skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Same here, we did a VB6 project that allowed the customer to chat with their remote mortgage advisor using a webcam, around '98.

The client was supposed to go to a local branch of the bank and then connect to the banks HQ.

I have also wondered why the software industry with the arrival of Internet went away from all these excellent tools. Not just VB6, but remember all the 4GL and model driven development tools. All gone and never really replaced.
I didn't see other responses like mine, so I wanted to share that "why" was really important for me, not just how. I was afraid of disconnecting, and I wanted a really good reason.

Well, recently my headaches and itches have gotten worse. I feel that it's tied to my anxiety. I've had success showing myself that it's not 100% natural to think or obsess as much as I do, and there's a certain level of acceptance/trust/love that I didn't have in my life. That is helping me dramatically.
I'm currently rewatching the Las Vegas (2003) NBC TV series (the one with James Caan, Josh Duhamel, James Lesure, Molly Sims, Nikki Cox, Vanessa Marcil etc). Feels on-brand; like every second ep is about some fantastic heist.

It's worth rewatching as a guilty pleasure, IMO. Feels quite alien compared to current fare. It's dumb but well-crafted, fun and glitzy and never takes itself too seriously. I miss that kind of show.

Surprisingly high production values for the time. It's available in 1080p with decent quality, somehow.
I found "dumping/serializing state" greatly helped me.

I got into a habit of writing down things that required continued work next day, at the end of my workday. Initially I started doing this because it would take too long to get back into the depth needed to be productive especially after a long weekend or context switching for a day or two due to something time critical. The most effective form of "state dump" being specifically what is the next thing I need to immediately work on given next opportunity.

Overtime I realized, this "checkpoint" allowed me naturally to evaluate how much time and energy I spent on something and be specific about the next thing that would move me towards the outcome I wanted. This focus would:

1/ put my mind at ease, because I know what's important was written down and I don't need to spend mental energy keeping the state alive in my mind.

2/ It would direct my thinking towards what is important to do next time around rather than thinking of interesting but nuanced thing that are actually low value in grand scheme of things.

3/ Often, narrowing down what's the next thing I need to do meant I had a solution next morning and would often experience high productivity in first few hours of the day.

ymmv.
An Introduction to Interpreters and JIT Compilation
I loved Brisco County Jr! And then after it vanished, the theme song ended up being used all the time for the Olympics on NBC. Maybe it still is, not sure. Regardless, each time it played all I could think of was Brisco.
My jaw kept dropping with each new bullet point.
While I don't disagree with your sentiment, that is not a reasonable expectation for anyone intending to develop for Apple platforms. Apple has made it quite crystal clear for a long time now that Swift, and only Swift, is the One True Way going forward.
My point is the franchisees also profit from selling less ice cream provided they don’t lose the trust of their customers.
I want to comment specifically on:

> The software and system are not properly tested.

Followed by suggesting to do fuzzing tests.

* Automatically generating valid flight paths is somewhat hard (and you'd have to know which ones are valid because the system, apparently, is designed to also reject some paths). It's also possible that such a generator would generate valid but improbable flight paths. There's probably an astronomic number of possible flight paths, which makes exhaustive testing impossible, thus no guarantee that a "weird" path would've been found. The points through which the paths go seem to be somewhat dynamic (i.e. new airports aren't added every day, but in a life-span of such a system there will be probably a few added). More realistically some points on flight paths may be removed. Does the fuzzing have to account for possibilities of new / removed points?

* This particular functionality is probably buried deep inside other code with no direct or easy way to extricate it from its surrounding, and so would be very difficult to feed into a fuzzer. Which leads to the question of how much fuzzing should be done and at what level. Add to this that some testing methodologies insist on divorcing the testing from development as not to create an incentive for testers to automatically okay the output of development (as they would be sort of okaying their own work). This is not very common in places like Web, but is common in eg. medical equipment (is actually in the guidelines). So, if the developer simply didn't understand what the specification told them to do, then it's possible that external testing wasn't capable of reaching the problematic code-path, or was severely limited in its ability to hit it.

* In my experience with formats and standards like these it's often the case that the standard captures a lot of impossible or unrealistic cases, hopefully a superset of what's actually needed in practice. Flagging every way in which a program doesn't match the specification becomes useless or even counter-productive because developers become overloaded with bug reports most of which aren't really relevant. It's hard to identify the cases that are rare but plausible. The fact that the testers didn't find this defect on time is really just a function of how much time they have. And, really, the time we have to test any program can cover a tiny fraction of what's required to test a program exhaustively. So, you need to rely on heuristics and gut feeling.
Again, I agree with your claims about entropy. I also agree with the claim that replacing stoves is generally good.

One still does not imply the other. The question was about what makes sense. That's economically, socially, politically, regionally, etc. Amount of energy extracted via some processes is not the same as benefit. However, benefit is what matters. I guess this discussion isn't moving forward from here.
Microsoft effectively killed VB because they decided everyone should be using .NET. While they created VB .NET in an attempt to make the transition palatable to VB programmers, this was a second-class citizen to the CLR, and more importantly too different from VB, more akin to an inferior C# with VB-like syntax than actual VB. It was widely decried by VB developers [0], and nick-named "Visual Fred" due to really being a different language than VB. Microsoft ignored that, and also didn't bring a VB-like experience to .NET. It didn't help that mainstream software development started drifting to the web, and later also to mobile apps.

[0] https://classicvb.net/vfred/breaks.asp
- I set strict working hours where I allow myself to think about work things.

- I finish these working hours every day with an activity that stimulates me and/or requires concentration. Usually this involves getting outdoors where there's a lot more sensory input to process. A walk around the park is usually good enough!

- I don't expose myself to anything work related outside my working hours. I don't have work related apps on my phone and I use a separate work profile on my laptop.

I work remotely so these rules are doubly important for me, where I don't have the luxury of being able to leave the office.
In the US there are tens of thousands of violent criminals in prison. The police were integral to many of those investigations or arrests.
"barely used on other platforms" clearly meant (to me anyway) barely used on non-Apple platforms. They're not terrible languages, but they're pretty uncommon outside the Apple ecosystem.
Agreed, Crossfit has been remarkably helpful for this. It's a group setting combined with movements that require focus on strength, coordination, and socializing.
Time does not repeat, but it does rhyme in a phrase that ends in global thermonuclear war.
Not sure where anyone would get the idea they were. Don't most open source projects have a benevolent dictator?

Anyway, if you don't like or trust the guys running a project, fork it! If you do, fork it anyway!
Meta Offered All In-Person Roblox Developers Conference Attendees Free Quest Pro
But it was almost as fast as using a credit card! ;)
Of course cost is a motivating factor.

The very nature of GPUs implies that they are optimized for parallelizable workloads.

If I can split my training across 3x the chips at 1/10th the cost for each chip, why wouldn’t I do that?
A service responsible for handing out UIDs.
You can think of it that way if you want, sure.

Another angle is that plead bargains are necessary to put as many people in jail as we do.

The judicial system would completely break down if it needed to have 50x as many trials.
If customers had to pay the actual full cost of an ICE car, including the cost to clean up all the pollution the car will generate over its lifetime, I think it's safe to say customers wouldn't want them.

But yes, from a strictly capitalist point of view, the car companies did not screw up, at least in the short term. They sold their cars at prices that customers were ok with, and made a bundle of money.

So what? Capitalism successfully lined the carmakers pockets' with profits, but our world is becoming less and less habitable for humans every year. Great outcome.
This is hitting back a long time. But the algorithm - if I recall right - is a simple DFS on the determinstic automaton for the regular expression and it can output the full set of matching strings if you're allowed to use *s in the output.

Basically, you need an accumulator of "stuff up to here". If you move from a node to a second node, you add the character annotating that edge to the accumulator. And whenever you end up with an edge to a visited node, you add a '*' and output that, and for leaf nodes, you output the accumulator.

And then you add a silly jumble of parenthesis on entry and output to make it right. This was kinda simple to figure out with stuff like (a(ab)*b)* and such.

This is in O(states) for R and O(2^states) for NR if I recall right.
I want to believe that there was a "specific action". An explicit announcement to block a road / airport / whatever.

Unfortunately, it is cheaper for the gonvernment to detain people than to send police to prevent it shortly before it is going to happen.

Also, the ruling party in Bavaria is mainly controlled by the opinions people exchange in pubs over a couple of beers (one beer being a quarter gallon), and there common sense isn't considered that much.
> My parent's VW T5 for example just crossed 350.000 miles and already had several minor engine issues in addition to a costly particle filter swap.

It's funny, because my $70k Tesla Model Y will have to have it's whole battery pack replaced by the time it reaches 155k Miles.

Can you guess which part of any Tesla is the most expensive one? The damn battery pack...

Now compare replacing the whole car(yes, you can't just replace the battery pack) to VW having just "several minor engine issues in addition to a costly particle filter swap".

I like EVs and will switch my Chevy Colorado to an EV as soon as possible(they're always sold out). But your example is quite literally proof, that an ICE will outlast an EV.
I think the bigger issue with measuring blood pressure is that, aside from diagnosed diabetics, it's a measurement done infrequently and at mostly arbitrary times. Your blood pressure reading on the day of a doctor's appointment, right after you've driven to the appointment, made your way through the intake pipeline, and finally sat down in the chair, is not representative of its reading during a typical day in your life. Other factors like recency of coffee or alcohol consumption, exercise and sleep, all combine to make blood pressure a fairly variable statistic with limited diagnostic power when it's only measured infrequently.

Regardless of whether you're lying down, standing up, or sitting in a chair, it would be beneficial to take more frequent blood pressure readings, throughout the day and during typical routines, than it would to only take them every time you visit the doctor. This seems like common sense, and you can even buy blood pressure sensors for $20 on Amazon, but how many people take their blood pressure on a regular basis? Once you're a diagnosed diabetic, then maybe you start measuring it every day - but wouldn't it be better to start such a habit before you become diabetic? After all, if you're continuously measuring a variable then you can notice patterns and anomalies, and take steps to mitigate them - possibly avoiding becoming diabetic before it's too late.

It seems the limiting factor is sensor technology, which is obviously lacking compared to wearable sensors for tracking heart rate. Any health-conscious person with an Apple Watch or similar wearable device can easily track their pulse throughout the day. But no similarly accurate and seamless sensor exists for measuring blood pressure (as far as I know?), so nobody measures it as frequently as they do their pulse. Once we have the technology to accurately and passively measure blood pressure throughout the day, preventive medicine will become much easier, and people will have a better feeling for how their blood pressure responds to small changes in their environment and lifestyle.
Really? On a scale of despicable "things" that would presumably include activities such as: genocide, ethnic cleansing, serial murder, mass rape, child porn, slavery, kidnapping, mass murder, terrorism, war profiteering, deliberate mass environmental contamination, pension fund fraud, etc and etc, along with all their related activities and variants?

I'd place cheating on sport pretty low along any broad scale of despicable human activities.
That doesn't pay for the feed you need to retire on.
VB6 could do all these things and more, in the 90's I built just the right small parts in C++ to glue things together, and we could do multi-processing, resilient multi-server setups, and much much more.
Serving HTTP for some always-limiting browser was an obvious easy sidenote, ie. what your mantra "available on the web" wraps in silver, but leveraging the full power of the desktop and OS was what power users actually wanted, and would still want now if the apps were there.
I think some people at Microsoft realized VB had the potential to canibalize a lot of what they wanted as their proprietary backyard, and they killed the baby before it would grow into more of a mass movement.
Now they succeeded, many that would have been educated into owning their computers now mindlessly click on "Yes" and are lost in the adds panopticon, but then MS had to non-compete some of the pie off to Google and co...
Indeed, this is how I did it. 2^28 is around 270 million. With little more than a handful options, it should be possible. Although I have to say, it turned out to be more difficult than I'd initially thought. Maybe it's better to think of it as 28 different boolean choices.

echo -n "Indeed. This is how I managed to do it. 2^28 is around 300 million. With only a handful options, it's possible. Although, I must say that it turned out to be more difficult than I'd initially thought. Perhaps it's better to think of it as 28 different alternatives." | sha256sum
This claim is a bit too broad based on my limited understanding. Please correct me if I'm wrong:

First, Rust is not actually a memory safe language. It makes writing memory safe code easy and nudges you towards writing "unsafe" code in specific places. This is a good thing and many get away with not requiring programmer asserted safety. But it's also important to note that ultimately it relies on it.

Second, The borrow checker seems to primarily check that you're doing RAII properly. In a sense it answers the question of:

"What if we get the predictable nature of stack allocated memory for the heap?"

Clever, but that leads to a proliferation of lifetime annotations (which are part of your types) and makes code very brittle and rigid if spelled out as is. Because every lifetime that is encoded that way, has to fully cover the scope that encloses all of its usage. And if that weren't enough, it also infects almost every data structure that is some way composed of references.

There seems to be multiple ways of dealing with this issue that I've come across when learning the language:

1. Avoiding pointer references whenever possible and using self-managed vector/slice/hashmap references.

2. Introducing GC via reference counting.

3. Cloning.

4. Macro or trait abstraction.

When we're doing 1, we don't gain much utility from the borrow checker.

When doing 2/3 we would be better served if we used a language with a battle hardened and optimized GC runtime.

I've seen 4 in some cases, but never looked like it's "bringing safety to the masses". The whole API around traits and macros is very rich, very sophisticated and very subtle.

I would rather phrase it as: "Rust brings ML/functional concepts to C++ programmers and it explores a new space of compiler optimizations based on that."

However the Rust _community_ does bring these concepts to the masses. They have written excellent books and recorded multi hour long videos explaining and exploring the language and making this all accessible.
I entertain myself on long trips by timing how long things take and 15 minutes is sadly common I’ve seen it take take 25 minutes when the bathroom has a line. Gas stations are much faster day to day when you just want fuel and to hit the road, but after a few hours in the car someone needs to go to the bathroom etc and nobody is racing for the car.

I do know people who try and minimize such stops. They got an extra gas tank and use a piss bottle etc but businesses optimize for the general population not extreme outliers.
Not just VB, but also things like Borland Delphi.

25 years ago, you could visually compose a UI using standardized components, including advanced concepts like a layout manager. You could do data-binding visually by navigating a linked database. You can write logic/events just by double-clicking a button and the event is created. Here you'd write your code which would typically be pretty easy because all contextual objects are readily available.

Sure enough, I understand that the above development model also has its limitations and doesn't serve all common modern needs. But still, it's pretty pathetic what we ended up with. Our tool chains are much more complicated and we program at a lower abstraction level whilst requiring a laundry list of skills.
I agree with most of the post, but ...

> For a long time, theoretical physicists tried to explain the results obtained by experimental physicists. I think this changed with Einstein – he actually predicted things. And some Einstein predictions were confirmed only many years later. With quantum mechanics, things seem to have worked that way from the beginning – theoretical physicists predict, experimental physicists confirm (or reject).

In the beginning Plank fit the experimental curve of the black body radiation with a mathematical formula, and an explanation that makes no sense. But it fit the curve! Later Einstein used that idea too to explain the photoelectric effect, and got a Nobel price, but explanation still makes no sense. But it fit the data!

Bohr got a formula for the levels of the atom. It explains the spectrum, but the explanation makes no sense.

Add a lot of people in between, with good formulas and bad explanations. It was mostly a collection of ad-hoc trick than a real theory.

Then Heisenberg and Schrödinger got a better mathematical model of what is happening. From that point on, all the tricks can be explaining using one undelaying theory. This is nice, because everyone hates a collection of tricks that nobody knows if they are incompatible.

So there are like 30 years of tricks to explain experiments, and then after Heisenberg and Schrödinger it's a nice theory.

Still, some parts make no sense, like the colapse rule in a measurement, but we are use to it. Everyone hopes it will be fixed someday, perhaps in 100 years, perhaps in 500 years. Don't hold your breath.

After that, Dirac predicted the positron. It was huge and I think it was the first theoretical prediction of quantum mechanics that was proven later experimentally.

After that, it get's really weird, but still there is a mix of theoretical and experimental results.

For example, I'm not sure how to classify the discovery of the quarks. They look very hard at the pile of experimental data, and realized protons and neutrons and similar particles must have 3 quarks and that there were 3 "flavors" of quarks. And they predicted a few new particles with these 3 flavors.
No matter what your opinion is on these categories, "A statement of whether the current version of the terms of service defines each of the following categories of content" is a quite straightforward question - what do your terms of service say? How can you get from that to "implicitly agreeing that these categories are real things"? If your ToS mentions them, then you say yes, if it doesn't mention them, then you say no.

Saying "The currently active terms of service document (attached) does not define 'woke ideology' as a separate category of content" is a simple factual statement, and it does not imply anything that you didn't already write in that terms of service agreement; I see nothing wrong with companies being compelled to provide an answer to this - it is relevant factual information about the product they're distributing to people in California; the companies do not have a constitutional right to keep all their internal documents secret, they can be compelled by law to disclose them.
For a long time I would have said FileMaker, but considering the strategic moves of Claris in the last few years probably not anymore
We 'could' at least in theory. The actual response I expect is something closer to "don't look up"
Wide Angle Analytics

Matomo

Piwik

Simple Analytics

Plenty of choices for ethical and strong privacy web analytics.

But read terms of service and privacy policy. Some web analytics will claim compliance but then you will see they prohibit you from processing certain data, or they will use support platform or internal email that makes taking about customers tricky.
ASP & ASP.NET

You forget to mention those two, which are important to the history of events.
Visual Basic was mostly used for LOB applications. That stuff mostly migrated to the web. When businesses decided to move those applications to the web, they had a choice between C# and VB.NET (if they stuck to the MS stack). C# ultimately won. Most of the old VB developers that are still around have converted over to being C# developers now.

When everything was a desktop app then the choice was C++ or VB and there were a lot of situations where VB "won". Today C# does everything VB used to do but better on the desktop and non-performance sensitive applications are increasingly using Electron anyway.

Performance sensitive desktop app = C++
Windows focused non-performace sensitive desktop app = C#
Cross platform non-performace sensitive desktop app = JS/TS in Electron
Web app = anything but VB
I'd rather not be bothered by this at all and just move on, but it's something I care about - and hundreds of others with me.

It's ok that you don't care about this, so feel free to put your pitchfork down.