skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yes. That’s how we typically do it in our shop. Though we do test it during development. Then when we think it’s ready, we have the product owner (or whoever ordered it) “play around with it” on a test setup. Before we let select users “test it in production”.

I’m not a fan of this article in general, however, a lot of what it talks about is anti-pattern in my book. Take the bit about Micro-services as an example. They are excellent in small teams, even when you only have 2-5 developers. The author isn’t wrong as such, it’s just that the author seems to misunderstand why Conway’s law points toward service architectures. Because even when you have 2-5 developers, the teams that actually ”own” the various things you build in your organisation might make up hundreds of people. In which case you’re still going to avoid a lot of complexity by using service architecture even if your developers sort of work on the same things.
> I find it interesting that countries give up on their own currently, with all the power it brings, to use an external currency.

I think the financial reality of many economies limits the usefulness of what you can do with currencies. Just because you have your own currency does not mean you can maintain it without a peg and that peg comes with a cost. And then there is the political will. The British Pound for instance should have allowed the UK to fare much better than the Euro-Zone during the energy crisis, but it really did not.
"Sorry, group chat functionality with external users is not supported".
I presume USD was the unofficial currency for large/important transactions already.
Honestly recompilation shouldn't even be necessary, browsers should just let us disable the debugger statement when "clever" sites start taking advantage of it. This usage of debuggers to circumvent our tools is abuse and should be literally impossible unless we consent to it.

Our computers are our realms. God giveth and god taketh away.
How do you know guidance is almost abandoned? Did they announce it?
I read this title and immediately thought "...but why wouldn't you just use Django?"

Having written the sort of SQL-inline code the author talks about, then refactored the whole thing to use Django: Django's ORM solves waaaay more problems than it creates in this regard.
Thanks for listing more. I think it'd be better to summarise it all by thanking science.

I'm glad the cardiologist has developed a way to manage the suffering we all go through in this hard life, but his delusions about some deity reading a piece of paper he stuck in the wall had nothing to do with your father's recovery.
I have several times cited it as a key article, more insightful than almost anything else I've ever read about IPv6, but I concede it is overlong and unclear and needs more illustrations. (Which, as a technical writer myself, I generally regard as a crutch.)

I think the core argument can be summarised as this:

1. IPv6 is flawed because it has 2 main layers, but it needed 3.

2. It understands physical addresses, and it has its own logical addresses.

3. But it really needed another layer in between them: a virtual translation/mapping layer.

4. Crucially, it lacks this. As such it is not better enough than IPv4 to ever totally replace IPv4.

5. But apenwarr proposes that it is, in essence, possible to fake this using QUIC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QUIC <- note the diagram in that article.

6. Using this, it's possible to fake what IPv6 should have had but didn't, and get some of the benefits at the cost of more work.

7. However IPv6 remains doomed to never totally replace IPv4.

Boiling that down to 2 key points:

Point A: IPv6 is broken because it didn't go far enough; its mapping model is fundamentally inadequate.

Point B: It's OK, here's how we can work around that, but it doesn't fix the problem & never will.

And generalising from that argument, my take is this:

Butler Lampson said: "All problems in computer science can be solved by another level of indirection."

David Wheeler pointed out: "… except for the problem of too many layers of indirection."

The corollary of this is: it is imperative to closely track how many layers of indirection you have.

Too many is bad, but arguably, not enough is worse.

With too many, you get inefficiency, but you can nonetheless get the job done. But with too few, you might not usefully be able to do the job at all.

IPv6 did not have enough, and so failed to achieve its primary goal.
Yes. And we are abandoning NAT, we're just not abandoning firewalls.
When you ask for "a cup of coffee" in different countries, you may also get pretty surprised at what you get (it may be a tiny cup, or a large glass, sugary or bitter, with milk or without...).
A more polite, charitable response might have been "My job is _____ and in this field it's required for documents to be delivered by courier." You haven't made it clear why you necessitate printing in your workflow, just that it's required and that anyone who thinks otherwise clearly doesn't understand _your job_ as well as you do.

Nobody thinks you're clever or cool for shutting down someone trying to be helpful.
This tool has completely destroyed my opinion of Google. As a developer in my 30s, Google was a huge part of tech in my formative years - in a positive way.

Today... Google flags my domains as "unsafe" at least 3 times a year (For deceptive login forms - apparently having the gall to host tooling like bookstack/jellyfin/mealie is "deceptive" because they... ask for my login info? I don't fucking know, google won't tell me why they flag it)

They are about as locked down as you can get - 100% A scores on securityheaders.com - traffic monitoring so I know nothing untowards is happening. I don't see any particular or unusual traffic before they flag me.

But just hosting the login is enough - apparently I'm unsafe in Google's eyes. I spam the misdetected link, and 2 months later the unsafe warning pops off.

...only to show up again 6 to 8 weeks later. Rinse and repeat.

My opinion of Google today? Google can get fucked. I want the company to die. I want them out of browsers, I want them out of phones, I want this fucking ad company to get the fuck off my internet.
After decades of uncontrollable inflation, I can see how relying on a foreign currency (one that is backed by the economically most powerful country) is attractive to the wider population looking for some sense of stability.

But, without the ability to control the value of their own currency, how would it work for the government to manage their domestic affairs?
Would they buy a boat load of USD, and circulate it within the country to be traded for goods and services?
Are there any downsides to this?
Long enough to kill the momentum and let RN take the lead.
This will be used to stop whistleblowers.

We saw the media lie and claim Hunter Biden's laptop was a fake, which illegally changed the outcome of the 2020 US Presidential Election. Not one media person has gone to prison for that.

Fake claims that embarrassing videos are deeo fakes will rig the 2024 US Presidential Election.
Unpredictable factors? If they didn't provide care to the patient, the patient would die. He lived because they came into work and tended to him.
Writes to pipes smaller than PIPE_BUF are guaranteed atomic by POSIX:

https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/pipe.7.html
You’re describing QC. The reason that’s not sufficient is because your test user might not meet the conditions that trigger a bug. Trivial example: a bug that only shows up for users using RTL languages. A test suite allows you to test edge cases like that. Another shortfall of QC is that it doesn’t provide future assurance. A test suite makes sure the feature keeps working in the future when changes that interact with it are introduced.
I'm going to go further and say that Feature Flags are a nightmare and should be avoided. Because instead of just being used to stage roll-out, they get used to configure different environments for different customers.

You not only waste time with "Remove feature flag X" stories if all customers end up with the feature, you also slow down the response time of some categories of bugs, because you end up having to stop and check the combination of feature flags to reproduce a bug.

And if you end up with a feature that isn't popular except by one customer, not only are you now stuck supporting "Legacy feature Y", you're actually stuck supporting, "Optional legacy feature Y" which is worse.

Maybe I'm ranting about "misuse of feature flags", but I don't like to pontificate about how things ought to be, but how in my experience they actually are.
It's coming. The police are already buying the little robot dogs.
Training and usage are two different beasts. Training is always going to be expensive, but most users aren't going to do training themselves.
THIS. My favorite example is Jeremy Cole’s blog [0], especially the stuff on InnoDB. You want to take a deep dive into the murky internals of MySQL? This is it. Tons of other stuff as well, but those are my favorite. He wrote tooling to visualize .ibd files FFS.

[0]: https://blog.jcole.us/
Spacetime warps in the presence of mass, yes. But the full answer is that spacetime warps in the presence of energy/momentum; Einstein's field equations make no mention of mass specifically, except that via E=mc^2 masses are energy.

So, once you get a gravitational wave going (by shaking masses) the warping of spacetime itself at one place sources warping for a nearby place which sources warping for a nearby place which ... is what we call a gravitational wave.
Yes.

As long as your code makes sure it takes account of that flag everywhere that it is used. Otherwise your new feature could "leak" into the system for everyone else.

Plus, as systems grow in complexity, there's always a danger that features step on each other. We'd like to think that everything we write is nicely isolated and separated from the rest of the system, but it never works that way - plus we're just a group of squishy humans who make mistakes. There will be times when having Features A and C switched on, with B switched off, produces some weird interactions that don't happen if A, B and C are switched on together.
the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce
To be clear then, your "source" is

A Salon reporter in 2001 quoting a third party about a recollection of a conversation they had more than a decade ago in ~ 1998 that runs contrary to direct statements that Jim Hansen made in 1998 to both congress and in interviews?

> Whatever, doesn't matter, the claim is as wrong as when it was first made.

To be honest it doesn't sound as if the claim was actually made.

Unless you have that as an actual statement in minutes of congress, a submitted journal paper, or a direct interview.

In lieu of anything better your GP comment appears to be strawmanning to poo poo somebody on the basis of something they never officially said.
https://archive.is/zCRno
It has one huge advantage: larger address space.

(Which we could have had with a minor tweak of IPv4 instead.)
So let's ban ORMs because newbies don't know the entire toolchain. Yes, that will definitely solve it.

Why stop there? Let's ban RDBMS. If you can't contemplate a binary file structure and index strategy perfectly tailored to your application's needs ahead of using an RDBMS, why should we deign to let you use an abstraction layer with clever query planning and algorithms?

It's all too easy to morally 'ban' people from technology and gatekeep it behind wishy-washy nonsense like "ORMs are bad for beginners."
They were planing switching them on, but they didn't finish the installation of the local hardware yet. But some locals already complained that the radiation was already affecting them.
several European countries (e.g. Kosovo) use the Euro as their currency despite not being part of neither the EU nor the Eurozone for exactly the same reason.
Think of it the other way around: Dart was created for the sake of Flutter.

You seem to think that the framework designers at Google just decided to pick a niche language called "Dart" to write Flutter in when they could have picked Javascript to write Flutter in.

No.

They decided to make the design of Flutter as a framework so clean and pure that they would have to work backwards to figure out what language it would need to be written in and then they created Dart.

You're not supposed to use Dart for any purpose other than Flutter -- that's not a drawback to learning Dart -- that's the whole point. An entire team at Google literally created a language to make it easier for you as a developer to express yourself in this domain, and you think that's a drawback? That's like thinking being given a ladder is a drawback when you want to get up on the roof.

Sure, you could just assemble a big pile of rubble and scramble up it to get on the roof, and it is true that you might be able to later use the rubble for other purposes (whereas a ladder is built for a specific purpose) -- but that does not make the ladder the more limiting tool.

If there is one repeated comment I hear about Flutter it is "wow, it seems like such superior technology, I wonder why it isn't more widely used".

To which the answer I keep hearing is "it is only superior for doing the thing it is built for -- it isn't superior for other things."

Those who would give that answer consider Javascript, on the other hand, an (inferior) tool not only for this problem, but also for other problems, so it is the more generalizable tool and therefore it makes more sense to use Javascript.

The argument seems to be that at least if you're using the same crappy tool for everything then you can claim the efficiency of never having to change your tool.

"Only a fool would use the best tool for the job", is the implication of those who disparage Dart.
What do you find amazing about it?
It's also helpful to report them at https://webcompat.com. Browsers can (and do) add site-specific workarounds every now and then, and/or reach out to the websites in question.
toki a! mi sona e sitelen tawa sina. ona li musi mute tawa mi. :)
I have little to add to the article in question, but I’d like to say that I’ve fallen quite in love with Flutter and Dart.

I think of Dart as being C#-lite, although the latest changes with class modifiers have somewhat complicated the sentiment. For reference, my background is in OOP/JavaScript land, with patches of Scheme, Rust, and way more Go than I ever wanted. I really think Dart is one of my favorite languages, it’s just a joy to work in. Clean, fast enough, and to my experience so far, footgun free. I also know @munificent here is a principal developer of the language, and he’s done a good job. (But in case he’s listening, please add Rusts discriminated enums, it really hurts to move from a language with them to a language without them.)

As for Flutter, as a WinForms and UWP developer, coming to terms with its Dart-declared UIs was tricky, especially when coupled with the constraints based layout system. But I’ve long since crossed the threshold in my mind, and now I can strongly say I don’t want to program UIs in anything else again.

The one real complaint I can agree with is that the ecosystem kind of sucks, but it’s growing and getting better. I’ve seen some profound growth in the area over the last two years.
> something that is hard but not impossible to go wrong may carry huge amounts of risk.

I think it's the definition of the black swan theory[1].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory
Funny enough, when I measured IPv6 readiness/use in the world for the very first time (2008), Ukraine was on top. IIRC it moved to third as we got more data, but it still was a very surprising result.

We found out much later that the reason was that Opera had broken RFC3484 handling and prioritized 6to4 way too high (which skewed the results), and Opera was popular in Ukraine at the time. :-)
Yes, feature flags are often able to be applied globally, or per customer. However, feature flags add complexity (littering your business logic with feature flag checks), so many small non-feature changes wouldn’t use them.
> if even they are struggling, then... how is the average person in that country even still [independently] alive??"

Either they accrued capital already, or borrowing from relatives who did, or they're not living independently. They're sharing accommodation that would be cramped for two among six.

Lifestyles once only necessary for students are now de rigueur for established graduates, with the possible exception of better food.
The article title sounds like it's a done deal but it's just a victory in presidential primary.
Not even close.

The real problems you will have to solve when working with a database anyone would want to use are, for example:

* Memory layout of the buffers used to write / read / cache this data. In Python, you don't even have a concept of memory alignment / layout -- it's all happening somewhere in the interpreter.

* How to best service multiple requests concurrently. Again, Python offers nothing here, and nothing to experiment with. But this is a huge part of working with databases. The whole two-stage commit, transaction, consistency guarantees -- it's the central point of databases, but Python gives you no tools to even try anything like that.

* Working with various underlying storage... most of it has no Python interface (but does have C interface). Eg. if you want to understand how to optimize storing data by using some filesystem -- those filesystems do often expose similar interfaces that go beyond VFS, but they won't be immediately available to Python.

* Working with vectorization of queries -- again, Python doesn't have a concept of ISA, doesn't have any way to instruct the code to utilize any particular CPU instructions... but this is where a lot of work is done by people who work on real databases. Not being able to get any meaningful access to query optimization, planning becomes pointless / useless -- what are your concerns going to be when you write a query planner if you still have no idea how it's going to be executed?

* Similar stuff goes for networking -- whenever you need to solve something that goes beyond the absolute trivial you will at best rely on Python bindings to some library that actually does that rather than on Python code proper. In other words, if your goal was to learn how to do it, you will not achieve that goal because the actual work will happen elsewhere.

So... I don't know... there is no way you can really learn how to make databases in Python. You can probably learn something, depending on what's your baseline, but you will not be ready to make a real thing, if all you have is Python. It's a difference between toy doctor set and learning to be a surgeon...
How superior it can be if it just shows a native canvas element and then draws custom stuff on it, which leads to funny bugs like 1 frame lag on iOS (OS detects touch and rightfully assigns a draw action, then flutter slaps its hands and reassigns with scroll action)?

> But I still don't understand why most companies still focus on React Native for their cross platform development.

Because it uses native components, which leads to native feeling apps. For bonus points, they added new engine that makes performance differences between react-native and native apps very small (unless you're working on interval trading terminal or games, which flutter does not handle as well). Plus its simply easier and entry barrier is non existent, therefore its cheaper.

> Google needs to do better marketing for the technology.

Dart as a language is a bad marketing for their technology. I also hate the amount of boilerplate I have to write and how weird it looks compared to RN/SwiftUI/Compose.
Fantastic take. Thank you.
All the rich and powerful people in Argentina weren't earning in pesos, that's for sure.
0101000001110010011000010110100101110011011001010010000001110100011010000110010100100000010011110110110101101110011010010111001101110011011010010110000101101000
You never know when a different game will be found to also rely on the same behaviour
Just like el Salvador.
In order to predict how bad the long tail will be though we should ideally look at the graphs broken down by network type. Does the increase just represent a switch from people using their residential ISP connection for everything to people using their cell connection more, or does it actually reflect residential connections moving from v4 to v6?
Show HN: Little Rat – Chrome extension monitors network calls of all extensions
Hi HN

I needed a way to monitor network calls made by chrome extensions so I made a small extension.

You can install it by dropping the zip or crx into the extensions page. It'll be on the chrome store whenever/if it gets through the review.

Hopefully it's useful to others.

https://github.com/dnakov/little-rat

https://twitter.com/dnak0v
Yes?
and The US also has regulations.

And Republicans argue that both are socialism.

Half of the country thinks "anything the government does is socialism" and campaigns to stop it, or get rid of it, or handicaps it, or how it is just evil and control.

Basically to the right: 'government' = 'socialism'.
And they haven't realized yet they are arguing for anarchy.
Try Anti-Anti-Debug [0]. It's a simple extension to bypass those kinds of anti-debugging techniques. Made it in a few hours a while ago for similar reasons.

0: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/anti-anti-debug/mn...
This world coin is such nonsense. Can’t believe people buy this BS
> when there is an incentive to lie ...

The one I see constantly is people selling courses on how to make money. They talk about how they made money as a consultant and decided out of the kindness of their hearts to teach others.

What's clear is that the money the majority of them made wasn't from "doing the thing" but rather from the course that they're teaching.

Then someone takes the course and copies + puts their own spin on it. Rinse and repeat.
This title is very misleading. Actually Argentina voted in a presidential primary, and one candidate who advocates dollarisation got 31.57% of the vote. But the feasibility of dollarisation is not at all clear: https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2023/06/22/annual-inf...
Fusion rocket that goes 500k MPH under construction
Yes, it really depends on the type of environment / app you are running too.
If your app is stateful, uses lots of data, etc.. then feature flags can cause a lot of issues with inadvertent upgrades that have to be rolled back manually in things like user data.

Or you can have infinite permutations of feature flags if you don't flip them to be on for everyone quickly enough, and it becomes hard to test if[a&(not b)&c&(not d)] behavior vs if[a&b&(not c)&d] and.... you end up with too many to cover with testing well.
Assign 2^96 addresses to each IPv4 address. The original address is now a.b.c.d.0 and there are lots more a.b.c.d.x. When sending a packet over an IPv4 link, translate packets with .0 destinations to v4 packets and embed others in a special v4 protocol. When receiving a packet do the reverse. Now you need a v4/.0 address only if you are directly connected to a v4 peer, and an upgrade is useful even for a single computer behind a NAT.

I came up with this idea in like 5 minutes so I'm sure it is flawed. But i think that if we had a realistic design we could have been done with the transition in early 00s.
10.0.0.1 happens to be quite useful from time to time.
In my experience with consumer internet service and cellular service, ipv6 (when available) just works out of the box and you don't even have to notice.
Yes. Also, feature flags don't have to be on/off, they can be set to a % of requests or users, enabling a progressive rollout period.
Yes, this looks quite likely given the peaks consistently on Saturdays (at least at the end of the series where I checked it).
> we need

You're not wrong, but there are more pressing concerns