skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don't understand how this dichotomy can be useful to you. Even for "ends vs means" the answer isn't always white-or-black.

I see what you're saying, I just don't understand how it promotes a healthy discussion here.
Through what mechanism is it possible for them do bypass custom DNS servers? Does DNS over other protocols prevent this tampering?
I imagine this is possible because of better modulation of the acoustic and pressure controllers to minimize energy loss..
I used to work at Pex, where microservices were done beautifully.

Pex's microservice architecture scaled tremendously. Their product crawls and processes all the audio and video produced on the entire internet in near-real-time.

> Are microservices inherently bad or your criticism might come from a terrible implementation you've had to suffer?

Microservices are not inherently bad.

> In an ideal scenario where said implementation and architecture is well designed and robust, would you enjoy working with them?

I think Pex's microservice architecture was as good as it gets... and I decided that I wanted to avoid distributed systems for the rest of my life haha

> Do you think, honestly, that it is just a trend that comes from the big companies and book sellers and eventually will dissapear and there is no a real need for it for the vast majority of cases?

Microservices seem to be great for giant backbone/infrastructure stuff like Netflix, AWS, Pex, Cloudflare, Squarespace, etc.

Sometime managers shout "conway's law" and decide they need hard network boundaries. I'm unsure what to tell those teams.

Many engineers trick themselves into thinking that their company is special and needs the extra scalability or whatever, when it's simply not true. If your problem can be solved by load balancers or caching or DB indexes, you are not even close to needing microservices.

In my experience, monoliths seem to be the right choice for 99% of cases.
Thanks for this advice. I'm currently in the process or re-doing the website and this is really useful feedback. Hopefully a lot of these issues have already been addressed. I'll be uploading the new site in a day or two.

The sudden activity on this site kind of took me by surprise, I wasn't quite ready for the big reveal.
> but there's no reason why you'd expect that the price of anything would stay at the exact same ratio it was 30 yrs ago.

I am specifically saying that homes in my area, and most others, have risen in price at a MUCH faster rate than incomes. My example was meant to describe that situation, not just "standard inflation".
Not sure 'hatred' is the correct word, more likely overused and solving a problem that most often doesn't exist (yet) or developers interested in playing with shiny new tools (resume-driven development).

It can also lead to extra complexity. i.e. how do they all these micro-services talk to each other? event-bus or http/profbuf calls? how do they deal with one of them being down? how is this failure handled on the front-end? How is support of production now handled?

Typically this can be the hard (and most boring) part of micro-services which is often neglected and reflects badly on the final product.

There can be a tendency for inexperienced developers to skip the v1 of a project (KISS) and go straight to 'plan for FAANG web-scale' from day 1. There be dragons...

I remember one time during an interview where I was explaining an architecture I had built in a previous startup (sole engineer/architect) and the interviewer got all angry (he raised his voice dramatically) that it was all badly designed because I hadn't gotten the full micro-services approach from the get-go.

Knowing that the interview was blown (there wasn't a chance in hell I wanted to work for someone like that), I explained that maybe architecture recommendations should be based on knowing runway (not funded startup, so limited), engineering resources (just me, so really pushed for time), whether PMF had been achieved yet (it hadn't, I had rewritten it multiple times beforehand) and the number of users and the potential choke-points/bottlenecks in load (none really as user acquisition is always a problem pre PMF)

Generally I go via the monolith approach (at least initially). It's KISS and tends to lead to faster dev time.
Writing a hard/challenging exam is not difficult. The problem is most bad or even average students will fail. The tricky part is striking a balance such that the good students feel pushed, and the weaker students still have a chance to demonstrate they at least engaged and understand the basics.
I run a single 43" monitor. I vastly prefer it over 2 monitors due to running a tiling window manager. I'm sure there are good ones for Linux and Windows, but on MacOS Rectangle is where it's at.

But if you really need to have multiple monitors, you'll need a pretty big desk to make it work.
Verbal communication may be the default option but there is a reason we often defer to (carefully constructed) written communication in complex domains. While emotional nuances may be clearer (to some) in verbal communication, the details of complex ideas often are not. Have you ever tried to "talk code" at someone without the aid of written code? It's woefully inefficient and prone to miscommunication. Writing allows you to externalize state and forces you to make explicit unstated assumptions that may simply go uncommunicated in verbal exchanges. Indeed, in your examples, the screen share on which the code can be read by both parties seems to be doing most of the clarifying work, that is, you are cheating and using written communication anyway.

>I said most people learn to speak before they learn to write. Is that untrue?

This is true but completely irrelevant. Most people also learn how to dance before they learn how to write, that does not mean interpretive dance is a suitable medium for conveying technical information.

>How about the idea that you can communicate (crudely, sure) with gestures even with people you don't share a common language with?

This is an edge case, and again, kind of cheating as you are attributing the benefits of visual aids to the verbal format. It does not provide any evidence that spoken communication is universally better.

>How about the idea that both writing comprehensively and reading comprehension are high level skills that many people don't possess enough to truly communicate effectively via writing? Do you disagree?

Reading comprehension and the ability to write cogently are basic skills of any knowledge work. I think people who are poor communicators are probably poor communicators regardless of medium, so this is a red herring. In general, the things you are saying are true to some extent but do not constitute an argument for verbal communication being universally better than written (your claim). Rather, even if I am charitable and ignore the clearly fallacious parts of your argument, at most you've shown that in some circumstances verbal communication has some advantages (a much weaker claim which does indeed seem rather uncontroversial).

>I don't think it's unfair to say that verbal communication is a cornerstone of the (near) universal human experience.

>This isn't just "my preference" is what I'm getting at. I'm pretty sure it's just the human default.

So, those of us with hearing problems or speech impediments are simply inhuman? This is the arrogance I was talking about. Your assumption that your preferences and the way that you work most efficiently is universal when it is clearly not. Again, you are free to conduct yourself in this fashion but it won't make you many friends.
American Moon
Ultimately feminism or not isn't the point to me. You can't get two people in a room agreeing what feminism is and isn't anymore. No true scotsman etc. So I've given up arguing isms.

Whatever it is, we can all agree that society is in flux. Old rules are being thrown away, new and unproven rules are being written. There will victories, losses, and speed bumps along the way.

I'm not qualified to judge the goodness or badness of what's happening overall. I have my doubts, but they're mainly just for me as they reflect my personal experience and biases. Society will go on without me (and my generation) regardless of my views. In the end this is civilizations burden, not mine.

Still it's good to see stuff like this at least discussed. There was a time you got shot down for merely mentioning that many men have it hard as well.
Yes, setuptools is also perfectly fine. It had some rough edges around PEP 621 support for a while, but those were mostly smoothed out in 2021.

(I'll note that maturity is not strong evidence here: distutils is very mature, but is in the process of being deprecated and removed from Python entirely. I don't think that's likely to happen to setuptools, but the fact that behavioral PEPs now exist for all of these tools means that the decline/abandonment of any poses much less of an ecosystem risk.)
Tesla stock plunges 250 dollars, all four shareholders survive.
Starbucks tried this in 2015! https://stories.starbucks.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Fac... [pdf]
They're problems with cryptography insofar as they are problems that can be traced back to a distrust of Western cryptography and a desire to create domestic security products.
> In the software business, which government has so far not interfered with, prices have declined to zero (literally) with lots and lots of revolutionary software being developed.

Famously, software doesn't take any more resources to build and share than a few electrons and a laptop, so not quite the same market as homes which require a massive amount of resources to build.
There are any number of speculative designs that are naturally fail-safe, but none of them in operation (outside of test facilities).

I'm not a betting man, but I would wager a significant amount of money that by the time IMSR becomes widespread and approved it will require a large number of active failure measures to be considered "safe".

> If a nation seriously decided to invest in next generation nuclear, and were willing to put real money behind these designs, they could build them within a couple of years.

Sure -- they could do that with existing designs as well. But these things have a great deal of natural complexity, and once again, I would practically guarantee that whatever designs they choose will have active fail-safes, even if the concept does not require it in theory.
And stress can fuck your bowels pretty good. Best of both worlds :)
This is exactly how I read it at first, I figured maybe a 3% drop to use a word such as "plummet" or "plunge." Or, a 25% drop. Either of those, or any drop in value whatsoever, is fair game for any suitably catastrophic falling word.
A mix of modern safety, and also a major advantage of EVs in general (not just Tesla) - since there is no engine, the front of the car is basically just an empty crumble zone. That greatly increases survivability compare to traditional ICE cars in the same weight class.
Chris Dixon rightfully gets a few mentions, but Chris Lyons is another a16z GP that has been involved with funding these very questionable web3 & NFT projects.
for the time being it's fine (we're a long way away from having fast quantum computers where 2^64 is a significant problem), and AES-256 is already widely used
If status isn't being communicated well enough through general chatter and the multiple status tracking tools ("what do you mean, multiple?" everyone almost certainly uses at least Git and some kind of issue tracker, and it's not Git's main purpose but that definitely should convey some amount of status-related info) we're supposed to use daily, for the project manager to have what they need with nothing more than a couple impromptu "hey, what's up with X?" questions to the right people per week, something's seriously fucked up.

Granted, more often than not, something's seriously fucked up.
Thanks! Yeah the test is super creepy. You can email me if you have questions (see profile).

The "disgust" in your result (I have one too) is what's rare in tech and mostly what I'm talking about here. The Fixer is holding the entire industry together, from where I'm sitting, and the only archetype I ever 'click' with (I'm fear/disgust/pride, so we both have that instant inner critical voice). They are really good at the disgust -> prosocial process you mention. My archetype is... way worse at that.

Re: Skill. Yeah it's both, agreed. A role for virtue too.
I wasn't aware there was a mechanism to get the actual name attached to an object when it is instantiated in Python!
That alone made my day.
A second chef is probably a sous-chef. A fairly typical role, they’re basically the Will Riker of the kitchen.

FWIW: “…running his own three star restaurant…” often has just as fraught a story attached to it.
I work in Hong Kong, in the securities industry. We interact a lot with Korean laws, and all of APAC, and Korea is special in that they enjoy nonsensical rules that provide no protection to anyone except the politicians who came up with them and can argue they did do "something".

It's, I think, even worse than China's philosophy, because China is young and pretentious in capitalism, while Korea seems more dishonest and cowardly.
I’m really feeling this. I’m 26 and have noticed that I’m chopped liver in terms of hiring/recruiting. Also same for life in general. I feel a bit ‘fucked over’
> Let's not skip the company trying to swindle OP to pay without a proper contract by scaring him. Some of us may be used to this kind of threats. Doesn't mean they are ethical at all. They should have been upfront with the problem from the beginning, not bullying people with scary letters.

If I understand correctly those only came after OP refused to pay their bill.
Yes on the sarcasm, but even better on you for posting an interesting link for a reply.
Given that you say "subtly", have you ruled out rounding/precision errors? I wouldn't be surprised if some processors would play fast-and-loose with the number of significant bits they really honour.
"So what time is it where you are? Wow, 6am!? And the weather?"
Elliptic curves are also vulnerable to Shor's algorithm. However, there are several new algorithms for asymmetric cryptography, such as Google's NewHope:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIST_Post-Quantum_Cryptography...
I have a couple of late-90s Range Rovers. They're pretty secure from hacking, having nothing more sophisticated than an FM stereo on board.
Author uses Honk. His criticism is valid.
Yeah I 100% remember this around when Sheets first came out.
It's also built-in to GPG, which has been around since the mid-90s. The Blockchain is a completely unnecessary component for this sort of cryptosystem.
True. They've been suppressing innovation intentionally. I know because I worked in the space and watched them pull the plug on promising projects.
My only contribution to this is that I strongly believe you should only be measured on a system you built from scratch - inheriting someone else’s system and then you being measured on it is unfair.
It appears to have happened at this fork in the road [1], just past the traffic light. The left fork continues down the highway, and the other (straight) fork basically goes off a cliff. Technically it's a bus stop, but it seems like it could be hard to tell as you're approaching.

[1] https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5707862,-122.5159555,3a,74.4...
That is circle reasoning, if you know which developers are good so you can ask them then you already know which developers are bad.

And asking good developers to identify good developers doesn't work either. Good developers hates working with bad developers, true, but like all other humans they hate working with all sorts of people for different reason so they will point out a lot of good developers as well.

Instead what works is if you have lots of data from diverse group of good developers. That way the personal noise gets cancelled out and you are mostly left with the "I don't like bad developers" signal. This isn't trivial data to get though, especially since people usually choose to work with people like themselves so a team likely isn't diverse enough to get you this kind of data, and people from other teams aren't familiar enough to give good data either.
> the magnets are so strong that it snaps to the device

wouldn't that mean if you take your phone, the charger still sticks to it?

when I was using qi, I'd have it on my desk, and of course I regularly pick up my phone with one hand to do something with it or take it with me, can't un-stick a charger at the same time with one hand...
In post-soviet countries and especially Russia, there are virtually no businesses older than 30 years (communism means no business to speak of), and most of them are quite new still, since there were a few different epochs already and every one had its own mass extinction event at the end.

The upside is that almost everything is run by people who are not old, hence not stuck in the past. Also, gravitate towards hiring instead of famity ties, and towards horizontal growth instead of forever keeping a single store or eatery.
The same thing is happening all over Western Europe too. There are increasingly fewer young people and a lot of them are first or second generation immigrants, that are lacking the needed skills/knowledge to run a business.
What you say makes sense, but if it is true, why aren't all cars built with the engine in the rear, then?
It's not a Lua VM but the bytecode interpreter in Crafting Interpreters uses upvalues similarly and has some diagrams: https://craftinginterpreters.com/closures.html#upvalues

Edit: And yeah I don't think it's anything unique to Lua, it's an implementation detail of closures and lexical scope generally. It's a non-stack wrapper for closed-over variables, the end of the introduction to chapter 25 explains:

> For locals that aren’t used in closures, we’ll keep them just as they are on the stack. When a local is captured by a closure, we’ll adopt another solution that lifts them onto the heap where they can live as long as needed.
This comment leaves out a major important point.

In the original comment, calling out the troubles of men as a win for feminism is a totally wrong premise. It was also an offhand remark at the end and really took away from the commment. feminism is unrelated to creating those cited difficulties and actually try to solve some of them.

The troubles described sounded more like the product of rising inequality, reduced union sway, and growing power of the corporate machine. Some also sounded like products of unhealthy machoism in society where “real men” are expected to be 100% self reliant and always do things like change their own tires
Dry cleaning business? Shudder.

I spent some time over the holidays clearing out stuff and, even though I don't still own a lot of suits and jackets these days, I still have a lot of "business casual" I bought because I would "always use it some point." I'll probably donate a lot of it even the stuff that's never been opened.

This isn't true everywhere of course but a long time ago I worked at a company that had dry cleaning collection of premises. This was a computer company. That would be laughable today.
But you haven't presented "overwhelming evidence". You cited a meta-study paper that was prepared by a member of a Skeptics club. It's like you're not even trying.

(Look, from Shannon's Information Theory we have the result that the unpredictability of a message is a measure of its information content. Knowing only one piece of information about that paper: that the author is a Skeptic, I can already predict that that paper will have a negative result. There's really no information there, eh?)

Like I said, if you're willing to pick some actual scientific studies I'm willing to read them with an open mind. I'd like to get to the bottom of this little mystery. In fact, I'm going to read a bunch of these (studies that are referenced from the paper you gave, and others I can find) anyway.
Perhaps, but their backing of Helium alone is makes the headline have basis. I mean if you’re reading this on a helium hotspot somewhere then I will gladly stand corrected but if not…
> Second best is to argue for addition or removal of rules.

What would we base our arguments for adding or removing rules upon? Financial incentives? Upon what will we base our assumption that financial incentives are important? Logical arguments are great, but after going down a layer or two we find there are only moral arguments. They are not pointless.

The above was going to be my first response, but then I took a step back and tried to address your argument as a whole.

I'm guessing you haven't spent much time considering moral philosophy, but even simplified toy examples, like the Trolley Problem quickly move past purely logical arguments and are firmly in the subjective realm. We won't be able to have a philosophical discussion here, but if you want I'd recommend the book "How to Be Perfect" as a relatively fun read on the subject and a good introduction.
It’s easy to align in my car, but the phone will quickly wiggle/slide out of position as you drive, so it’s just not worth it.
Russia could only become a 'regional hegemon' via two routes:

1. By convincing its neighbours to allow it to be so

2. By forcing its neighbours to accept it as such

Russia's neighbours were not going to allow the former to happen for good reason, and Russia found its possible hegemony swallowed up as its former colonies joined the EU. Ukraine is just another one of these.

Carrot didn't work, so the stick became the only possibility for achieving the same goal. But the carrot never would have worked anyway. Ukrainians toppled Yanukovich precisely because Putin had him withdraw from the EU accession process. The EU has been the only path to prosperity for young people in Eastern Europe; with Russia lied only poverty.

So Russia not only didn't have anything to offer the countries it wished to become a hegemon of, it was also despised by the same countries because they had precisely lived under Russian hegemony within living memory.

The goal was bad because the means they are using were the only possible means. Once Ukraine joined the EU, it would have been lost to Russian hegemony forever.
https://archive.ph/5gIu2
> There’s no way they would remove remote control functions in cars, regardless of the safety implications for the drivers.

I bet after we get the first terrorist act in history to reach millions of victims, they will. And then they will claim nobody could predict it.