skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The ergonomics of grouping and aggregation in R are really much better because libraries can make of its non-standard evaluation[^0] (which in other cases also makes the language a nightmare to deal with).

Compare:

pd_df.groupby(['date'])['failure'].count() # pandas
pl_df.groupby(pl.col('date')).agg(pl.count('failure')) # polars
dt[, .N, date] # R data.table

In both Pandas and Polars, the specification of the date has to be a string inside a list or method call, but in R it can be a bare token.

[^0]: http://adv-r.had.co.nz/Computing-on-the-language.html
XXY is Klinefelter syndrome. By definition it's a condition where boys and men are born with an extra X chromosome. Their sex is male because, also by definition, the presence of a Y chromosome means male.
> That's good advice, but unfortunately it also applies to situations like "being put to death."

This may come as a surprise, but we should be able to face death calmly as well, knowing full well it affects everyone in due time.

It is more reliable than any other situation such as divorce, psychotic breakdown, sickness, loss of loved one....

I can't imagine being calm facing death, but I don't see is as a contradiction to say we can face divorce and death calmly and with equanimity knowing others have and will go through it.
1080p Blu-rays are very often single-digit dollars, at least here in the US. UHD does come with a higher price point, especially for new releases; it goes down, but it can take many months for it to do so.
although i love the cinema and watch a lot of tv, i'm kind of indifferent to the problem of streaming content disappearing. before streaming content i watched a lot less and read a lot more, and i think i was better for it. so if they took it all away and made it harder to find it might be to my benefit
I kind of ruined up my career some by taking an extended break to pursue other interests like depression and sleeping 12+ hours per day. What I didn't really factor into my choice was employers are scared of people who have the financial independence to take breaks like this because they cannot be relied on to be loyal wage slaves. I haven't found a great way to overcome this yet because I totally get their concerns. Anyone who doesn't an absolutely 100% need the job is not as dependable. I don't want to be deceptive about why I took a break but in this case it feels like honesty just isn't gonna work.
If python3 just brought print(), it would not have been worth it. But bytes and string, totally worth it. I never once had problem with encoding in python3.
You could do worse than starting with Nygaard & Dahl's papers on the design of Simula 67, including

Common Base Language: http://www.edelweb.fr/Simula/scb-1.pdf

The Development of the SIMULA Languages: https://hannemyr.com/cache/knojd_acm78.pdf
and at https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/800025.1198392

Some features of the SIMULA 67 language: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/800166.805258
In my opinion the true advantage of discs is all the extra content. Sure, I can download or stream a copy of any movie I want but it's pretty damned hard to get it with the commentary track without buying a disc.
I have. A lot.
Historical reasons, most often than not.
I just never find myself working out formulae/series/proofs on paper using zero-indexing. When you look up derivations/solutions in books and references they're one indexed. A recent example was a formula that had a (n-1)!*n! term that made sense from understanding the derivation. But I forgot to code it as (n-2)!*(n-1)! at first.

So you end up having to translate from one-indexed derivations to zero-indexed code and it leads to different bugs. Ultimately zero-indexing just trades one layer of bugs for another.

IMHO zero-indexing makes sense to people thinking about the machine, not necessarily the work people are trying to use the machine to do.

To be fair sometimes the opposite is true and zero-indexing gives less complex expressions.
regarding accessibility..from what I have heard, other cultures have much different styles of sarcasm which might impede their ability to understand that something you have said is sarcastic. e.g. Japan is known to have a reputation of not understanding American sarcasm, but has it's own style of sarcasm. (see https://linguaholic.com/linguablog/sarcasm-in-japanese/)

so, I guess announcing your sarcasm makes sense in an international accessibility sense, particularly when some of the normal cues are not present (tone of voice, facial expression, eyes rolling)
> 2. Why was the SEC so toothless here?

The head of the SEC, Gary Gensler, 's former boss happens to be the father of the CEO of Alameda-the-scam.

SBF and Caroline Ellison: these fraudsters were very well-connected.

As a sidenote early on in the scandal a US senator wrote that there were suspicion that SBF was working hand in hand with corrupted officials to engage in regulatory capture of the cryptocurrencies exchange market.

And when did the shit hit the fan for SBF? Once he got very cocky and tweeted how he was going again to DC and how CZ (from Binance) was not allowed to go there.

These were SBF's famous last words. CZ answered that SBF wasn't a team player. Then the leak on Coindesk happened and all the articles exposing the SBF/FTX/Alameda scam came out.

Ain't it "strange" that it all unfolded after a tweet were SBF was boasting about how he was going to DC while CZ wasn't welcome there?
Personally (and totally subjectively) I’d argue that a lot of those languages you listed are ugly, with the exception of the last two. Some of them are nice looking for short bits but get really ugly for larger pieces of code. Especially when you practice defensive programming and are nested several levels deep because of the lack of optionals.

The SwiftUI integration doesn’t materially change the language much. It’s based on passing in blocks as parameters and has been a norm for obj-c as well (effectively how everyone does completion handlers).

But I think that’s why language beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To me, Swift allows flatter/cleaner code while defensively programming with lower branching and higher ergonomics. That’s beauty. That’s why guard is so nice. But I can see how it might be off putting if you’re coming from other PL paradigms.

I think a lot of it comes down to whether people want simple syntax vs simple code. C for example is simple syntax but rarely ever simple code , Swift and rust are more complex syntax but much simpler code.
recommended: https://brr.fyi/
>I think it's perfectly legitimate to say that Mastodon is a replacement for Twitter even if it is only for some people.

Then we would have to discuss what it means to be a replacement. Netflix is a replacement for TV, Facetime can be for a phone call, but can HN be a replacement for TV?

It seems to me that the answer is it depends on what you are using Twitter for: for me it is interesting conversations (even if one-way) with interesting people, for you it may be getting the most reach for the most people, or to keep up with the indoor-climbing community.

I suspect the later might be something Masterdon is especially useful for.
No, they are not. In some cases, if an individual contributor is not good at contributing, if one has political capital, that one can become a scrum master. And you see this in mega tech companies all the time.
Back when I did drone racing, the most used operating systems were ardupilot, betaflight, and px4.

A quick google search convinces me that these are still the most widely used.

I had tried betaflight and ardupilot but had an easier time with betaflight configuration I think.
There are two separate issues here. One is how we choose to define God, and the other is what religious people actually believe.

OP was referring to "billions of people" with certain beliefs. Most of these people believe in God as an entity with a personality who intervenes in events on Earth. That kind of God doesn't have to exist by necessity.

On the other hand, if we define God as base reality, then God exists by definition. In that case why not just call it "reality" or "the universe"? When most people say they believe in God, I don't think they are saying they believe in the universe. I think they are making a stronger claim than that.

I don't get what the Romeo and Juliet example is supposed to show. The base reality for Romeo and Juliet is our physical world rather than the play world, and God is Shakespeare who exists contingently in base reality. Yes, it's impossible for them to prove that God (Shakespeare) doesn't exist. But what reasons could Romeo and Juliet have for believing that Shakespeare exists or that they are living in a play world rather than base reality? Unless Shakespeare explicitly writes evidence of his existence into the play, their claims are on the same footing as Russell's teapot.
Kind of sounds like you're rebelling against what you interpret as "the" template for life, but I'm not aware of any such thing beyond the broadest strokes. You can absolutely blow up what you've got and start from a new place, or you can define your life in the margins between what we all tend to have in common. Example: I have a wife, kids, home and job, but I also take big breaks between relatively short job tenures, do a lot of in-depth personal projects and mountain bike at a pretty extreme level for a guy pushing fifty.
I tend to describe programming as building a house of cards in your mind. It's a way of thinking about it that's used sometimes to explain why interrupting a developer can be so frustrating (because they have to rebuild the house).

Writing code in pieces (functions) where each does one thing, even if that thing isn't reused elsewhere outside of the one place you need it, if one way to reduce the impact of that house of cards; because you only need to focus on the logic that's important "where you are".

Unit tests are another way. You can describe the behavior of your code in tests and, if you break something because you couldn't keep the entire model (and individual pieces) in your head at the same time, your tests help you notice that. If you're building your code initially, your tests can help you identify and focus on individual behaviors you need to work.

I think the above is why I think both pre-code and post-code tests are useful. It's helpful to write tests before you write the code, to guide your development. But it can also be helpful to write tests after; especially as you identify things that don't work correctly because you didn't realize they were requirements when the code was originally written. They are, effectively, regression tests... but they're more than that, too.
> be on my own again at 30.

It's really not that old, you have plenty of time to find someone and start a family. Tons of people are single in their 30s. After 40, I found it much harder to find someone though.
It's not that it's hard in any absolute sense, it's that imposes an ongoing overhead cost on people who may already pay a high cost to interact at all. (Also, of course, a cost on reading discussion about it. (Does that 'it' refer to the discussion or the author? You don't know! Have fun investing effort to work it out, every single time it's used.)
Isn't that like saying only big companies with specialized roles are allowed to provide app-like functionality?

Among others, smaller shops and single-person companies surely benefit from one delivery platform if you ask me. Even if it's not perfect.
My experience is limited to using it with Swift and Objective-C. Xcode has been getting better recently but tools like IntelliJ have support for a bunch of useful things that Xcode doesn't. Off the top of my head:

* refactoring functions/methods: adding and removing parameters, renaming parameters, etc.

* safe-deleting symbols

* advanced search tools. Not just "find selected symbol in workspace", but "find places where this variable is being written to"

Also, the refactoring tools that Xcode does include are very unreliable. Even simple renaming will often fail, even on small projects, or will mistakenly rename unrelated symbols.
Just to add my usual disclaimer: the mathlib project is a big open source project and I'm not its leader or even a maintainer of the code base. I am a contributor (as are hundreds of other people) and I talk about it a lot because I think it has the potential to change mathematics. But it is coordinated by many people, like many open source projects.
I used dogs. I used probes. I used cardioplate crossoffs. I used teepers. I used bribery. I used stiktytes. I used intimidation. I used torment. I used torture. I used finks. I used cops. I used search&seizure. I used fallaron. I used betterment incentive. I used fingerprints. I used Bertillon. I used cunning. I used guile. I used treachery. I used Raoul Mitgong, but he didn't help. much. I used applied physics. I used techniques of criminology.

(with apologies to Harlan Ellison)
Or the SpongeBob SquarePants "Panty Raid" episode.
...C. I thought the context here made it obvious, the person I replied to was talking about programming in a procedural manner and eschewing abstractions.

I never even mentioned anything that even relates to runtime types, I don't know why you'd bring them up?

And saying that classes, inheritance and overriding are orthogonal is bizarre. They're intricately linked and at the heart of OOP. It doesn't even make sense to define overriding without inheritance.

>In the end OO and FP are anyway the same thing at the core. You can mechanically translate one into the other:

Coinductive types have destructors so they look a bit OO-ish, but that's it. The key part of OO isn't having fields, but inheritance.
Bottom layers have functionality that is needed. There is also reuse, dovetailing happens, you have opportunities to see new problems from lenses of already solved ones.

We're using this approach in trading production system for about 5 years now and I recommend it, works very well.

There is also side effect where your dependency tree is more shallow.
If plenty of average talent people get hired at FAANG (they do, from a statistically reasonably sized sample). Then being above average talent is not a minimum requirement for joining FAANG.

The fact that is being considered a controversial statement is truly mind boggling to me.
I mean the vack pressure claimed in the article is a magnitude higher than with fans. And even if it wasn't running more silent is a value as well.
I write all my code in C++, but when debugging, I format my printed data so that I can examine it in octave.
and whale oil
I don't see benefits of R->G step
That’s sad, where do you live?

I’m in Illinois; under state law libraries exist as independent taxing bodies - the only way to underfund or otherwise interfere with them is at the ballot box, and it would take years of concerted effort by at least 60% of the local population (indicating that this is really what they want).

I have some family in Indiana; their libraries are funded and controlled at the county level to maximize what they can do cost-wise and to ensure that rural farmers also have access to all the resources. That structure also makes it much harder for goofballs to interfere.
But if your devs are outsourced...?
An “accident” that permits them to seize someone’s assets does not sound like an accident to me.
Very much agreeing with Nietzsche on suffering being a great source of value, even desirable, for personal growth.
Dennis Whyte: Nuclear Fusion and the Future of Energy – Lex Fridman Podcast #353
And Palm's "Graffiti" actually existed as a software package for the Newton by Palm before the Palm Pilot! It was popular in the early days of the Newton because the handwriting recognition in the first versions of the Newton OS were pretty bad (Remember Doonesbury's "Egg Freckles" comic, or The Simpsons' "Eat up Martha" when the bullies were trying to write "Beat up Martin"?)
Acknowledge past mistakes,tuck away the experience and move forward
Very nice! Reminds me of a little HTML5 Asteroids clone/mutant I wrote a while ago: https://heyitsguay.github.io/asteroids/

I should figure out how to add sound. It's always inspiring to see the great work of others :)
1000000% this.

Taken me years to learn to turn it off and walk away. Life is much better now.

Also, it often works in real life too
It does not get better. There are only periods where you are too distracted to notice the finish line racing up fast.

Eventually, for EVERYONE, it absolutely gets worse. Someday every person you love or hate will be finally broken. The most happy and successful and the least. And you too.

For the most lucky that period of time is very short--sometimes only five or ten minutes. For others, much longer.

Your best days will be behind you at some point. Try not notice for as long as you can. That's the best you can do.
TDD properly done is a 4 step iterative process. 1) Write test. 2) Run test and see that it fails. If it doesn't fail figure out why and fix it so it does. Either the test is wrong, or what you're testing is trivial. 3) Write code so test passes. 4) Refactor code so it's good. Next go back to step 1.

Step 4 is the trickiest and most important part. Refactoring transformations must be such that they do not invalidate the results of step 3. But if you don't execute step 4 properly you'll end up with crap code.
> How did you end up overdosing like that? What's the story, there?

As someone who have over/under-dosed a couple of times when I was younger: dealer says they give you 100mg, so in order to take 25mg without having a scale, you divide it into two piles and then those two piles, take one of them.

Problem occurs when dealer fucked up somehow and actually gave you 200mg, so now you end up taking 50mg, double the intended dosage.

Other ways of fucking up is believing you got 2CB when actually you got 2CP, or something similar like that, so the dose you thought was light/moderate, ended up being a heavy one, or vice-versa. Hence you should always start smaller than you think and wait for some hours :)

I don't think I've ever overdosed at the scale that parent did, but it is possible to fuck up, especially without having accurate scales.
Our team too, time saved is fairly quantifiable.
I wonder if any international criminals have sought to evade capture on that continent. It would be the closest thing to going to Mars
> I do know they tried to keep an archive of all public Twitter posts for a long time

That was the result of a specific deal Twitter made early on (itself a marketing stunt, of sorts). It doesn't mean the Library of Congress is generally in the business of archiving DRM-ed media on streaming services.
Nah nothing specific, I just use it on whatever muscles I know I’ve worked out or anything that is sore the next day. You can pick them up cheap on Amazon, there’s not much benefit to buying one of the name brand ones that I can see. Although I do have a Thumper Sport which is great because the long handle makes it easy to reach anywhere and it is a bit more powerful than the battery powered ones.

If you do want a daily protocol, there’s an app called GoWod which gives you a daily massage gun protocol as well as a daily stretching protocol. If I wasn’t using down dog I would be using that app as it’s really good. It makes you do a mobility test every month or so and identifies your weaknesses and will give you a daily protocol for that and then you can also stick in what exercises you’ve done that day and it will give you another protocol and the massage gun protocol. For me, I ended up sticking with down dog because I know what my flexibility weaknesses are (hamstrings, quads), I found down dog more interesting with more variety, and I generally just use the massage gun when needed when I’m sore.
Also most examples of unit tests that I see in various examples I've seen amounted to testing "Does the code do what the code does?" Unless you have a clear spec to implement, or you have some weird edge cases that you need to make sure get handled correctly, I see very little use in unit tests (integration tests are very helpful though). The only time I've really used unit tests were when we had some specific financial formulas that we were implementing and needed to make sure the code matched them.
Beck had this process (test, code, refactor) in place in his original eXtreme Programming book, which helped spawn the whole “agile” movement. It’s kind of cool to see how the process was refined over time.

It’s also sad to see how twisted people’s idea of both agile and tdd have become, usually because they never read the source material.
https://github.com/fwcd/vscode-kotlin uses the maintained Kotlin Language Server but it’s not perfect. There’s nothing on par with Jetbrains out there
I have. Half of the time, I’m glad it’s not their primary responsibility in this case.
My first SDE job was in a company with a dedicated Scrum Master role, and they were basically the lubricant to make Agile/Scrum teams fit into what was essentially a waterfall environment. It's roughly a TPM in Big Tech, but without those companies as industry peers for setting comp.
Hello, I've been a programmer for over 5 years and I've always liked to look for the logic of things and that's why I've always been looking for challenges in the world of software development. today I bring you all a very interesting website which I helped to program. the purpose of this website is that users can post any type of content on it anonymously (using avatars) or not, texts and jpg and gif images and thus share with friends and people already registered on the website.the site is full of features that will make you chat in the chatroom with anyone who has already posted something on the website
The message, to expand on it is that they are in the earlier stages of their development and the safe bet is that by the time it is all said and done things will be much more in line with what we've come to expect from the nuclear industry, including any and all of the statements already in line with that today.

So by the time it is done it will be more expensive, likely heavier, likely way late, more complex and narrower in its possible range of applications. It's not a law, it is an observation made over many nuclear deployments and to the best of my knowledge there isn't a single project that was an exception so I expect it to be true this time around as well. Which is why you can safely ignore any of the touted advantages until the product is ready to be fielded in quantity. Assuming it ever will be fielded in quantity, plenty of designs were slated for large numbers of deployment and ended up being one-offs or at best single digit runs because of unforeseen issues with the design.
With that said, I'm still very skeptical that there's enough revenue in the "long tail" of small customers to make a viable satellite imaging company. Please prove me wrong there!
Whenever I hear about some useful proposal for C++ being shot down because “this would be a breaking change” I gnash my teeth in frustration, but then remember the python 3 debacle and calm down.

In fact a lot of my frustration with C++ evolution is due to the committee’s experience of having made a couple of bad decisions that had to be undone (like auto_ptr), or which are unrepairsble (overconstrained unordered_map). Which is a great example of why you shouldn’t have someone like me on the committee!
A reflection of your TPM, I guess
The thing that keeps coming to mind is that they dealt with tens of thousands of charities, with the potential of requiring expensive customer service.

The cost of running the program is surely a good fraction of the total amount donated.
The lack of smoking is something to ponder. It's always so glaring to me when TV shows that take place in the '80s and '90s show almost no one smoking, when in fact if you went into any public place, probably 30-50% (or more, if it's eg a pub) would be smoking, including in people's homes, offices and so forth. I wonder if the huge and realistic amounts of smoking seen in shows like Mad Men will be edited out one day.