skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's not quite as simple as that :) I think upstreaming half of gofumpt's additions to gofmt would be reasonable, but the person who wrote and maintains gofmt is Robert Griesemer, who continues to be quite busy with generics. They are still actively fixing typechecking bugs and performance issues, as far as I can see.

I think it's hard for anyone to justify pausing or distracting the generics work in favor of upstreaming parts of gofumpt. At the end of the day, gofumpt works today - it's just a bit awkward to have it as a third party tool.

That said, it is on my radar to talk to him and make a plan for upstreaming.

Edit: to clarify what I mean with the above: I of course could do the legwork to port my formatting changes to go/printer, the guts of gofmt. The reason I mention Robert is that he'd be the one to consider and approve each formatting change, and review the code changes and tests. That work is trickier than it sounds, because you have to think about the possible effect any formatting change would have on all kinds of existing Go code out there.
The main problem seem to be the inclusion of the artist name in the metadata of the training images. This makes the style of individual, currently active artists exploitable in ways that affect the artists negatively.

One solution could be to allow the use of the images, but disallow the use of the artist name in the training set. From a privacy standpoint it seems reasonable to disagree to having your name and artistic characteristics connected and encoded into an AI model, even if it's legal to use the art itself as training data.
The Racket Manifesto (2015) [pdf]
> Think it this way: you're going to split the conditions into two: `users` is non-empty, which is the "good" condition; and `users` is empty, which is the "bad" condition.

In a lot of cases though, an empty collection isn't a "bad" condition at all, e.g. it's a valid collection to apply filters/maps to.

Similarly when people get used to doing "if not i" for ints, but then forget about the times that zero is a valid value.

It's true that dynamic coercion is a feature of the language, but coding conventions generally are often about enforcing "least surprise" to remove a burden from the person reading the code.
Whatever position you think that commenter holds is entirely created within your own mind. The comment makes just as much sense regardless of which "side" you think they're on.
“Available in 48 packs where you buy your paint!”
It doesn't matter if the project is driven by Microsoft or not, the cat (of automatically generated language bindings) is out of the bag. E.g. Zig is using the same approach without being an official MS project: https://github.com/marlersoft/zigwin32, and Apple has an automatically generated C++ API for Metal (https://developer.apple.com/metal/cpp/).

In the future, the question won't be "what language do I need to learn to code on this platform", but instead "where are the language bindings for my favourite language".
When you buy a car, what is your first filter to narrow the market?

What is a pretty car? Or, do I need an SUV, truck or car? Do you want ICE or EV or Hybrid?

Or do you start by picking all the red cars that you think are pretty and then find one that suits your needs?

Sorry for comparing dating to buying a car.
You really should consider reading articles with a more generous mindset, not just stopping at the first ostensible flaw.
The Miyazaki quote really hit home: “I strongly feel that this is an insult to life itself.”

I think most AI art misses the point entirely. Art is really about the person / people that make the work and their response to the time and context in which they live. It's usually a struggle to bring something new into the world, but it does feel magical and exciting - it seems to come from a very different place than interpolating past influences. AI art takes away all the magic, and without the sense of a person I think it has no artistic or aesthetic value - it just adds visual noise to the world. I think it will, unfortunately, disincentivise people to make new work, as although there is a world of difference between AI art and good art, it can be tricky to tell the difference at first glance, and to make anything good takes years of dedication and effort.
Thanks for the link, found the post very interesting.
You'll likely always be behind the curve with that kind of basic approach I think, wouldn't it make more sense to retrain a transformer to map all possible inputs to the few possible actions?
"Advanced" Outliners are better suited because you can tag the blocks (=lines of text) and then query them independently.

Look at https://logseq.com/ or Emacs https://www.orgroam.com/ (or is org-mode enough ?). you will have to familiarize yourself with properties and querying syntax.

Edit : You can think of it like this: by simply jotting down a new line, you add a new entry in a DB. It does not matter that one line is an idea and the next one is a task, because, Later on, when you query your DB, you will get them regrouped as you like. Also, no more rigid forms : you only add the tags and properties that you need "on the fly".

I know logseq also supports plaintext (Markdown/Org-mode) and Recurring tasks
Used to attended wide variety of Meetups and used Couch Surfer too. It’s pretty obvious when people are attending or using a platform for dating, though they rarely say so. For example, hosts that only host attractive females on Couch Surfer. Or meetups where attendees leave if there’s no attractive female that are in attendance or only talk to the attractive females. Even females that are interested in dating are easy to spot too in my experience. — Very rarely are people that are interested in dating taking a friends first approach, it’s time consuming, and to my knowledge no platform that enables users to build a “friend reputation score” based on users rating them.
Someone has to have built some kind of automated binhost thing like this _somewhere_. I would love it if you could also do crossdev for Arm with it as well.
My first programming job. Th owner had a rule that all equal signs lined up.
Didn’t matter the purpose. Or how deeply nested his if else statements were. Which he would have 40 layers nested with tons of math between them.

Was insane trying to read the code.
Here's the first result when I googled "biblical meaning of submission in marriage":

"Submission in marriage means selflessness, service, accountability, and respect for your partner, which should be mutual; it is not slavery or a woman's call to lose her voice. The fundamental rubric on which The Christian marriage is built is love, and love is anything but the desire to control."
They're not less important, they're table stakes. Is there wiggle room, sure. Maybe sometimes people are capable of being a little more flexible on these things than they realize.

But for example, I think this is true of just about everyone: there's an age range that they're willing to date within, and outside of that range, everyone is a hard pass.

I wouldn't date someone who was twice my age, no matter how great their personality was, it's an absolute no.

Similarly if we use BMI as a proxy for attractiveness. This one may be a little more controversial but I suspect just about everyone has a BMI range they are comfortable with, and if someone is far enough outside of that range, there is no chance, no matter what anyone says, that you are going to date them.

I agree that most dating platforms are hostile to their customers but I think the issues there run much deeper. They all have incentives to _keep you engaged with their platform for as long as possible_, that is how they make the most money. They don't make money by finding you a partner. They are really just social media that can charge a monthly membership fee.
Funny, I'm the opposite - I use gentoo and don't mind, but only use -bin packages for browsers because they take too long :D
This depends on your font size and on your screen size. I can manage 230 columns with 14px Consolas on a 1080p screen, which is plenty for two 100-column documents, and almost enough for 120-column. And even if it won’t fully fit, most lines don’t reach the length limit, and for the remaining ones, in a two-file scenario, you could enable the soft word wrap feature of your editor, or just cut them off and scroll a little when absolutely necessary.
None of those things are a purpose, though.
> an empty collection isn't a "bad"

Then you don't need to check if it's empty to begin with.
I agree with the sentiment in the article, but there's so much demand on programmers' time that it feels the urgent often gets in the way of the important.

I've always wondered if a paid product might work for this?

There seems to be an explosion of coaching platforms but they all seem very focused around life coaching or non-specific business coaching (where anyone can coach anything to anyone) as opposed to the very deep, concrete world of software development. I've seen code-review as a service platforms and found them interesting, but perhaps if I were offered a lower-touch paid mentoring or coaching (eg, speak to a senior dev who knows your stack for an hour a week), I would pay for it.

A note on the article:

> Some will say the art of programming has regressed, because we now use enormously more resources to accomplish the same things as before.

I've only produced software as an adult, but I've been consuming a lot of it since the mid-90s. Let me tell ya, whatever you think of software, it was worse back then. I seriously doubt programmers were producing much more in terms of functional and non-functional requirements (UX, security, performance, etc.) than they are now.
> not the frenzy of bullish rallies.

One maxim I heard: in a bull market, the less you know, the more you make.
I'm not sure mentorship is the answer. The author also mentions not learning these things from a mentor, but from more experienced people they worked with.

I think the real problem is that we don't call the first 5--10 years of a developer's career for what they really are: an apprenticeship.

A lot of companies hire what are effectively a team of apprentices and hope that they will somehow figure things out as they go. They tend to learn a lot of bad habits from each other. They will make you money, because even a small amount of programming skill can earn you money in the short run, but their code will eventually collapse under its own gravity and need to be rewritten.

Apprentices need to be paired with journeymen to learn the craft. I have not met a single successful team that has not had at least as many journeymen as apprentices -- ideally even more.

----

This is incidentally also my issue with the leagues of consultants who have only ever done greenfield or nearly greenfield stuff. They learn to write stuff in a way that it's completed quickly and lasts maybe a small number of years. That's what they are rewarded for, so obviously that's what they will get good at.

The people I've met who are really good developers are those that also have followed a product from initial design throughout its lifecycle into decommissioning. They seem to have a more holistic picture of the factors involved in making stuff.
South Korea’s housing crunch offers a warning for other countries
The point (when you take my comment in context) is that it doesn't matter if your editor does not detect typos, because the compiler will.

Now, I admit, I find programming with autocomplete more productive in general, but the compiler (and the compile time type checking mechanism) is still indispensible.
Well say you're into fitness, you'd probably wanna date someone a bit more active. But I agree that the plus size woman could have a great personality.
https://archive.is/abQXw
+1000

This forum increased my financial literacy by an order of magnitude.
Deep learning is definitely inspired by biological learning and also shows surprising parallels in terms of for example how language rules are learned by children.

"Machine learning doesn't have anything to do with human learning" is just not true. There are many parallels but sure they are not equal.
> why should it be the financial sector's job to weigh whether someone is good or bad

In practice though that’s exactly what happens. Banks have to look for transactions that are potentially illegal (including OFAC and AML). And the banks not only report but have to block some of those transactions or they become liable for the initial crime (if it existed at all).
See also how yapf defines the Google formatting style:

https://github.com/google/yapf/blob/v0.32.0/yapf/yapflib/sty...
This was posted yesterday?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34738680
You say "you" when you mean "I".
"You do understand that this reasoning cuts both ways."

I understand that.

How common is that form of conservative Christianity? Most Christians I know (who are not Amish, but they wouldn't use these sites anyways) do not follow that interpretation of the Bible, but rather believe the meaning of the stories to be that each person should be devoted to each other and listen to each other's perspective (the story mentions husbands treating their wives kindly, but the only way to really do that is to listen).
this paper is extraordinarily bad. Like what variable makes a good programmer. doesn't say that. just says variable importance. so frustrating. at least show the signs of the values form logistic regression.
If I use all the successful ideas for past products as input for my AI model and then use a series of AI models to create and validate prototypes, why would I need to bring in a human to the loop and risk disrupting the process?
The way I think about it is that if black's output looks weird, you should probably restructure your code. It's not _always_ true, but often enough it means the code can be made simpler, some values created in flight can be given names, and so on.
The only way I know of to watch live programming streams from programmers your respect.

In my case, that would be Jonathan Blow and Casey Muratori.
I don't see OP arguing against people having those preferences, only that focusing on those attributes will lead to a lower likelihood of successfully finding a relationship

A relationship where one or more participants are unempathetic and uncommunicative is at higher risk of ending than one on the other side of the spectrum, regardless of how attractive each of the partners are
I have been using Gentoo forever (actually since around 2005). It has always worked well for me, documentation is great (though I always take a look at the Arch documentation as well), it is extremely stable (even though I run the "unstable" version (~amd64)

Th only thing that sometimes requires a bit of elbow grease is the update process (emerge @world) which can throw up large lists of "blockers", especially when some major component changes (like say the transition from python2 to python3). "eselect news" gives ample warning beforehand.

This is the reason I never advise new linux users to use it, but I also don't see myself using any different distribution.
agreed with all that
Imagine two different call sites want to do two different things with the message. One wants to log() it, another wants to print() it. In my example this has been implemented by passing a flag to greet() to tell it what to do.

If greet() gave up responsibility for outputting the message and instead just constructed it, then your code would look like this:

def site1():
print(greet(“x”))

def site2():
log(greet(“y”))

And greet would be half as long.
Ask an expert: Why is CSS – – – the way it is?
+1
Bogleheads forum is excellent.
bill gates is a chode.

i only quote him to say: high profile people are willing to make happy predictions about text generators but not art generators. biased and stupid.
That was the goal of the Memex proposed back in 1945, still unrealized. 8(
Interesting way to look at it, but I think you could say the same thing about the internet, i.e., people still interacted with it using a PC. So I could still see AI having a similar impact without changing the physical form factor.

That said, it might also be the case that incumbents have more to benefit than startups, in a world that rewards access to large proprietary data sets.
Yes, I used to live in Switzerland so I'm aware but I seem to have interpreted your use of "EU" too literally. :)
https://exercism.org/ is a nice place to start.
That's like pointing to the cost of laboratory glassware to claim drug discovery isn't expensive.
Not really true, but is true that it’s highly random and takes a large sample in my experience to actually find someone.

In my experience, all the event types mentioned are largely attended by single people looking for dates. Even the language exchange groups, which have a highly specific and functional intent, tend to be single oriented.

On the flipside, if platform attempted to enforce maintaining 50/50 balance of user base that’s single or not single and explicit forbids users mentioning dating unless they are above a predefined “friend score” — it would remove a lot of people that are not interested in relationship attributes.
Before Lua got popular, Tcl was the only sane option to add scripting to a project. The interpreter was trivial to embed and modify (for instance I created my own stripped down "minitcl" library which compiled to around 20 to 30 KBytes).
> When you buy a car, what is your first filter to narrow the market?

Price
You don't get out of obeying the law just because you didn't sign anything. Nor is really really wanting to a justification for violating the law.

Patented seeds are not something you would have come up with yourself. This is pure envy creating a sense of entitlement.
Ransomware crooks steal 3M+ patients' medical records, personal info
You're not wrong that dating platforms are like that (Tinder, I think being the most obvious) -- and you seem to have direct experience with this -- but suggesting that people start platonically is very ... Sunday church style.

I guess everyone is different, but for me relationships that start out platonically...end up platonic. If nothing happens in the first 3-5 dates...nothing ever will really. I realize that's part of "dating" culture too -- but there is also something behind it -- if I'm REALLY attracted to someone, I'll put the moves on earlier (or they will etc).

What I have had good success in -- and there is something to this I believe -- is meeting romantic partners in similar interest social circles that appeal to both (or however many there are now) genders. You meetup with others of similar interest for a couple of hours once a week, natural attraction forms, if both are interested the independent romantic meeting will happen naturally. The dating nature of it is all -- hidden (and in fact I didn't go into these meetings planning to date anyways).

It's hard to bottle that up exactly into an app though.
I guess that I read it what I just got to HN and then forgot about it.
And generally my answer to all of that or both go and python is be consistent to yourself and to the codebase. And if you're going to change stuff in a big way. have a reason. And if you don't have a reason don't change.
> Neither does Christ on the cross asking why God has forsaken him.

He's quoting Psalm 22. Jesus very frequently quotes the psalms, probably more than any other book, and "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" is the opening line. Given the number of "coincidences" between the psalm and the events then occurring, he is either deliberately making his claim as a messiah or the redactor inserted the quote, depending on your beliefs. ("They have pierced my hands and feet", "They divide my garments among them, and cast lots for my clothing", "all who see me mock me, they sneer and shake their heads, he trusts in the Lord, let the Lord deliver him.")

https://biblehub.com/psalms/22.htm

I don't really see how it's possible to read John 1 as implying two separate beings, unless we start quibbling about what a "being" is. There are similar statements in the other gospels.

> The problem is the Biblical canon manifested out of what were countless differing philosophies and schools of thought in early Christianity, and John seems to be one of the more mystical books to make it in. But Christianity couldn't even agree on the nature of Jesus' divinity at first, and went to war against itself for centuries over details like this.

It's true the early churches were divided but it's important not to overstate that division, as you're doing here. The earliest post-apostolic writings we have are already referencing all for gospels and nearly all the epistles. There were divisions in theology on things like the exact nature of Jesus's divinity, but except in the case of niche sects, it was over what most people now would regard as hair-splitting. It's just people used to be much more fanatical and willing to go to war over things like "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father" vs "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" or "The logos/Jesus/Son was co-eternal with Father" vs "the Father created the Son before Time and he's divine but not as divine as the Father."

I think the most productive way to view this aspect of Christianity, unless you're addicted to obscure theological disputes, is to simply say that the Christian idea of God is as an omnipotent transcendental being whose nature is therefore obviously something beyond the powers human comprehension, which would make sense if you want to posit the idea of a capital-G God even as a non-Christian.
Haskell has a static type system. "Strictness" in PL theory usually refers to an eager evaluation strategy.

But yes, you are correct. The comment you replied to does not make sense. Haskell is not dynamically typed at all. (Though as with any statically typed language, you can create a Grand Unified Type that stores everything and pretend it's dynamic.)
We're all standing on the shoulders of giants, dwarves, and everything in between. That's not really arguable. Even if you create something "entirely unique" (yeah right), that somehow doesn't draw on any work done before (ha!), you can only communicate it because people made language.

You can only share it because people fed you, clothed you, educated you. Countless squintillions of interactions and evolutions, in nature, in humanity, in culture and science and art and language, in the very cosmos, went into putting you in the position you were when you created the "completely new" thing.

However, one of the things that people do is go into bubbles - religious bubbles, ego bubbles, psychotic delusions, etc. It can be powerful to give yourself all the credit for your work. It can be motivating, comforting, and generally advantageous sometimes to think that God has your back, that your tribe is chosen above others.

Think of all the performers with diva complexes - those complexes serve a role in helping them. It's absurd and kind of sad from the outside, but it works for those people to believe that they're the greatest.

But the truth that they're all forgetting is that they had teachers, helpers, warriors, workers, people of all kinds supporting them to get to the position they're in. They all had ancestors who broke their backs to bring them into the world and protect them. They've all eaten thousands of pounds of food grown with exploited labour. They've all benefited from countless artists and creators enriching the local and global culture.

So, I can see why someone might believe, or even choose to believe that they "made the entirety" of a thing... But it's not the truth - not even close. A wider and less egoistic perspective might not help them create or believe in themselves, but if we're talking about a broader truth than one person's viewpoint, it's utterly absurd, wholly delusional, to give yourself that much credit. I think it's a sign of sickness in our culture that any of this is news to people.