skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Beyond the new routing, they also completely changed the school schedules to 'stagger' the starts for groups of kids and schools. Some kids were getting on the bus as early as 5am, and elementary school children were dismissed at like 2 in the afternoon; meanwhile some high school schedules ran past 5pm.

The details matter of course, but staggering start times is good for two things. a) seems like high school aged kids are more responsive to a later start time than younger kids, so better for the students maybe. b) staggered start time can reduce the number of busses and drivers needed if you don't want to mix kids of different age groups (which you probably don't!).

However, it comes with a big downside, cascading failure. If bus X does routes A, B, and C in order, and gets behind schedule for route A, route B starts behind schedule, and likely route C as well; depending on how far behind and how much slack is in the schedule.

For school bus routes, morning pickup can often recover, if the bus is late enough, some students will find an alternate route which means fewer pickups which speeds the route. For afternoon drop off, you're pretty stuck, drivers can't leave the school until loading finishes, even if it's delayed or just slow as students get used to the bus. Drivers can't skip drop offs when they're behind schedule.

Reducing the number of routes is probably required to match up the number of drivers with the number of routes... but if each route hits more points, the routes become longer and the slack between runs gets shorter.
I think the OP's point definitely stands -- don't disagree at all! Sorry, I was trying to illustrate that the chapters and national do have different priorities that sometimes conflict (or at least cause nuance). It's not a simple binary thing. Different chapters can disagree with each other. National can disagree with itself.

I've volunteered with the Sierra Club both locally in different areas and on some national/regional climate programs. I've also sat in on local Audubon meetings when they've looked at and discussed the details of local wind projects to decide if they should support or oppose it, balancing local wildlife needs with national climate priorities. And often energy companies will hold environmental review meetings for the public, where these groups and others would send representatives. (Was an environmental science and journalism student in college, and our area had a looooot of meetings about land use conflicts, being both full of endangered species and ripe for renewables development).

My underlying point is that these are inherently nuanced issues with local, regional, and national (and of course global) perspectives. The chapters and national groups understand that, and they are of course also concerned about climate change. They're not blind to these basic facts, but it's not as simple as simply developing over all our protected lands to build new energy projects if that means killing (too) many of the species they were trying to protect to begin with. It's also not as simple as simply rejecting renewables in favor of, say, using less energy.

It's a hard problem all around, and balanced solutions require an understanding of all the costs and benefits involved, not unthinking adherence to any dogma.

Even the elitism thing... yes, it's very true, especially historically. But there is a push in these groups (facing both internal and external pressures) to diversify both in ethnicity/culture and economic class so that conservation isn't just something for rich white hermits. Even Muir doesn't quite have the same worshipful status he once did.

More diversity also means that environmental justice becomes a more significant factor -- where to site nuclear projects, for example, or whether rich NIMBYs displace poor NIMBYs because they are better able to put up legal hurdles and marketing campaigns.

And as outdoor rec becomes more popular, accessibility vs preservation is an ongoing issue (but that's a while other can of worms). I think there will always be people who want to make nature an exclusive club for a small group of rich white hikers, and the only remedy to that is more diverse involvement in these groups (or other groups like Latino Outdoors). The chapter model actually makes that more possible because you're not directly tackling an old white board at the national level, but engaging with neighbors on shared issues.
There are at least two cases where GOGC=off could make sense for increasing performance:

1. You know you’re definitely not allocating on the heap;

2. Your workload is bursty and you can simply keep everything until the process dies and memory is released.
Evaluating the persuasive influence of political microtargeting with LLMs
I visited Maui last year and did the Road to Hana drive using an app that somebody recommended. Gypsy Tour Guide or something along those lines.

Anyway, it uses GPS combined with recorded narratives to guide you on the trip. It was pretty cool. Gets into the history of Hawaii and everything.

Apparently there is a significant feeling among natives about their island being taken over. If a disaster like this leads to more of it, it's only going to get worse. There's already tons of speculation about the cause and area of this one.
Even worse IPv6 solves the NAT traversal problem in a way how people don't want it to be solved.

People wanted a DynDNS kind of solution.
There are 2 types of engineers.

Generic Engineer, "Engineerius Domesticus" - Like an architect or civil engineer. If they make a fatal mistake, especially one that can be avoided with best practices, they will never be allowed to work in their profession again. Possibly they go to jail.

Software Engineer, "Engineerius Softwarus Sapiens Sapiens Sapiens Sapiens" - If they make a fatal mistake, especially one that can be avoided with best practices, there will be a blameless post mortem/retrospective where everyone gets a pat on the back, exclaiming "what a great job everyone did, this was really unavoidable, if we disregard the fact that it was completely avoidable". The smartest guy in the room has already an offer from another employer where he will make the very same mistake.

As long as this doesn't change, and software developers have exactly 0 incentive to write code that's at least "not garbage", please enjoy your bugs.
Clearly we agree. I'm just saying that this "Beyone Rule", naively applied, leads to cargo cult CI disasters (I've seen this happen both within and outside of Google, FWIW, but more outside than in to be fair). The correct philosophy isn't "all tests must be integrated in CI", it's "CI must be able to integrate all tests".
shoot we forgot to do the security sweep, better send the suspicious package!
I’ve been unable to “Mark as read” in GMail for two years now.
> more problems to deal with

But that's not _his_ problem, and he already got his bonus for "hitting the date".
No, just put bad fucking cops in jail. We don't need some damn market of insurance for criminal behavior just because we are so unwilling to hold powerful people accountable, we just have to finally stand the fuck up and demand accountability!

The only reason to favor the insurance scheme over, you know, actual justice, is if you stand to profit from it.
Show HN: CoolReadME, a way to display GitHub profile readmes with custom CSS
somehow I ended up in Neuroscience, where I get to use the electronics skills occasionally, but even that is mostly focused on ASIC design now.
> If you want “perfect architecture” and reliability/availability you just need to pay for it (aws/s3).

I find that really funny. AWS has outages regularly. Whole data centers who go dark. Remember the S3 outage because an admin fat-fingerly deleted a large number of servers? ...no, people forget very quickly because of the "No one was ever fired for using AWS" mantra.
> Their definition of "Open Source" is purposefully written to enable exploitation and SaaS-ificiation of open source software.

lol? OSI is usually the first one complaining when SaaS companies relicense from MIT/Apache type licenses to other nonstandard open licenses.
Fixing either of those comes at significant risk because you are making the TCAS system significantly more complicated and it needs to work across multiple manufacturers and equipment build decades apart.
Title should possibly be changed to something more descriptive? (Substack podcast feeds inaccessible to Overcast due to Cloudflare blocking)

----

There's some critique here of Cloudflare's "good bot" application process as well, which Cloudflare expanded last year (https://blog.cloudflare.com/friendly-bots/)

Having not worked with it myself, I'd be curious to know if the complaints here are atypical, since Cloudlfare's friendly bot program gets brought up a lot as a defense against their anti-scraping measures.
Availability of Defender Vuln. Management and Container Vuln. Assessments
There were a couple places in Google's internal infrastructure where they had picked up traditional "big iron" architectures (mostly by acquisitions), and it was funny to observe the sheer plane between their regular best practices and those systems (when they hadn't yet been replaced).

One high-ticket item relied on a huge Oracle database. Every other aspect of that product was patch-on-the-fly, silent-release new versions, forward-and-backwards compatibility of software... But the whole product had regular scheduled outages on the weekends because the Oracle part could not be patched on the fly, had a rigid schema baked into its relational architecture, and had to be brought offline for updates and migrations.

It was like everyone was zipping around in racecars and then they all had to pause for Grandpa to cross the street.
Availability of Defender Vulnerability Management Standalone and Container vulnerability assessments
Yes this definitely is a thing. Like I mentioned, there is a real desire 'to be liked' by ATC from the pilot. It happens to me, it happens to many pilots.. They give you an instruction and you want to show how quickly and efficiently you can execute it.
The hardest part is when your own flying intuition tells you to not do what they're requesting, or even worse when it merely makes you question the instruction.. leaving you in a decision paralysis.
Those attracted to Wittgenstein's later thought like Philosophical Investigations would likely appreciate a lesser known philosopher's thought, that of R. G. Collingwood, too. I'm not alone in finding similarities (not plagiarism) in those two.

A good, short introductory article on Collingwood is here: https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/philosophy/39183/ho...

And a quote from one of his books that reminds me of the private language argument:

" This might seem to presuppose community of language between the speaker and hearer; for unless they were accustomed to use the same words, the hearer in using them to himself would not mean the same thing by them. But community of language is not another situation independent of the situation we have been describing, and prior to it: it is one name by which we refer to that situation itself. One does not first acquire a language and then use it. To possess it and to use it are the same. We only come to possess it by repeatedly and progressively attempting to use it.

"The reader may object that if what is here maintained were true there could never be any absolute assurance, either for the hearer or for the speaker, that the one had understood the other. That is so; but in fact there is no such assurance. The only assurance we possess is an empirical and relative assurance, becoming progressively stronger as conversation proceeds, and based on the fact that neither party seems to the other to be talking nonsense. The question whether they understand each other solvitur interloquendo. If they understand each other well enough to go on talking, they understand each other as well as they need; and there is no better kind of understanding which they can regret not having attained."

I find Collingwood to have more helpful insights for language and communication in general than Wittgenstein, because language as Collingwood explains it includes bodily gestures and, although he doesn't by any means neglect the spoken and written word (which are still important to him), he emphasises the importance of other types of language too. For example, to pull another quote:

"Vocal language is thus only one among many possible languages or orders of languages. Any of these might, by a particular civilization, be developed into a highly organized form of emotional expression. It is sometimes fancied that although any one of these languages might express emotion, vocal language has an exclusive, or at least a pre-eminent, function in the expression of thought. Even if this were true, it would not be of interest at the present stage in our discussion, for we are now dealing with language as it is before being adapted to serve the purposes of thought. As a matter of fact, it is probably not true. There is a story that Buddha once, at the climax of a philosophical discussion, broke into gesture-language as an Oxford philosopher may break into Greek: he took a flower in his hand, and looked at it; one of his disciples smiled, and the master said to him, ‘You have understood me.’"

(Both quotes taken from The Principles of Art, where his main discussion of language is.)
I agree in principle, and this is a shitty situation for the GP, but Google's "contract" with the public doesn't even comprise a gentlemen's agreement. They don't owe anybody anything, they're just the cool kid at school who won't acknowledge your existence. You can't (and shouldn't be able to) force them to be your friend. You can't claim harm because someone stopped being friends with you either.

There is a question to be asked of where does one draw the line about policing stuff that happens in virtual reality. Are we to start prosecuting people for espionage and insider trading in Eve Online too? Can we punish the church because God isn't answering my prayers in a timely manner?

(I don't think regulation is the answer. They had their 15 minutes of fame; it's time for everybody to form a new clique and cut Google out of it-- just like the Twitter exodus.)
How long until you sell it to BigCompany? I just don’t get why there are numerous vector databases all with similar functionality.
Usually no one is looking for design feedback, but plenty of offers....
I would upvote this twice if I could.

We will never break compatibility is code for "we will never fix warts and mistakes in the language".
It’s a dev environment improvement so I pinged the whole team. Nothing like a chilly start at a new company eh?
> In this hypothetical everything done is illegal

That's the important bit. Assuming that use of violence against journalists is illegal and the law is enforced, then that is freedom of the press. Similarly your right to own property is protected even if there are burglars out there.
On the contrary, EKGs are well-known to have a machine interpretation line often called the "Idiot Box".
Zuck/Musk cage match canceled; tech billionaires blame each other
What ways does do the wrong things by default? I can't think of a single one. You might say, well, == is broken and you have to use ===, but that's not "the wrong thing by default" unless you assume that == is what ought to be the default operator and === ought to be secondary. But that assumption has to come from somewhere, and probably comes from the fact that other languages do it that way. But there's nothing inherently incorrect about === being the default operator and == being the rare secondary one. I think the same principle applies to any example you might be able to give me: if you assume that another language is objectively right, only then can you say that JavaScript is objectively wrong in comparison to that language which apparently descended from the heavens.
Completely agree about the linter suggestion.

Whenever there is a squabble over style in any PR in my team, I ask them to merge, decide afterwards on a single solution and then write a linter rule. Often a custom rule is necessary.

IMO the worst codebases to work on are those that have nitpickers that change taste all the time. Newbies join, try to "read the room" and find a lot of code that looks good, so they use it as a template. Only to be nitpicked because "we do things different now".
There are infinite ways to "hack" any system, this includes social engineering, timing attacks etc etc, so I don’t think so.
Pray tell, can you point to the supposed cheering that NPR did for conservative media having it's legal rights violated?
Also nit:
I'm in a 4th camp: we should be writing our applications against a relational data model and _not_ marshaling query results into and out of Objects at all.

Elaborations on this approach:

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34948816

- https://github.com/papers-we-love/papers-we-love/blob/main/d...

- https://riffle.systems/essays/prelude/
> Python made it through a backwards-incompatible source change.

It took them a decade and permanently tarnished their perception with many programmers. They "made it through" in a similar way to how cancer survivors enter remission.
Blackberry Pi
On one hand; i really, intensely dislike that the notion of "ownership" is being degraded like this; that manufacturers are less concerned with making things than they are with renting them to you in perpetuity.

On the other hand; if the car becomes a platform for rent seeking like this; it's very likely that the car itself will become much simpler and more reliable without all the "support the dealerships" drama that industry has going on now. Instead of being a goal, that kind of thing will be in the way of their goals (rent extraction); so the customer who just wanted a simple reliable machine may be able to find one.
Go compiler performs escape analysis, which determines whether or not a particular object "escapes" the function it was created in - and if it doesn't, the compiler allocates it on the stack instead of the heap, thereby removing the need for GC.

So, as long as you write Go in malloc-less C-style (which, admittedly, is a non-insignificant restriction), your program will be able to run just fine forever.
It's not true that Go can't add new keywords. Now that we have Go modules, all Go code is now explicitly annotated with the version of Go it was written against. We can add a new keyword in a later version of Go as long as the compiler can still also compile code written for the older versions of Go. (The go command tells the compiler which version of Go to use for each package it compiles.)

What we're not going to do is abandon all the code written for older versions of Go, like Python 3 or Perl 6 did. Python is recovering now but it easily lost a decade to the Python 2 -> Python 3 transition, almost certainly unnecessarily. And Perl lost even more.
I'd say Utah and Colorado probably have better climate due to their elevation. If they were at sea-level they would probably be insanely hot.
I've used SO to look up problems a lot but I've never gotten a good answer out of it myself. Either it's marked as a duplicate of a similar but different question or I don't get any replies and a few downvotes. To me it's an entirely read only site partially because of it's relatively high barrier to commenting on solutions.
Typically when people say "ChatGPT" without specifying which specific model they refer to, they refer to gpt-3.5-turbo (in case of API - or in case of the web ui, they mean whatever model is its current web ui equivalent). But now OP says they meant GPT-4, so, sure.
Did you read the HN guidelines for commenting?
A few tourists doesn't mean the community itself is transient. Even a great many tourists doesn't mean that, if the locals are mostly static. They form a community, and watch the tourists come and go.
Subsequent elections weren't fair elections: in February of '33 the Nazis had already started to ban and persecute competing parties. I guess if you caveat the statement by specifying that they only won unfair, rigged elections then sure that isn't wrong.

> Upon Hindenburg's death in 1934 Hitler de facto assumed the presidency, which he combined with the chancellorship to become the Führer und Reichskanzler.

Hitler was appointed not elected. And assumed the presidency after Hindenburg's death, not by winning an election.

> The NSDAP emerged from the Reichstag elections in July as the largest party ever seen in the Reichstag and having over a third of the vote

"Over a third" is nowhere near the majority. Remember Hindenburg ran as an independent and won over 50% of the vote. "Largest party" in a system with more than two parties and.

And again, after February 1933 the Nazis had severely suppressed opposition parties. Subsequent elections are not fair elections, this is like saying Kim Jeong Un was democratically elected. Technically he was, with the little detail that there was just one party and one candidate to vote far.
IMHO the real proper solution is to have an SQL parser, so you can have your SQL represented as an AST, do some operations on it, then compile it back to a query.

Sadly, I'm not aware of any good solutions to this. SQLAlchemy Core can build an operates on an AST, but it doesn't parse raw SQL into a query (so one has to write their queries in Python, not SQL). Some parser libraries I've seen were able to parse the query but didn't have much in terms of manipulations and compiling it back.
Let me guess, they just rediscovered that Q waves in V1-V3 are predictive of LVSD?
Why hear in absolutes? I said essentially what you did: "Different projects may have different requirements"

You find ORMs useful, I do not, they aren't mutually exclusive.

Also, An ORM is inappropriate for certain forms of inter-team collaboration. Data scientists often prepare SQL that we need to integrate into our services. Asking all at a company to learn a language specific ORM isn't practical. SQL is, for better and worse, an important common tool.
If you have a short lived CLI tool, disabling the GC might be useful but that’s likely an exceptional case.
"i'm not falling for that hot take. that's clearly someone with a fetish for getting yelled at. i refuse to participate in that kind of perversion"
Why that, and not good ole fashioned nepotism and corruption?
I mostly agree, but also, the moderation has gone from great to pedantic, and further to poor enforcement of nonsensical rules.

I have had questions closed as duplicate, where the "original" asked something else. Questions about choice of framework apparently are off topic on SE stack exchange -> closed. Weirdo moderators / keen users butting in on active, sane questions with "I'm voting to close because [random nonsensical rule]".

I feel bad writing it as I suspect most moderators on SO are great, but this is nonetheless my overwhelming experience of past 12 months.

EDIT I forget about the patronizing users who didn't read the question, but don't let that stop them from lecturing you. On SO rules, life mistakes...
Agreed, I've seen plenty of what wind up being very byzantine and complex migration strategies over the years, and in the end simple SQL scripts tends to work the best. I will note, that it's sometimes easier to do a DB dump for the likes of sprocs, functions, etc, if you want the "current" database bits to search through.
I dont undestand your example, plenty of languages add new keywords without breaking backwards compatibility, its removing a keyword that would cause such and issue.
Copilot in Dynamics 365 Field Service, helps frontline deliver service with AI
Introducing Copilot in Dynamics 365 Field Service, helping your frontline deliver exceptional service with next-generation AI
An intestinal sphingolipid confers intergenerational neuroprotection