skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Twitter is competition to Facebook, Facebook to Twitter, and as we're observing thanks to Twitter coming under new management, Mastodon is competition to Twitter also.

> If you stifle voices on that platform majority of the country won't hear them

This is technically correct (the best kind of correct) but doesn't imply either a legal or moral responsibility on Twitter's part. Freedom of the press has never meant one is obliged to let others use one's press; in fact, it means the opposite.

If people want a channel more unbiased than Twitter [1], they should build it. The Musk purchase has shown how fragile the bird really is when the users lose confidence in it.

You note that them not technically being public is a problem. I think you raise an interesting question: what would a technically public forum look like and who would build it? If the government built it, do we imagine it would run the Post story, or would those in charge of it squelch it because the story is harmful to the active regime? It is, perhaps, best for the government to be out of the business of editorial work; leave that to the press.

(... and if one wants a government-subsidized communication channel that isn't edited by someone else: that's the Internet and we already have it. Then one's goal to combat Twitter becomes building a service as easy-to-use as Twitter that everyone can use; make the press itself as free as possible. I recommend supporting the Mastodon project if that's one's goal. Or put effort into making one of the many, many blogging software packages of the world ever more turnkey. The way to maximize freedom of the press is to maximize presses, not constrain how the freedom can be used).

[1] long experience suggests to me what you actually get when you try this experiment is a channel with different biases, but by all means.
> Meat industry has huge political influence.

I'll grant you poultry (chicken, turkey) producers with their sweet, sweet supply management deal. But producers of other meat products? I'd say they are essentially ignored in political circles. If they actually had huge political influence they'd be all over supply management like the poultry producers are afforded. If you venture out into the backroads it's painfully obvious how much richer the poultry producers are compared to their beef and pork producing neighbours, and it is downright sad when you look at those producing less common meats.

The government pays 40% of the insurance premiums for crop insurance (insurance against mother nature) which is a subsidy to plant growers, and is sometimes claimed to by a subsidy to animal producers by extension, but the program doesn't factor in where the product goes. Navy beans grown for humans are very bit as eligible for those subsidies as corn grown for cattle. While it is fair to call it a subsidy, it would be quite disingenuous to claim that is a meat subsidy but not a 'meat alternative' subsidy as well.
It's interesting that although you can't prove "forall P, P or not P" in intuitionistic logic, you can prove "forall P, not (not (P or not P))". In other words, it can't possibly be the case that P is not either true or false.

This is particularly easy to do in Coq:

Theorem lem : forall (p : Prop), ~ ~ (p \/ ~p).
Proof.
tauto.
Qed.

I personally like the distinction between "this is true" and "this can't possibly be false". If you have a proof of the second, you know why something must be true; if you have a proof of the first, you know how something is true.

The rejection of double-negation elimination is more or less the (rather intuitive) idea that knowing why something must be true doesn't automatically mean you know how it's true.
Propose them.
Thanks for the clarification!
(PS: I’m Italian and here’s still illegal at any level and this is a shame)
They can't explain the difference between an outline and a border though, and especially can't explain when to use which. If you try to use Tailwind without understanding that, you're gonna have a Bad Time™.
They mentioned engineering programs in their comment.

40 hours isn't normal even for engineering programs. Every engineering program I've looked at has higher course hour and credits required. Obviously I haven't looked at every single engineering program at every engineering school, so there probably exists some counter example showing it's no different than arts or science..

Where I studied, we had one semester with 40.5 hours of lecture, lab, and tutorials. One other semester was around 38 or 39 hours. The rest were in the mid-twenties for lecture, lab, tutorial. My program wasn't the typical engineering program, but all of the other engineering schools where I went (Western Canada) did require more credits and more class hours than science and arts and business programs. There may have been some exceptions with honors programs (meaning they have to take 132 credits vs 120 credits and write a thesis) in arts and science that put them closer to engineering programs, but these have limited enrollment.
> how companies create 10x engineers

They don't. All the ones I can think of appeared before getting paid. I'd hesitate to say they are born but they're certainly not made in the corporate world.

Also to answer your first question: my company isn't.
In the 80s there was an April Fools issue of "Communications of the ACM" positing a "COME FROM" statement (not too long after "GOTO Considered Harmful"):

https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/358027.358043

It was a joke because of course it was obviously worse than GOTO. But much of modern programming seems to consist precisely of COME FROM style constructs. A common term is "inversion of control", which can also mean "You don't have control".

As with metaprogramming, it's powerful in that it can take control of your system without your direction, but dangerous in that it's hard to predict when it will. I find that the hardest thing to debug is when things don't happen, when it's out of your control to make them happen. There's no place to put a debugger on "never happened".

Dynamic types, similarly, are hard to debug because they fail by not happening. Errors aren't caught, but there's no instant at which it wasn't caught because it was "any time".
That's accounting speak for true ownership. But they do get around this listing some legal entity in a tax haven.
I find that in general, the phenomenon of people parking non-EV cars in EV charging spots has gotten a lot better. I think this probably has a lot to do with the massive increase in tow-away signs I see at these spots. To me, and probably most others, a tow-away is massively worse than almost any fine you are likely to see.
The corn for feed is just used as a protein source though. I'm not sure why you couldn't grind it up for use as a protein source in say a plant-based burger.
Well, but the metric in the study doesn't count those anyway. It's just about gasoline used by cars, and they get their number by considering how much gas would have been used if all the miles driven by EV had instead been driven by a similar gas-consuming vehicle.
> Meaning you could absolutely suck at your job or be incredible at it and you’d get nearly the same regards in either case.

Story time.

There was once a junior data scientist at Shopify that had learned Python and SQL and was tasked to figuring out how to fix their "broken app store recommendation engine" but since they didn't know Ruby, they asked for my help in figuring out what was going on.

Well somewhere in the soup of math was a fuzz factor at the very top. Think of it like

factor = 0.something # Not 100% sure what the decimal portion was.
some_complicated_math_that_maxed_out_at_one_pt_zero() + rand(factor)

Now the thing about ruby is that rand is basically broken for floats.

Negative or floating point values for max are allowed, but may give surprising results.

https://ruby-doc.org/core-2.4.0/Kernel.html#method-i-rand

So basically what they thought they were doing was introducing a bit of randomness that would hinder others from reverse engineering their algorithm. What they actually did was make the recommendation algorithm fifty percent total noise. Yes, it's true. On every load half the recommended app scores were noise.

They fixed the bug and I'm sure a ton of balance sheets for businesses around the world are markedly different know because of it, but I never heard of it again.

This is one of the core problems with data science.

The lack of feedback.
Just Mastodon Isn’t a Replacement for Twitter
Mastodon Just Isn’t a Replacement for Twitter
Mastodon Isn’t Just a Replacement for Twitter
Mastodon Isn’t a Just Replacement for Twitter
Mastodon Isn’t a Replacement Just for Twitter
Mastodon Isn’t a Replacement for Just Twitter
Mastodon Isn’t a Replacement for Twitter Just

Yep, I’ve seen most of those blogposts
Why do you assume that one can't assign a semantics to code that happens to be included within the program as a runtime construct? Such semantics might even be "compile-time" checked in a conventional way, if one can come up with a machine-checked proof that the runtime treatment of such "constructs" does preserve whatever semantics one cares about. Of course this runs into concerns with Turing-completeness in the fully general case, but for many practical scenarios such a check might well be feasible.
Look up the technical presenters at your favorite math or stats conference and look at the orgs they work for. That's how you can tell which orgs are serious about solving research problems and spreading solutions.
The french academy would undoubtedly find a reason to be upset, and being unable to negotiate with a bottom of the barrel AI blackbox that only knows how to suggest different words, start WWIII in an attempt to right what they consider wrong.
This is exactly the reason why I was looking for an alternative and found AGH.
This is the website that i share with folks who are new to the Fediverse.
Calcium can inhibit iron absorption. If your multi-vitamin has calcium, it likely won't have iron.
https://archive.ph/rp6U2
Science is not a gospel and it absolutely does change. In fact that's its main differentiating trait. Your theory that science produces certainty is infantile.
Since they have lots of pull in the industry it makes lots of sense for google to partner with them. Possibly they can modernize them but I don’t think that is very likely this looks like more of making a larger moat for both companies.
Sam is claiming he himself also donated to Republicans https://youtu.be/6DezodR9hNI

His claim is he donated through dark money via Citizens United in order to avoid media attention for donating to Republicans.

But I’m at the point where I believe nothing coming out of his mouth.
Treating large companies differently than private citizens seems pretty reasonable to me.

At some point, money is no longer about consumption, it's a form of power. We should be able to identify those with power.
Nothing, really, except that there's less data to mine. And, of course, if it's not part of the base software, they have to do all the coding themselves. And to what end? If they run ads, users will bail to another server, because they can.
Just tried it. No information on ownership there. The only information is our accountants address and the name of the CEO. Zero information about our true owner or significant investors...
Depending on the use-case rclone's crypt remote might suit.

https://rclone.org/crypt/
People like David from System Crafters and Prot are definitely doing a lot to bringing Emacs backs to the masses. They are a visible manifestation of the technical (and media) quality of part of the community. I do not think they get enough credit.
RIP Peter Eckersley
Building an OS is hard. There's no way around its complexity. But closing your eyes and pretending everything is a file is a security disaster waiting to happen (actually, happening every day).

And furthermore, OS research is not only about building Linux alternatives. There are a lot of operating systems that have a much narrower focus than full-blown multi-tenant GPOS. So building holistic systems with a narrower focus is a much more achievable goal.

> As for the components, at least their interfaces are standardized

That's not true once you step into SoC land. Components are running walled-garden firmware and binary blobs that are undocumented. There's just no incentive to provide a developer platform if no one gives a shit about holistic OSes in the first place.
This is when I repeat my silly joke that I'd rather see Skeletor doing live coding than another anime girl with pitched upvoice.

Enough furries and anime girls, people. They are cute, but there is more to animated art
This has never been public record in the US, part of how America’s lax reporting requirements for private companies have traditionally made it more “business friendly” than Europe.

As of 2024 private entities in the US will need to report ownership to FinCEN though it still won’t be available to the public.
> and warn when the compiler finds a problem but allow the program to run anyway

Your compiler giving you a type check error is saying that the program is meaningless. What is the advantage of running a program that is known to be wrong?

The design of the type system will define what is meaningful/meaningless per type check rule (eg a missing branch which can be a warning vs an ambiguous type inference that means the program cannot be compiled). The question is really whether you want to design a type system that can be checked statically, which to me the no-brainer answer is "yes."

I don't want to have to run the program to know if it type checks. I don't want to have to run it to know what types are in the program, or the signature of functions. I want my tool to tell me when my code is provably wrong, and to prevent provably wrong code from being merged into a codebase without executing it.
It could be worse. You could be imagining Peter Jurasik as Londo Mollari singing this in a continuous loop.
This resonates with me so much, I stumbled into data science out of University a decade ago. Left it to do SWE and came back to it in the last 3 years.

So many data scientists are full of themselves thinking they are magicians and software developers are blacksmiths who are beneath them.

Incrementally at my company the SWE's have automated so much of the data scientists workflow that they end up just as you describe, using the tooling and being relegated to becoming analysts.

After 3 years coming back to this field, I see the writing on the wall: In the 90's most models were created by software developers, in the 2030's most models will be created by software developers.
This is the best opinion about this topic I’ve ever read and I thought that after 20 years of programming in as many languages I knew them all.
By "successful", did you mean from a technical/engineering perspective, or do you mean that one software stack (and instances that use said software) has been able to attract more newbies?
If people penciled it out logically it makes no sense for a startup to return to office. Consider these two startups:

Startup A, paying for an office lease, recruiting talent willing to live near the office.

Startup B, saving thousands of dollars not having to pay an office lease, is able to recruit talent from around the world and with the overhead savings can pay for better talent and/or a larger labor pool.

It's pretty obvious here that startup B is set up a lot better for success and has a head and shoulders advantage over startup A. This is not even considering the massive environmental costs from commuting and building an office building. The only reason to go for a model like startup A is if you 1, don't care about the environmental costs, and 2, believe in the hooey about "in person synergy" and value that more than just paying for more experience or more people.
>To me, an actual pedophile

who says this? probably not "actual pedophile[s]"

>To you, these photos are not pedophilic. To me, an actual pedophile, these photos are. To each their own path. It is, afterall, a satanic truth that some things can have two opposing properties at the same time.

So you're saying that the photos tell us more about the viewers, based on their reactions, than about the photography itself? Interesting take, actual pedophile; interesting take.
This reminds me of the seminal article by The Correspondent about online advertising: https://thecorrespondent.com/100/the-new-dot-com-bubble-is-h...

Relying on your data science or marketing department to tell you how good your data science or marketing department is doing, with their own metrics and their own evaluation methods that you don't understand, can only really lead to one outcome.
Crypto Mystry Deaths Pile Up
The more senior the candidate is, the less important is how they code. Important things I consider in order:

- can they communicate? Can we talk about tech stuff in a way that we actually understand each other?

- what kind of domain expertise they have? E-commerce? Banking? Cloud? Compilers? ...

- how good they are at building abstractions

- ... a lot of stuff like: not being an asshole, being a team-player, being positive (or realistic), honest...

- how good they code
They're not in our case. No owners are listed at all in fact. The only details are the CEO and our accountant (a company not an individual) as directors...
> You don't need docker or LAMP stack. Just pull binary and run it.

It's almost like there's a lot of needless overhead in modern software or something.
Each participant needs to verify each and every other participant. So for 2 participants that's 2 verifications. For 3 participants that is 9 verifications. For 4 it's 16. The square of the number of participants. With just 30 participants that works out to 900 verifications ... and who actually knows 30 people on the internet? Even if you could do the verification in a technical sense it wouldn't mean anything.

If you get a whole bunch of people together in real life for a meeting then chances are one or more of them is going to leak what happened. The problem is to a great extent inherent.
I don't actually think I disagree with any of that. I would note, though, that the pre-European burn scars could have definitely been viewed from space.[1] And today, at least in the PNW, clearcuts are limited in size (e.g., in Oregon and Washington, they're limited to 120 acres, and are on average much smaller).

[1]http://www.nwmapsco.com/ZybachB/Presentations/2010-2015/2012...
Something like.
Hydrogen is a very hard gas to use. If you talk to anyone who has shipped products using it (most likely in military/space applications), the fundamental behaviors of it in materials science are very difficult. It’ll make your nice fancy metal pipes flake apart. Good luck with any sort of gaskets. Being the smallest molecule means it will escape in a moment’s notice.
Our new guide to Google Search ranking systems
Anecdotally I have had 0 issues with exFat and it is what I use for any storage device not intended to live on one machine permanently because I can trust it to read on just about anything and 4GB file size is not a practical limitation now.

Ideally there would be a better, universal file system but I believe it is the best we have at this point.

I haven’t had any issues with data corruption personally. Your mileage may vary.
That's my point. How did emacs influence this? Emacs is nothing like that. If anything, emacs has failed. Everything else is either proprietary or company/plugin based. And mouse based.

Imagine spending 8 hours a day for the rest of your life and you still want a cursor based popup telling you what you might or might not want to do instead of having muscle memory of what you do.
STUN servers are only required for NAT punching, they don’t relay traffic. Only TURN servers are used as relays in the event that a direction connection can’t be established.
I was an early adopter of "the Internet" in the 00s. Nowadays I'm "too old to know/use X/Y/Z". Damn kids, I helped build this sheet! :D
I don’t think it’s a question of standards. It’s more that HTML and PDF are different things that solve different problems. PDF is supposed to be a static document that looks exactly the same in every compliant PDF reader. A correctly built PDF with have every glyph that it uses embedded, for example. It’s archival, in the sense that it will always look the same, in all future versions of PDF readers. HTML is markup that describes the author’s intentions to the browser. The reader can use his or her own fonts and have other preferences. The text might reflow to fit screens of various sizes. I can read it on my terminal with lynx. You can embed all kinds of resources from the network. One can take heroic measures¹ to force an exact rendering, but, in my opinion, that’s a dead end that hacks a markup system to do what it’s not intended to do.

PDF works great on the web; we don’t need to force HTML to replicate its abilities. It already has hyperlinks, and we can seemlessly navigate bewteen PDF and HTML pages in the browser.

[1] https://github.com/coolwanglu/pdf2htmlEX
I was just getting ready to say the same thing and was wishing for a plugin that would replace all exclamation points with a period. That would make reading much easier
Because I value uptime. I don't want my garbage PC that runs PiHole to crash and totally take down the network.

I have many hardwired devices, they may not.

I need two APs as I live in an older house and I get crappy reception in my basement. I also want a guest and IoT network so I chose to use VLANs to segregate, which requires switching and APs that can do that.

Yes, if you do this all the time (I do too) it's not that hard. But it's certainly not a beginner project.
> But at the end the deliverable is a combination of documentation, code and software is it not?

No. At the end the deliverable is built based on communication between individuals on a team. If that doesn't work, it doesn't matter how good the code produced by your individuals is; it's going to be a mess.
Same thing stopping NYC. They don't have the psych beds available to put these people in.
Nah, arguing "you can't ever analyze the belief structure of a large group" is a non-starter for me. We've seen the blood libel crop up over and over again for literally thousands of years, and here it is again.
> So whats your solution to both 1) homelessness

Houses.

> many homeless (not all) that menace pedestrians and businesses on a daily basis?

Houses.

You see, the answer is simple but there is just no will to do it because people do not care about the mentally ill. We scare people for no reason but their own ignorance. I would say 90% of the mentally ill would have a great remission of their symptoms if they had stable housing.

I am homeless, all I need is a simple fcking studio but even making a lot of money from disability I cannot afford one anymore and I get shut down by people who do not want to rent to me because I am on diability.
> The key problem has been that the resulting programs are fantastically hard to understand. One of the things I think Dijkstra got right in "Goto Considered Harmful" is that humans can reason about programs better when there's a strong correspondence between the textual structure of the code and its execution structure at runtime.

This resonates very strongly with me. I've been doing a whole bunch of side/toy projects in Rust for months, and I can attest that even compile-time metaprogramming can make programs "fantastically hard to understand". Runtime metaprogramming makes that problem an order of magnitude worse.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against metaprogramming, either compile-time or runtime. But it's way too easy to get overly enthusiastic when doing it.