs. The opposite is much more true.

You think more diversity in CEOs will result in more diversity for trash collectors?
Sponsorblock is great, it really makes some videos watchable.

Though in general if there is a lot of sponsorship in videos it usually means the content itself is also really mediocre and spammy so I don't tend to watch those anyway. The people who really have a lot of technical knowledge don't monetise it very much because they don't have to. Being an expert in their field already nets them more than enough money.

I watch very little youtube anyway, as I dislike the video format and prefer written content. But when I do need to because what I'm looking for isn't available elsewhere, sponsorblock is a great help.
> But what if you could toss the whole package directly into the bowl with your boiling water?

Then you'd have a hygiene code violation; the packaging is there for a reason. And what if the packaging gets moist? It's more likely than you think.
The C standard doesn't really matter. Standards don't compile or run code. Only thing that matters is what the compilers do. "Linux kernel C" is a vastly superior language simply because it attempts to force the compiler to define what used to be undefined.

This -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks flag is just yet another fix for insane compiler behavior and it's not the first time I've seen them do it. I've read about the Linux kernel's troube with strict aliasing and honestly I don't blame them for turning it off so they could do their type punning in peace. Wouldn't be surprised if they also had lots more flags like -fwrapv and whatnot.
Horrible. I'm convinced that EU is being sabotaged.
My current company tries but does it very poorly.

I work for the so-called "software house". They keep on asking if I want to do a cloud cert yet they don't really provide any course materials nor allow me to take time off to focus on learning. This is a very common pattern for these certs and I've seen the same in other places as well; there's always someone who wants you to get that certificate but you're never really provided with anything to help you reach that goal. It makes it feel like the entire ordeal is pointless to begin with.

Recently the client I work for started moving to Kubernetes, which we did not use previously. It took my company 6 months to organize a Kubernetes course for us. The person who prepared that course was a relatively inexperienced engineer from an another team that never used Kubernetes in production. The engineer himself tried his best but in the end that person was not a very good teacher (which I feel is the natural outcome, this person was not hired to organize course work) and we never moved past the tutorial level knowledge-wise. Personally I got nothing out of attending these sessions aside from the liability of having to work on tasks related to Kubernetes (previously we didn't work on them as it was understood that we have no training, but now that we have "training" we are supposed to pick up that work). I feel like I was tricked.
This is a legit question. I can totally see some men turning legally women only for a spot in the board. Possible in Spain, and considering how good with are at bending rules this seems low hanging fruit for unscrupulous people. I guess the only thing preventing this could be the public backslash towards the company if their board women are regular dudes in suits.
Are the companies listed somewhere?, I couldn't find anything on the EU's website.
> and it's the C standard.

No, it's puerile interpretations of the C standard learned from the comp.lang.c newsgroup and such places rather than from engineering work.
> I was referring to the situation where a null check was deleted because the compiler found UB through static analysis.

You can say that but in practice -Onone is fairly close to what you're asking for already. Most people are 100% unwilling to live with that performance tradeoff. We know that because almost no one builds production software without optimizations enabled.

The compiler is not intelligent. It just tries to make deductions that let it optimize programs to run faster. 99.999% of the time when it removes a "useless" null check (aka branch that has to be predicted and eat up branch prediction buffer space and bloats up the number of instructions) it really is useless. The compiler can't tell the difference between the useless ones and security critical ones because all of them look the same and are illegal by the rules of the language.

Even if you mandate that null checks can't be removed that doesn't fix all the other situations where inserting the relevant safety checks have huge perf costs or where making something safe reduces to the halting problem.

FWIW I agree that the committee should undertake an effort to convert UB to implementation-defined where possible... for example just mandate twos complement integer representations and make signed integer overflow ID.

To illustrate the complexity: most loops end up using an int which is 32-bit on most 64-bit platforms so if you require signed integer wrapping that slows down all loops because the compiler must insert artificial checks to make the 64-bit register perform 32-bit wrapping and we can't change the size of int at this point.
> still prefer to hire one gender over the other for some functions, and especially for executive roles

Have you considered maybe they hire based on qualifications only and not gender? There are 2 implications from such thing:

- genders have different preferences in work and do not apply for some jobs (not just CEO, but also coal miners have even larger gender imbalance)

- some people do not want to make the insane effort to become a CEO. Men usually are the one sacrificing a lot for some goals (including life on the battlefields), women tend to be wiser and think if it is worth
> forcing you to hire people you don't want to hire

How does this law do that? You can keep 100% one gender if for some weird reason that's who is best.

> Companies with a lower share will be required to make appointments on the basis of a comparative analysis of the qualification of candidates by applying clear, gender-neutral and unambiguous criteria and to ensure that applicants are assessed objectively based on their individual merits, irrespective of gender.
I believe this is the full text of the law:

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/1_1_200090_dir...
Still can't actually find the security problems. Just very sure they're there. And nothing to do with Cisco etc having dropped the ball and desperately needing someone to buy an inferior product at a higher price. And no, campaign donations do not drive this...
> it’s in the editing of those first 10,000 photos that you will find the hidden photographer in you.

Instead of taking 10 000 photos, then sifting through them, and then editing them... Take 1000 photos, but take the time to take them: wait for the right moment, come closer, step to the right, anticipate a moment, find great in the mundane. This will make you an infinitely better photographer.
1) There are many, many countries where tap water is not potable. Don't gargle with it when showering, and you'll be fine.

2) Assuming you're in a climate where this makes sense, the easiest source of non-potable water is to simply collect rainwater, so you don't really need a grid for this. In the other direction, use of "grey water" (domestic non-sewage wastewater) for purposes like irrigation is also increasingly common.
Screen sharing improvements in Chrome 109
This is absolutely fantastic, thanks!
This is exactly the issue with YouTube's current state, even if you don't spend a lot of time on it :) Well said!
A lot of things are perennially unterestimated, and making it work anyway is simply an engineer's job and can be quite fun. If it literally gives you nightmares, e.g. because a bad estimate gets turned into a deadline, chances are your job just sucks (and likely your company, too).
Also, stop using a Mac if they aren't suitable for your usecase. There are just so many layers of emulation for this, it's an absolute waste of resources.
It's usually predicted as 25-50 years away because of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maes%E2%80%93Garreau_law

A 10 year prediction is because this is the CEO of a company saying it. So the lifespan used in the prediction is that of the company and not the person.
Fixed, added other images, I posted that quite late last night!
Currently using straight up lima and software emulation. It’s slow but it just about works.

I think there’s stuff that uses it under the hood like colima and rancher.

Basically the issue is that quite a lot of software is amd64 only and they haven’t cross complied binary layers for arm64.

So for local development you have to emulate.

It’s a shame there’s not a way to leverage rosetta2 really.
You simply obey the law and respect the person’s legal gender.

Do you really think a 50-year-old Italian businessman is going to change their legal gender to be on more corporate boards?

It’s strange how people pretend that accommodations for trans people are some kind of huge complication that breaks society when they only affect a small minority which has been treated horribly until now.
It is not the amount of regulation I take issue with[1], but the scope. While I am strongly pro-EU, I am also strongly in favor of it being made up of countries that are more than just nominally sovereign and independent. Power is slowly being moved from national governments and to the EU, and I don't like this slow subversion of nations one bit.

[1] Not saying over-regulation isn't a problem, merely not my main concern.
In theory it's all clean and nice, in practice half europe is still running on non renewable and the new renewables aren't replacing non-renewable, they're mostly stacking on top thanks the the rebound effect.

The sad truth is that we're over consuming energy, and until we consume less we'll just run in the same problems over and over.
Basics of Unit Testing with Node.js
Usually developers trained the company
You can get 99% of the way there with -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks -fno-strict-aliasing -fwrapv . Pretty much every program I've worked on uses those flags, as that's the only way to keep your sanity.
The bi yearly angry gorilla post from jwz. How is it that always people that actually had the means to change something are the biggest cry babies? I guess it's remorse?
Unfortunately many distros aren't even shipping ed anymore.
Ok sure, I'm using this particular example here, but I've yet to see a good counter example to convince me it's the lesser evil to let that happen.

Also I agree you should not write code like that example and rather move the check up.

But reality is we (at least I) still depend on code written in C, like openssh, and want it to be as safe as possible. Now I can blindly trust the devs know every UB in the C spec in and out, run all the static and dynamic analysis tools in existence, but it would just make me feel even more safe if the compiler would also work with them, not against. Somewhere here in the comments it was claimed that the linux kernel for example already uses -fwrapv and its performance seems absolutely fine to me. And I'd suspect that an OS kernel is already on the more performance critical end of the spectrum regarding stuff written in C that's still in use.

I just find it worrysome that such evidently unsafe optimizations are the default, and not hidden behind some sufficiently scary-sounding flag.
I don't know a single person who is for gender quotas. Do I live in a bubble or are policymakers bringing laws that are highly unpopular and go against a will of the people they serve? How could that be?
>No, that's wrong. Implementation-Defined Behavior is supposed to allow C to be implemented on different architectures.

Is it? We're talking about integer overflow here.

I wasn't in the meetings when writing all the c standards. I'm not convinced this is purely an optimisation thing though.

I would guess the story is more.

Interested party X: "can integer overflow do X?"

Party Y: "no because our processor doesn't work like that.

Party Z: "and it breaks K and R"

Party X: "how about implementation defined?"

Party A: "but our compiler targets 5 different processors"

Party B: "plus that precludes certain optimisations"
£1k and 1 week training allowance per year
> What should happen when I invoke --hlep then? The program could give an error, could warn that it's an unrecognised flag. Could ask you if you meant --help. Infer you mean help and give you that, or it could give you a choo Choo train running across the screen. Or it could reformat your hard drive. Just because it isn't specifically listed as UD doesn't mean it's not. If it isn't defined then it's undefined. The question is what is the reasonable thing to do when someone types --hlep. I hope we can agree reformating your hard drive isn't the most reasonable thing to do.

I honestly don't understand the point of this paragraph.

> Am I? What's the reason for not defining integer overflow? Yes unspecified behaviour could be used to allow portability, but so can undefined.

Yes, you are confused about that. UB is precisely the kind of behavior where the C standard deemed it unsuitable to define as implementation defined or whatever, and it usually has really good reasons to do so. You could look them up instead of asking rhetorically.

> I'm not saying it shouldn't be UB. I'm saying there's reasonable and unreasonable things to do when you encounter UB. In the article the author took reasonable steps to protect themselves and the compiler undermined that. That isn't reasonable. In exactly the same way that --hlep shouldn't lead to my hard drive getting reformatted.

Again, you seem to fundamentally misunderstand how compilers work in this case. They largely don't "encounter" UB; It's optimization passes are coded with the assumption that UB can't happen. The ability to do that is fundamentally the point of UB. Situations like in the article are not a specific act of the compiler to screw you in particular, but an emergent result.

Additionally, I think you you're also confusing Undefined Behavior with 'behavior of something that is undefined'. These are not the same things.
Why?

To me, pairing is exhausting, so I don't like to do it too often but I almost always feel more than twice as productive and I feel like I am better able to dig into the hard stuff easier.
Or you know, just turn off UB. I don't know why C still has this, it was useful when we had truly exotic architectures with sign bits &c, but these days it is doing way more harm than good.
Nice app! I use newpipe sometimes but I didn't have anything good for desktop.

I wish there was a BSD version though..
I guess don't click on it then. It is clear from the title what this post exactly is.
I have been a part of training sessions in my previous organisations, but in my opinion, training will not create a 10x engineers.

Why?

Most of the training sessions I attended or used to happen in my organisation were on very general topics. All these topics can be easily learnt via any other medium like youtube.

Instead, I have seen pair programming or code-reviews making better engineers. The organisation used to change the pair programming partners every sprint making us understand new ways of working every time. Plus reading other's code in code reviews exposes you to new patterns making you better at writing code.
That’s very idealistic and unfortunately life is far from ideal. Its better to do one thing very well than to do many things badly.
The thing is, I might like my colleagues at work and still not want to go out with them (because I simply don’t like going out).
This only works for few high profile projects.

Most projects developed this way die of development resources starvation. Once you have added all those features you will face all the consequences of developing a complex system -- difficulty to get anything done, new devs requiring substantial amount of time to get started, people getting discouraged quickly, etc. As you add complexity, the ways users use your platform will grow exponentially -- potentially causing an explosion of bugs.

I don't mean users using your platform in many different ways is bad, the question is "Can you support it?"

If you run into developer resource starvation users will find that you are making no progress and will find an alternative and this will make your project even less enticing for contributors. This is how a project dies.

If you are single developer and want to do something useful for community your best shot is to make something simple and add things judiciously.

So how do large open source projects survive and how are they different? The issue is that when it comes to contributors, relatively few large projects receive most of the contributions. Everybody wants to contribute to something well known, high profile, used by a lot of people. Not many developers want to make it their mission to support a useful but an obscure plugin to something else.
You must know this claim of yours can trigger a huge discussion. If you want to discuss it in good faith, you must write more, not toss in a one-sentence slogan like a grenade and hope it gets people to spend a ton of effort in response. And I'd advise replying to a post more directly related to the point.
C has always considered that the programmer knows what they are doing. Programs are assumed correct unless proven invalid.

This is -- or at least was -- a feature, not a bug. You can implement any valid program, but you can also implement some invalid programs.

I know the OP mentioned Rust, but it's a valid comparison: if you don't invoke "unsafe" then all your behaviour is well-defined. But the trade-off is that Rust will only let you implement a subset of valid programs unless you invoke "unsafe", which might be better termed "assumed correct".
I have Sublime Text and Sublime Merge installed on my Mac. Trying to launch them through Spotlight is an exercise in frustration. Each successive letter typed in Spotlight alternates the selection between Sublime Text and Sublime Merge, so when I press Enter to launch, it’s almost certainly the wrong one of the two.
Well, funny that the compiler sees no problem in removing a check (on compile time) of a value that is totally possible to obtain, on runtime
There seems to be an effect where the more visual information something is capable of, the more critical we become of its content.

Go back and watch a VHS on a CRT TV, or even a DVD version of something that has a Blu-ray or HD version available to stream. It's abysmal, and yet we somehow managed to love them.

After struggling to create single a receiver profile for modern streaming content to cover the range from "everyone's mouth is full of socks" to "pure sonic agony", I do agree that audio mixing has become something of a lost art.
If your personal project is small and self-contained enough that you write it once and then you're done, then sure. My projects tend to be much larger, and be works-in-progress. As annoying as it is, taking the time to plod along and do proper testing has saved me time and time again. If you only have a few hours a week to work on a project, the last thing you want to do is spend 8 hours (AKA 3 weeks) figuring out why something isn't working.
Not sure if that was the Dreamcast being overpowered, the sheer genius of Randy Linden, or a bit of both.
This is the big question. You may dislike quotas, but what alternative is there?

Well, there is some alternative of course, because a lot of companies and organisations already do meet these quotas. But what about those that don't? What about those that steadfastly refuse? Allow them to continue their gender discrimination (technically illegal, but easily excused)? Or require them more strongly to change?
You really drank that koolaid.
> My fear is China will beat the arrogant west at its own game -- capitalism! And as an American at least, I would much rather have America as the leading and influential super power. What I see and hear is how disconnected much of the west is from poor countries and how their suffering and poverty is nowhere near grasped by the plurality of the west.

Then is your problem that America isn't doing the debt trapping? Am I understanding that correctly?

As a an European I very much dislike the thought of this being a necessary evil, as it will most likely result in more suffering in the long run. But maybe that's where I'm wrong?
I'd say precedent is against you here. There's many examples of widely used open source projects that don't get lots of free maintenance effort.

Maintaining something well is hard and requires commitment, you can't just crowd source it with people dipping in and out with the occasional fix and new feature. Being careful about what PRs you accept, especially when it's a big new feature is crucial to the health of an open source project and the mental health of its maintainers.
Not a big thing. Most European corporations already have a board for politicians and "sauna-board" for real issues.
Compatibility basically.
This is what I wonder. A powerful local laptop is so useful - instant feedback; works on the train or any other offline/low-connectivity setting; the only engineer you need looking after it really is the one who has it.

Having said that, cloud development means you don't need big capex orders for laptops all the time, and it's probably easier to secure.
Thumbs up. Very fun to solve.
notably the actual subsystem wasn't really necessary, if i recall it was some poorly implemented stubs for unix style system services. (think a backend for functions like getpwnam)

the important part was the posix api functions that made porting unix daemons that had been written in c/c++ to nt pretty easy. there were some quirks around shared memory/mmap, getpwnam, the sockets api and threading support, but beyond that doing a port was pretty easy.

the work there was plugging into the service control and event logging apis. and doing an installshield, that was no fun.
isnt it time to abandon the idea and accept that the internet is more bots than humans and more malicious and hostile actors rather than well meaning ones?

twitter/fb/google with their vast ml knowhow still cant figure out how to weed out the bots, even the ones that are doing obviously bot actions, at this point we are just increasing the tracking and are in diminishing returns, so maybe its time for a paradigm shift of some sort.

show your id to read a blog because the blog has ads and we want to know you are not a bot, is this where we are heading?

maybe even worse send your faceid and touchid hashes or crypto signed heart rate?
Is that estimate really accurate to 2% that using 58 minutes rather than "about an hour" implies?
Would you recommend a better guide? Is the config suggested by it bad? Not everyone has the skill/time to deeply understand everything immediately, and having a saner starting point is a good thing.