skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I read "Self Reliance" by Ralph Waldo Emerson, "The New Psycho-Cybernetics" by Maxwell Maltz, and "The Power of Habit" by Charles Duhigg. These three are at the front of my mind. Especially Emerson. "Self-Reliance" was pivotal.

I listened to "The Power of Now" audiobook by Eckhart Tolle. This coupled with The New Psycho-Cybernetics helped me understand "where" my thoughts were coming from and how to handle them. I was in a lot of pain from sports injuries, and Eckhart Tolle's concept of the "Pain-body" manifesting itself in my thoughts and actions helped me kill self-destructive behavior at the source. A decade+ later, I would also recommend C.S. Lewis' "The Screwtape Letters" because I rather enjoy the idea that "demons" are competing for my energy, and I am beating them.

I watched plenty of YouTube content from positive male role-models, such as Elliott Hulse (his content has radically changed in the last decade, but in the early days it was very wholesome).

I worked on my body.

I stopped doing drugs.

I took care of my diet/nutrition.

I improved my appearance (more consistent grooming, better-fitting clothes... nothing radical).

I finished my undergraduate degree.

I decided that I had a duty towards something greater than myself. Even if it felt like the "message" coming from society at large was "aimed" at me, I determined that it would be better to work on myself and hone my skills in order to be a positive force in the world and role-model to those around me.

I sacrificed time that I would have otherwise spent consuming media and replaced it with more constructive endeavors (learning basic software engineering skills). This helped me find gainful employment to pay my bills, and give me health insurance.

My parents were supportive in some ways, and clueless or lazy in others.

My friends were very supportive. One of them grabbed me by the scruff of the neck and shook some sense into me. Literally. He said he was done with my excuses. This made a massive impact.

My girlfriend(s) were not supportive. I knew I needed to improve myself, and that was probably unattractive. I can't blame them.

The most important person in the equation was myself. I learned to stop letting other people control my emotions or affect my mindset.

tl:dr; Grab a copy of Self-Reliance by Ralph Waldo Emerson and READ IT. Let it sink in. Then put it into practice.
Jagged for Age Encryption in Java
Absolutely. Causing a stampede or crush being the obvious example.

I do get baffled by the absolutionist statements about the freedom of speech. Speech is a side-channel into violence.

My country has a censor's office, for example. Some 'speech' is literally illegal to possess. Government ministers aren't free to speak state secrets in public. It's not legal to disclose the names of persons with judicial name suppression. Even parliament representatives can't speak just anything into the parliamentary record.

I live in New Zealand. It's not that bad to have limits and structures that enable the majority of real freedoms for people.
Nice, thanks. I imagine they're also useful while burninating.
IMO, its not “hilariously wrong” in Python.

Note that as written the priority is that every use case has at least one obvious approach, and that a secondary priority is that there should be a unique obvious approach.

People often seem, however, to misread it as “there should be only one possible way to perform any given task.” Which, yes, is hilariously false for Python, but also not what it says.
Unless finance institutions and laws can protect wallets and insure crypto, I will never use it. Currency is not just a number you move around, currency is deeply intertwined with how civilization works, and it requires a high amount of trust for people to use it.

Trust is rather a social concept that something you can really prove mathematically. It's collective trust. Unless you can DRASTICALLY reduce mis-use with bitcoin, no one with trust it ever without a lot of expensive protective measures.

A 1 hour lecture from a security professor on crypto currency:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9nv0Ol-R5Q

Something else:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AAUrMuMPlo
Glitter impairs growth of organisms with key roles in aquatic ecosystems
Alternate story link since MSN seems to be redirecting to their homepage. Jerks.

https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/2023/08/despite-progres...
Yet another example for why Ethereum is needed
surely no one would possibly think to throw a multimodal model at the problem of removing the watermark.
Obligatory:

https://xkcd.com/353/
i don’t know enough about Ruby, but if it’s true that Python had better C interop early on then roll the clock forward and that should explain an underappreciated amount of the difference.

why are so many Gtk apps written in Python? because `from gi.repository import <my_c_library>` gets you bindings to any gobject C library without extra work for the library authors or the library users. if that sort of thing’s existed for a long time, then yeah: Python’s gonna end up more integrated with the C-heavy computing environment of the era than any language that doesn’t bind so easily.
This is an apocalypse that would be caused by climate change. However, we're already in the overshoot, and what's missing are:

- Industrial and animal agriculture (the leading drivers of deforestation & biodiversity loss, etc.)

- Dwindling biodiversity (with animal species experiencing a 70% decline in the last 50 years and 1 million species being driven to extinction)

- Droughts (linked to deforestation)

- AMOC collapse

- Zoonotic / plant diseases

The diminished biodiversity could easily lead to significant crop failures.

Preventing the collapse could be relatively straightforward at this point. We're still in a position where action could be taken with relative ease.

However, achieving this would necessitate an immediate shift away from fossil fuels (which is hindered by the financial system's need for continuous growth) and a reform of agriculture.

Additionally, we would need to focus on carbon sequestration in our soils and forests while temperatures are still at levels that allow for this.

We can't wait for technological solutions, as they can't be developed at the scale and within the timeline needed.
> But Python is -dramatically- better focused, as a community, on finding a Pythonic way to proceed, and then advocating it, than previous cultures.

I would revise that to be that the pythonic culture of one acceptable way to to is better matched with a lot of good development practices.

Perl was also very good at finding a Perl way to proceed. It's just that with Perl that often mean a lot of implicitness and "do what I mean", and multiple ways to do it so you could fit it within your preferred style and tailor it to the current project's needs.

That all sounds good until you are confronted with the flip side of the coin, which is that it's harder to understand when looking at something written with those perspectives for the first time or after a long hiatus from the project, which puts a lot of importance on policy and coding standards which saps effort from just getting something done.

I love Perl, and it's still the language I write most often for work, and it's no great mystery why Python became preferred.
The argument isn't that everyone should have "full, unfettered free speech" but that ISPs should not be enforcers.
That's the sales pitch for HCT, you get to claim you can normalize along C to get similar colorfulness, or normalize along T to get similar lightness (with the bonus of T getting you the WCAG/a11y compatability). And why is yours right? Because you used the latest and greatest color science for H (hue) and C (chroma / saturation) and great color science for T, matches WCAG.

This isn't quite as helpful as it might sound, i.e. it can't settle all debates, then design needs to become playing within the system: ex. lets say you land at you want mostly pastels. You could settle on lightness 90 -- get nice yellows, teals, but...no red!?!? It turns out light red is pink. And then on top of it, the yellows and teals colorfulness can get crazy high: lets say 80. But red can only get to 16, this breathy pink.

This can be extremely aggravating, ex. yellow. It just doesn't contrast with white, there's absolutely no way to get any a11y number to tell you that a nice bright yellow can be a button in light mode. But the system is empowering in that you know you can't do any better on the implementation, and you can trust the #s.
+1 on the OTel mention. Having telemetry in place in a system, one would typically implement a single behavioral tracking SDK on top. Adding yet another SDK for LLMs is a hard ask given how specific the implementation will be. Backing back on a standard you offer value-added insights on top.

On the other hand, if you target just the applications that implement an API behind an LLM, you will have customers expecting value-added services on top of telemetry, like prompt optimization, classification, result caching, etc.

Your choice which direction and target group you will focus on first.
Pgvector 0.5.0 Feature Highlights and how tos
> Give people power and they will use literally every single bit of it and then some

This is going back to slippery slope argument issue.

What makes you think there isn't pushback to create an equilibrium of policies?

Why does it necessarily need to be one-sided, where giving in to one iota entails giving in to the whole enchilada?

Complex systems entail dialogue and pushback across competing incentives and motivations. Yes, each side works on the basis of self-interest, but what is to say that giving one inch necessarily entials giving up entirely, unless the original premise is that one cannot give up anything (i.e., uncompromising by definition). That doesn't seem to scale in any real-world system, only ideal systems.
You had to choose between python and perl for scripting, so the choice was obvious. However it wasn't considered suitable for any type of complex application at the time (no scripting language was). Ruby wan't really on the radar when python was becoming popular. Also python billed itself as a simple teaching language which attracted a lot of non-programmers who were intimidated by C and Java. It just kind of snowballed from there.
Good answer.

Python is, imho, not a very good language. But it has a few great libraries which led to overwhelming momentum and inertia. In a cruel twist of irony those libraries are probably written in C.
> At a technical level an abstraction will have more call sites to worry about in different contexts, the more wrong the initial abstraction the harder it will be to change.

As I recently called it, infrastructure and systems lose agility as they gain dependency and move down the stack.

If you have like 1 customer and they have good retries, honestly: fuck everything. Deploy master, in fact, deploy every keystroke to prod. It'll be fine.

At the same time, about 30k - 40k FTEs of our B2B customers depend on one of my Postgres instances during business hours and about twice of that during different holiday seasons. Honestly? Nothing touches the system-level settings of these database systems unless we have pondered a change for 2 weeks. And even then we will schedule an approved change over 4 weeks across applicable postgres clusters. The carnage a bad change at this level can cause is ridiculous enough to not be.
I think the author gets it wrong.

The cost of DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself)-ing up your code can be high, in that it increases the coupling of your code, and potentially lowers its cohesion.

Consider function def foo(a: int), called from call sites C1 and C2. Eventually C1 wants something out of foo() that it doesn't offer, but, critically, something that C2 _doesn't care about or need_. The author of foo() adds a new default argument: def foo(a: int, b:int = 0), and then there is a conditional block in foo() that deals just with this new b argument.

You've now potentially broken callsite C2, by exposing it to changes that it doesn't care about it. Put another way: you should only deduplicate the code of _all_ the call sites will _always_ change for the same reason. Otherwise, you're lowering code quality of the code by increasing coupling and lowering cohesion. Copy and pasting the code in this case makes sense, because C1 and C2 both have entirely different needs out of foo(). Overtime, foo() will accumulate more and more default arguments as the author stridently attempts to keep everything DRY, and the overall code base becomes more and more fragile.
Google used Python; so, a LOT of folks figured that decision was the best one because "Google used it." Google also chose to employ Python's BDFL Guido van Rossum at a key time (2005); which, pushed at least perception of the language forward. Google's support is likely a key factor in the use in data-science, but I don't know the dates/timeline for that as well.

Additionally, during that time the Ruby-core team seemed less focused on performance and more focused on ergonomics. I think the height of this was refinements; which, to my naive understanding were (are?) a real PITA to support/implement for the non-MRI implementations of Ruby. The complexity of the language probably turned off folks who wanted a dynamic language but wanted it to be fast (which is I imagine how all the different implementations of python came about).
I'd argue that better relative ergonomics had diddly squat effect on Python's current position.

And you'd be wrong.

I can confidently say that since I fully expecteded python to win over ruby and it did. Every time I used to hear hipsters dev being all the rage about ruby, I knew they implicitly discounted the cognitive load that goes with learning ruby.

The path from pseudo code to working python code was ( is? ) straight forward and ruby doesn't bring anything in term of paradigm over python that justifies foregoing that advantage.

So everytime a bright mind wanted to implement a library in her field of expertise, python was her tool of choice. And that's how python conquered field after field.
You mean daemon, not deamon or demon
A lot of wildfires are caused by fires that are improperly extinguished, which can be cigarettes. Sometimes it's even fireworks.

July 4th consistently has the highest amount of human-caused wildfire. https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-JULY4/FIREWORKS/klvygax...
> Yes, but do they grow because they can? Or do they grow because they should?

So see Bootstrap's alerts for example (not known for being overly flashy):

https://getbootstrap.com/docs/5.0/components/alerts/

They've got primary, secondary, warning, danger and info and alerts. Each one has a unique background, border and text color, and the text contrast meets accessibility standards. So that's 15 colors just there.

Alerts like this are super common for any UI with forms. You could simplify each alert to use only one or two colors (which puts limits how you can make them look), but do you think this example is over designed as is?

> Put another way, how many users are going to understand ALL those shades and subtle signals in a don't-make-me-think (i.e., Steve Krug) sort of way?

You'd assume the user can tell the danger color from info, but the different shades of the danger color wouldn't have a different meaning except for emphasis and to help with the information hierarchy. Even if your UI was greyscale, you'd want different shades to help here too.

Can you point to a UI you like? How many colors and shades does it have?
Why would a government want to subsidise cryptocurrency with tax advantages?

Proponents think it will collapse the dollar and bankrupt all governments.

Opponents think it's negative-sum and the sooner cryptocurrency dies the better for industries that actually create value.

Either way it's a (mild) attack on effective government and civilization more generally. The less subsidies for traders the better, from the perspective of a currently-influential government.
> Sometimes the key to success is to just be adequate for a really long time.

If that was true I'd be successful by now
You arbitrarily restricted the scope. Java is what I saw.

I was in college 2006 - 2010 in CS, and while all the introductory courses were in Java, by 2008 or so a lot of the other students had switched to Python on their own, for projects where either language would work. Didn't really see anything else, just Java and Python.
James Trunk, who is now Griffin's VP of Engineering, gave one of the most clear and enjoyable technical introductions to Clojure I've seen. Recommended!

https://youtu.be/C-kF25fWTO8?si=PnjMNLdBLJ8zqSu-
Thanks, will do! Glad that I learn about other emulators.
The ACLU fought Trump's "Muslim ban."

That resulted in lots of funding from the anti-Trump crowd. "Trump derangement syndrome" meant previously unimaginable funding.

They needed to do something with the money, so they staffed up, using the new staff to double down on the Trump-fighting.

Before 2016, there were a few claims that the ACLU was biased toward liberals. Afterward, you'll find many articles even from outlets like the Atlantic and the New York Times lambasting the ACLU as openly partisan. Just do a search for them!

So if this is censorship is intended to keep things safe and liberal, people suppose that the ACLU would support the censorship.
Why don't we just build the experience machine if features of our nature are burdens to be discarded at the earliest opportunity? It is not obvious that a life devoid of any hardship should be the ultimate goal of technology. Some of you are way too quick to discard core aspects of humanity out of some bastardized concept of the good.
I absolutely hate when an articles starts out with:

> IN A STARTUP, YOU SHOULD BE USING THE MOST POWERFUL LANGUAGE YOU CAN, AND THAT IS CLOJURE.

says you. one opinion. in a startup you should use the language that your team can build and launch your MVP the fastest so you can get your first customers or funding. Hell, this could be a low code or no-code platform(probably not in fintech, just saying with startups in general).

I mean, I'd say Python is the most powerful language because of LLMs and machine learning and generally I'm a PHP dev. Python also is about to get a ton more powerful with mojo which supposedly makes Python 36000x more performant.

However, I would never tell someone x is the most powerful language and only one to use for a startup because that's a total lie and opinion.
India has a competent opposition. But any competent opposition is limited in democratically fighting an authoritarian regime that doesn't subscribe to democratic values.
French airline’s ‘dodgy flight plan' set system meltdown in motion
Typo in that updated Example (1), should have been:

int totalBalance = savingsBalance + checkingBalance + brokerageBalance;

It's hard to explain such complicated concepts super concisely. What I'm getting is that DRY is often equated to merely making code generic and re-used, while the goal of DRY is not at all about re-use. Generic code is more complicated than non-generic code, thus if we make code generic for the sake of making it used in many places - that is likely going to make things more complex. It's a fundamental misunderstanding that DRY is simply the act of using human pattern matching to make all similar looking code generic and re-used. Instead DRY is more about: "are we sanitizing data before sending it to the front-end? Than that should be done in one place." "Where are we configuring database connections?" etc..

Further DRY should not be the only guiding factor, SRP & coupling should always be considered at the same time as DRY.
I prefer signing in with third party SSO because it's a lower chance of yet another website mishandling my password, though I use a password manager
> relocation assistance

I'm curious how they are going to convince/compensate someone who currently has a 2.75% interest rate on a 400k home to move closer to work and take on 6% rate on a 1M home that is smaller.
So was he arrested for what others could've done?
Apple Sep 2023 Event: “Wonderlust”
I'm finding that fanfic seems quite good (though the fan-service is a bit glaring) these days and it's entirely free.
How many man hours did it take to achieve that?

We just did a Prometheus migration that I suspect will take us 5 years to break even on the development effort investment. And I'm not even counting opportunity costs, which were immeasurable.

I like Elixir and I want it to do well, but bad articles make that harder, not easier.
I don't know why you're being down voted, it's a fair enough question.

Most people overrate their abilities and are expendable -- I suspect Amazon also sees this as a convenient way of getting rid of people who no longer hustle and enjoy the lifestyle of WFH.
nice attempt.
Existing members still get the reduced youtube premium/play store deals, and now a $100 credit. So a win I think?
Well, not yet. "The training wheels come off when we complete an audit, raise some more money, and finish writing the code. That should be Q3 or Q4 this year."
Nobody is at the wheel, and nobody's really solving this. Nothing that has been done so far has made a dent. We're still consuming and polluting more and more, and we're not just driving to the cliff with the pedal to the floor; we're already beyond the ledge.
How does this compare with SoFi’s Galileo platform just in terms of feature set. The Galileo API is fairly rich so I’m wondering what’s different and potentially better.
You don't consider the fact that I've worked successfully with OO many times on various systems of various sizes to be of any significance, then tell me "there are a ton of resources online" which translates to "now go and google for viewpoints that support grumblingdev" instead of actually giving me any data.

You've given me nothing to work on, nothing to learn from, nothing I can even oppose because your objection is so nebulous. I can't even knock down your claims because you haven't really made any except "muh, OOP baaad". I haven't learnt anything, equally you haven't learnt anything... what was the bloody point in you saying anything at all?

> I think knowing that this viewpoint exists is a good lesson in itself

I'll skip the sarcastic reply and just say I draw rather different conclusions.
Requestly founder here. If this is a third-party site then you don't have control over the behaviour of service worker.

Your bet is to use a browser extension to override the response of that specific API and sort of change the response.

PS - Why do you think this is an overkill solution?
If you are cutting a piece of wood with a handsaw and your boss gives you a centimeter ruler and asks for a third, 33 centimeters is about as precise as you can get, and there's certainly a mark for that. That infinitely repeating 3 in the decimal form of 1/3rd in Base-10 can certainly be irritating, but in the real world we don't have infinitely precise tools and can often settle for "good enough".

(Yeah, problems factoring 3s is a deficiency in Base-10 but Base-10 more often than not is "good enough" in practice.)
I am OP, and the parent commenter to this comment both.

I was making exactly the opposit point you are.

I have actually worked directly with the manufacturer of the pumps in those machines (Watson marlow), and also designed and saw through to clinical release many similar complex medical devices with the same exact pumps.

The situation is nearly identical between these two examples, it's just the names of the forms you need to fill out are different, and the division of the company that supplies your components is different, but it's all the same thing just a different name.
MAME 0.258
I'd worry about the violence that will bring, marauders, slavery, etc. That river may run dry. The forest may burn down. That field may be useless in a changed climate or without pollinators. Who knows how it will play out?
the whole article read to me like a guide: How to over engineer a project for kicks and giggles.