skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Care to share any concrete examples on "useful" information that has been gathered this way?

Also, FWIW, I'm assuming this hypothetical software is clever enough to only function in jurisdictions where that would be legal? Spying on your employees home network is a massive no-no here, you'd need some very deep pockets if you wanted to attempt it, because when you are found out you'll be paying a lot of compensation for privacy violations.
I mean, my dad would tell me stories of playing with balls of mercury, so there’s that, heh
>Arresting for (offline) communication is not unheard of in the UK

This is not unheard of in the US either. So what is the distinction being made here?

And for the record the UK and Australia are generally higher up on the various freedom lists that rank countries. I don't know that there is much of an argument that their stricter speech restrictions have them any closer to authoritarianism than the various problems in the US have us.
The universe is eventually consistent
So did I :-)
I hope to work on a product where productivity isn't as essential as the quality of a design system to use such approach.

Saw the folks behind a CSS-in-JS library (Stitches) move to it recently[1]

However, they still saw the need for utility classes for cases where devs want to hack together something custom[2]

[1]: https://twitter.com/colmtuite/status/1572918908637650944
[2]: https://twitter.com/colmtuite/status/1572918911301218305
SpaceX fires up 11 engines as it prepares rocket for orbital test
This makes me sad and confused.

Isn't "Data" the worst possible name one could use for anything in programming? I am not exaggerating; it is literally the example I have always used.

If Data is an immutable struct, call it ImmutableStruct. If that's too long, there's ImmuStruct or IStruct. Any of those names is better than Data. They are all more concise.
> Code is little more than a very formal way to describe an algorithm, the difference between a detailed algorithm and a piece of code is very small in many cases. And in the cases where the given algorithm is general and no code is given, reproducibility is at stakes.

If you follow discussions about how to comment code properly, you will see that an important thing to understand to comment code properly is the fact that your comment should not describe the code, but explain the code. In science, the explanation is a very very very important part of what the community wants. The fact that this distinction exists for comments is the proof that "just the code" is not enough.

Then, yes, of course, it does not hurt to give the code. I have NEVER said otherwise. But just re-read the discussion: my point is that, in practice and in reality, the EXPLANATION is way more important than the description in scientific research, and, because of that, the scientific community is way more interested in discussing the explanation rather than the description (not that it is 100% useless, the same way that discussing plenty of other things is not 100% useless).

> ... reproducibility is at stakes.

True. But in this case, trying to solve that by giving the code is the worst way of solving reproducibility. If the EXPLANATION is not well done, than the science is not there. If you can't reproduce because you don't have a good explanation, than, the solution is to fix the explanation, not to give an unexplained code. Describing the code will NOT fix that, but will let bad science being used ("well, I have the code. I don't know exactly why they have done like that, but I can run the code, so let's use it")

> But ideally you want both: the description of the procedure to rewrite an equivalent program, and the actual code that gave the results detailed in the article. This is happening more and more frequently, and this is a good thing.

No one so far in this discussion disagrees with that. If I was not trying to strongly give the benefit of the doubt, I would be tempted to conclude from this discussion that this disproportionate reaction to just "they are not interested in the code" is from few persons who are totally oblivious of how science works, but are somehow triggered by the idea that the code is not the most important thing in the scientists eyes.

It just comforts me in the idea that some computer scientists have no idea of what are the tensions when doing science (some computer scientists, not all) and just refuse even to consider that maybe it is simply slightly different.
I was not making any judgement or criticism of Ruby, just stating that the error message in this specific instance could be more helpful.
really like the vampire (survivors-inspired?) side-scroller, thanks for sharing them all.
This sounds like a conspiracy theory.
> I don't count the EU as a single trading block because it doesn't have the internal coherence compared to the US.

I don't understand what you mean by this, it's a single trading block, if required the EU as a whole will implement tariffs because if each country could pick and choose then the whole free-trade thing would be pointless, it'd be an eternal race to the bottom for which country would offer a better agreement to trade with China.

Or do you mean that because the EU as a bloc has different interests in foreign policy that then it can't take a single unified decision if needed?

In that case, the USA surely has states influencing its foreign policy depending on their economy of exports to foreign countries, it's normal politics to defend the interests of your voting base and if those are dependent on exports to a specific country of course there's pressure on the Federal government's foreign policy...
What "slow burning genocide" are you referring to here? Because, without knowing the specifics, this sounds like extreme hyperventilating.
Really great to avoid using Google Translate
I used the MV/8000 at a SCADA company where I worked part-time in college. It was a nice step up from the 16-bit DG Nova machines we used earlier.
How not to manage a business, starring Twitter's Elon Musk
No, they’re trying to say that Martin Fowler introduced the Value Object.
They’re both shortcuts to creating class-like things.

Take @dataclass in python for example, that’s similar to Struct for Ruby.

‘Data’ documentation from the GitHub PR (https://zverok.space/ruby-rdoc/Data.html):

Data provides no member writers, or enumerators: it is meant to be a storage for immutable atomic values. But note that if some of data members is of a mutable class, Data does no additional immutability enforcement

See also Struct, which is a similar concept, but has more container-alike API, allowing to change contents of the object and enumerate it.
SF’s New 'Futuristic’ Public Toilet Breaks Down on Just Third Day on the Job
Agreed! I switched to a Gli.net Flint router which has AdGuard built in. It’s incredibly simple to setup compared to a separate pi-hole and easy to edit a custom Allow/Block list. No hesitation in recommending this to non-technical people too.
IT still costs more money to haul cardboard from residential areas, compared to a large commercial building.
Why are you afraid of the old polio strain? 70% of those who contract it are asymptomatic, and the death rate in the decades before the vaccine was under 1 in 100000… not altogether different from sars-cov-2. To be more scared of polio than Covid seems contradictory.
What if all the bamboo grown is already used for other things? A whole new box industry would need new supply.
As I learned on a different post on HN, you can use either ferment or foment in this context.

Definitions by Google.

> Ferment: 2. incite or stir up (trouble or disorder).

> Foment: 1. instigate or stir up (an undesirable or violent sentiment or course of action).

I still think ferment sounds totally wrong too.
In rough order of effort (and inverse order of intrusiveness to your environment):

You could use a view (or views) and a read-only user. The view could limit access to a single tenant and also abstract away changes to the schema if needed.

If you want more separation, you could use a read replica, again with a view.

You could also build an of ETL workflow to extract the tenants data, transform it if needed, and push it somewhere else.

Finally, make sure they pay for this. I'd scope out what they need and quote a price before doing anything except exploratory work.

We have an internal feature (we've yet to build) to offer a nightly database export of customers' data. We'll just send it to an s3 bucket they provide and let them take the data how they want. But this is a feature that will be restricted to our enterprise plans, most likely.
An example discussed earlier this year on HN: Joseph Kelly tweeted

> the only good Brit soldier is a deed one, burn auld fella, buuuuurn

in relation to Tom Moore’s death. He deleted the tweet after 20 minutes. He was convicted of grossly offensive communications under the Communications Act, and was sentenced to 18 month’s probation and 150 hours of unpaid work.
A year ago, I wanted to use this library but it's way too buggy imo. Stuff kept breaking, incompatible with React. Tried to use with Electron.js only to find out it's not supported (I think the issue's still open).

So I ditched this in favor of real ffmpeg binary that I can download according to someone's PC architecture. It works better and is also fast. Downsides? I can't use it on the web but at least electron.js would allow me to use the binary.

https://github.com/upscayl/ffmpeg
Better Language Models Without Compute
What is a good simple to use open-source app or lib that is able to do translations locally?
I learned photoshop for the first time to make signatures for my forum buddies, little did I know I was setting the path of my entire life...
One of the secrecy things in that piece really resonated.

I was at an executive briefing with some major customer at the briefing center. We were a couple of days away from from some new product launch that was relevant to the briefing but were under orders not to say anything. Anyway, my--I think--manager's manager decided to sketch a few TBA things out on the whiteboard or blackboard anyway when Edson walked in to say hello. She very unobstrusively managed to erase what was on the board before Edson noticed.
It does seem odd. Almost everyone who they hire (in these roles) can code. If you are just hiring traders, why not hire guys who can...you know...trade? Rather than some random person from MIT. The precise competitive advantage of JS is their tech.

I will say this another way...back in the early 2000s, investment banks used to hire people to do index arbs, the strat was literally press sell/buy button on Excel that will execute basket cash trades against an index, call our broker up on the floor and sell/buy futures...that was it. The strong implication is that JS is hiring people to do that kind of thing...investment banks stopped hiring these guys by the mid-2000s. The idea of the "maverick trader" who is just very creative doesn't really exist...almost all of those people who do that at hedge funds spent decades at investment banks where they had access to flow...and most of those people never graduated to hedge funds in the 2000s and just became execution traders. Again, JS is hiring these people out of college...that is weird. That is exceptionally weird. No hedge fund does this. No investment bank does this. No-one does this. A few trading houses do this (not many, Optiver is the only one left afaik...there used to be more, most went bust) but it is counter to the image that JS presents. As someone who knows a little about trading, this struck me immediately as extremely odd. Looking at their job listings...yes, it is odd (they have a job listing for traders: it says you should know how to program in at least one language).

Okay, the guy from Wintermute (who presumably knows something about trading) said he assumed they were doing something clever and was shocked when they failed. Also, they did a YouTube video which explained what some of the stuff they were doing was, that wasn't exactly surprising but I think people assumed (reasonably) they had more edge than they did (the reason they didn't was because they were cheating, nothing else).

Right, I think the current view is: they probably went bust in June/July (or whenever the earlier crash was), and some of the numbers they told other people about how much they made may have been fictional (I have read that they were losing money before they went bust but other people have said, again the Wintermute CEO, that they assumed FTX were making money because of what they were seeing in markets...again though, they were doing things that were obviously illegal so they were clearly making money from other things after Japan).
Every supermarket in NL does this and has done for at least 20 years. IIRC the UK supermarkets are the same.

In NL we also recycle most drinks bottles (you pay a small deposit on them which you get back when your return them).
> Entire forests and enormous factories running 24/7 can barely keep up with demand

> But no widely available shipping or packaging material can match cardboard’s recyclability, which hovers annually between 90 and 91 percent.

This begs the question: what is cardboard being recycled into?
I'm using this in a current project and it really is great to be able to do things in the browser that would otherwise require a nontrivial native client. One limitation I'd like to figure out how to get around is the 2GB file size limit. According to the docs, this is a WebAssembly limitation? It's not hard to find videos that cross that size.
Yes, all pine foresters can afford to silviculturally thin their forest estates, on time, so they produce larger, more valuable sawlogs in the future.

The pulplog and residues go into making cardboard to protect valuable products in their journey to customers, reducing damage and waste.

And as a bonus, it reduces the mega fire risk of the forests.

A win for forests and animals, a win for the customer, a win for employees, a win for investors, thank you Mr Pratt.
This is great to take a quick look at some old piece of software, but if you want to get more involved, I would suggest something less constrained and more performant than a web app. I can't speak for other platforms, but https://86box.net/ seems to be the standard for old PC emulation on desktop OSes.
All those buttons and it still doesn’t make my browser choke like many of today’s single web pages do.
There's nothing new about this stuff, and I'd hesitate before declaring it more widespread than it ever was before. The Satanic Panic was worse in this vein by far, and there was no internet.

The scary thing in the current age is the re-mainstreaming of political-party allied all-encompassing conspiracy theories, like Q/Pizzagate and Russiagate. America has become John Birchers vs. Joe McCarthyites while the environment is dying, infrastructure is crumbling, the wealth gap is absurd and constantly widening, and the vendors of arms and services are trying to provoke us into a nuclear war as a flowery garnish on our half-dozen forever wars.

That's just bringing back the 50s, though.
> I'm not sure many languages support the introduction of types such as:

Any language with types can enforce any proposition you can reliably check, which you run as part of the type's constructor. There are multiple ways to do this, for instance in pseudo-ML:

> * An integer that is sum of two primes.

type SumOfPrimes
fn sumOfPrimes : Prime -> Prime -> SumOfPrimes
type Prime
fn primeOfInt : Int -> Maybe Prime

> * A string that is created between the hours of 2 pm - 4 pm on a Tuesday.

type Tuesday2To4String
fn whichString : Clock -> String -> Either String Tuesday2To4String

> * A dictionary who's fields comprise a valid tax return.

type ValidTaxReturn
fn checkTaxReturn : Dictionary String String -> Maybe ValidTaxReturn

> What do you mean by future proving? If the new version of the code doesn't ship by 2 pm today, the company goes bankrupt and there is no future for the code.

Shipping broken code will not save the company from bankruptcy. It's also a myth that dynamically typed languages will get your code out faster.
Oh man the book both glorifies but also does a good job to me of making it all look crazy, not held together, just barely going, politically isolated.

That there was a cause, a mission was do much a product of the early times, when we just didn't know as much yet, weren't nearly as professional or well set yet. That's a little less apparent.
Value objects are equal if they have the same values (although are still different objects) - there's a little more to it than simply immutable data structures.
> There's a slow burning genocide afoot that's taking place though "reasoned debates," that serves as a counterexample.

I don't know if this is the right place to share a feeling, but I'm going to try to express it anyway.

I'm not sure whether you're right about this or not, but I think you might be, and it makes me sad almost more than you could believe. It genuinely depresses me.

The claim seems to be nothing short of saying that at the end of the day, all human intelligence sums to a net negative, at least in this area. That we're not collectively capable of rational discourse. That ultimately, we're so blinded by hate for the Other that debating our differences might actually lead to worse outcomes than if we just pulled guns to solve our problems. We're all ultimately just stumbling around in the dark. Maybe, one day, the light of humanity is doomed to go out.

I suspect that one reason liberals, rationalists, civil libertarians, and their allies are so insistent on free speech and an open public square is that they can't really bring themselves to take this possibility seriously. Or, to the extent they do, they think we have to ignore the possibility, because in the event this turns out to be true, who cares about humanity anyway?

Maybe the American attitude toward free speech is just a reflection of optimism about human nature?
And keyboard shortcuts!

The accelerator key annotations in dropdown menus were brilliant, as they unobtrusively trained you every time you used them.
I do dislike long walls of classes as well. However, I'm yet to find an alternative that offers the same benefits Tailwind CSS offers without such compromises.

Wrote about Vanilla-Extract shortcomings here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33793944
as if that makes it hunky-dory. hope that clears things up for you as well.
Are you asserting that the American Revolution was launched by "regulated state militias", as in: regulated by King George, or indirectly by his governors in the American colonies?
I got a few repetitions, and a few images that were very similar (like in a serie of drawings about the same character). Is the set of images the same for everyone or you are randomizing it?
Although I think the whole token-backed thing is completely unnecessary, it's not hard to imagine what value people walking, hiking, jogging and being physical has these days.
Hell, Struct already accepts keyword argument options (keyword_init), they could have just added a new one (immutable: true)

IMO ImmutableStruct is exactly as verbose as BasicObject, something that has been in Ruby for a long time now. ImmutableStruct is a massively better name for this.
Yes, it all falls under the fuzzily defined umbrellas of history/archaeology/anthropology. What you're talking about would fall under archaeoastronomy, a subfield of archaeology.
There are lots of parks, arboretums, and forest preserves where I live but very few places within them where you aren't subjected to sounds of traffic from nearby roads, trains, or from planes and other air traffic overhead.
Yes, there are quite a few places where you can, but not enough. Most software can't be changed.

And while you can edit (remap) the keybinds in [neo]Vim, there are limitations. You can't edit all of them at the same time without running into race conditions. I've tried and failed.

And even Emacs - a nearly best-case scenario - is a struggle. First, you have to remap all the Emacs functions you want to change. Then you have to remap all the plugins you use. It's a lot of unnecessary work, and it's tricky to find your way around.
Ten minutes into reading the documentation and I believe that this is a really important technology. I can't wait to find how to integrate this into my own code.

Impressive and very cool!
Got it. So this would be more of a hybrid approach and clears up that question on naming granularity. Give the "component" a logical name and use the utility classes for the component's entities. That makes a lot more sense to me. I didn't realize those child entities were the things people were giving names to. CSS has fairly rich ancestry rules, so I just assumed people use them.

Thanks for taking the time to clarify that for me. It does indeed change my perception on utility classes.
That answer somehow reminds me of an article in logicmag: An Interview with an Anonymous Data Scientist [1].

[1]: https://logicmag.io/intelligence/interview-with-an-anonymous...
Good to hear you're doing relatively well, and I agree that injecting positivity where you can is probably one of the sanest ways to live.
Regarding the business impact of data science related work, as a working ds and team lead a have a few thoughts.
There are some sectors and activities that are very data science like, to using a blunt anachronism, have been like that for a long time, and have a lot of teachings on how to develop and measure impact on business by the automated decision systems and/or analytical work that they build. Some examples are:

- demand forecasting for supply chain processes
- credit scoring for loan approval
- portfolio risk analysis in financial settings
- some misc optimizations work on operations
- maybe even six sigma can be listed here

Those have always had a data-science-like feel to it. The problem I see is when companies try to implement a data science team is:

1. push out subject expert knowledge and requirements just for the "freedom";
2. have stake holders to be out of touch with the solutions;
3. too litle focus on putting stuff "in production", tracking, beeing able to experiment, in whatever sense those have for the company;
4. too much focus on numbers that can come out of the ds's computer, and treating operation related numbers as an after thought;
5. no basic knowledge of simple/common/classic solutions for their problem at hand.

So yeah, making business impact is way harder than is sounds, and too out of the skill set for the 23yo STEM graduate to actually make impact. And too buzzwordy and impressive for the typical decision maker. I mean, I've heard countless times things like: "if an AI knows how to tell a cat from a dog by using one of those neural nets logarithms, surely it can know how to partition my marketing budget, optimize my coupon giving logic and determine the strategy we should have in order to achieve a very obscurely constructed OKR".
(yes, I have worked for people that used the word logarithm to mean algorithm).
Very interesting, and great work contributing to the open source community!

Can you elaborate on how you did the profiling to identify the (potentially) slow parts?
> I encounter a lot more smug static weenies than smug dynamic weenies, so I defend dynamic typing out of spite. There have been a few cases where I was surrounded by SDWs and I immediately flipped around to being pro-static.

I find such statements incredibly daunting. Like the person is acting like a child for no other reason then to be contrarian. I'd hate to work with such a person.
Seconding HeartBeast
I was always wondering about weird dimension choice. Why on Earth they are 88*31? Okay, 88 is divisible by 8 and 8 is bits per byte and we can bit-map one row to 11 bytes maybe, using gif paletted compression. But why 31? Why not 32, which is at least a power of 2?