skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The one thing that I've never been able to wrap my head around about unions is their ability to strike, and not be fired. Forming a union, advocating for collective bargaining, those things are good, but being able to put a gun to a corporations head, and say, do this or we are destroying your company, is just wrong. If a person wants to strike, fine, but the company should be able to hire someone else. We as citizens are not forced to work for particular companies, those companies should not be forced to work with us.
Have you read what uncensored, lowest common denominator, everything goes online conversation devolves to? See 4chan's /pol/ for example, it aint pretty.

HN is relatively so good because there are clear and enforced guardrails around what a conversation looks like.

Allowing polarization for the sake of openness is not a good thing.
Something you appear to be confused about is I'm not disagreeing with your opinion. I am calling your opinion morally abhorrent by disagreeing with the very premise.

You don't have to worry yourself about my preservation.

A more productive use of your time would be to focus more on actually understanding the details of the topic at hand, then maybe you'll comprehend a little better the anti-humanistic nature of your (evidently so implicit as to be invisible to you) bias. To repeat myself: self-awareness is mandated in good-faith discussions.
Many ways: put the murderous cartels out of business, stop ruining people’s lives with felony convictions, cut down on accidental overdoses from black market drugs of unknown contents and potency, less impetus for corruption in law enforcement.

All the same benefits that we gained from repealing alcohol prohibition.
Thank you for sharing!

What's really fascinating to me is that people fall anywhere on this spectrum yet we interact socially in mostly the same ways and usually we wouldn't notice from spending time with a person just how different their inner experience is.
I disagree with the content of this article. I hadn't heard of "The Critic" before but looking at the headlines on the front page, I can see that it has a clear bias and is not making any good faith effort to address issues in a balanced way.
Interestingly enough the issues you list seem related to capitalism rather than just any form of societal system.

Many literary utopias have non-capitalist systems but usually some sort of circular sharing system (some are outright communist, but others more slow living).

Greed must always be checked by a society. But since Calvinism we've had a dual moral reasoning (was that Charles Taylor or Hegel, can't recall). Through Calvinism capitalism attained the moral good of earning more than you need, to deploy greed for God.

Humans are naturally greedy (natural egoism is not immoral just a biological drive) and our political system should balance that out somehow.
There are absolute truths, but there is no impartial authority to decide what they are. The only way to reach truth is through discussion (ie, interaction between opposing viewpoints). Eliminating polarity also eliminates the possibility of determining truth.
I think you've used a link which has mutated.
Even though I am Italian and Nirvana is probably the last good sci-fi movie we made, Nirvana itself owns a lot to 1995 Strange Days.
Android had a stoopid setting when it changes the brightness of the screen based on ambient light.

When the ambient light is given by the screen ...
The reason that tone is a good signal (though that may change with generative AI in the mix) is because, in practice, it's correlated with intentions and understanding of the writer. It is possible to politely advocate genocide, and to make angry, simplistic, but 100% correct arguments for a right cause, but both cases are very rare to see in practice. Usually, people who write politely do so because they want to carefully get a considered point across; people who write angrily do so because they want to win a verbal fight.
Nat.dev Compare
Yes.

In Spain buying is almost impossible unless it's a couple and both have been saving for a decade.

Renting is no different. Prices increase around 20% in my city every year. People used to share in their early twenties but now they are forced to do it in their thirties too. I even know people in their 40s who have to move back with their parents after a breakup because with their salaries they can't afford to rent alone. Rent control is also making things worse.
It has no obligation to do so.
What did they get away with? Is there some drama around that cover?
> Have Terraform plug into your Git history, take the Terraform code from the previous commit, and use that to calculate the old tree

This is much much more difficult than it sounds if you want to be able to handle any amount of refactoring or repo reorganization and not be cut off from being able to handle resources from "before" a certain time.

How terraform or provider upgrades would work is another minefield. It's not just a matter of having access to the old terraform source, it would need to evaluate it with the same terraform version and providers - so those would have to be acquired and run within the state backend.

And then this is still assuming the previous run that you're trying to emulate was applied 100% successfully...
> Reddit has for years coached people to 'remember the human' and backs it up with various rules and bans. They want people to treat each other well.

Are you saying that Reddit is a good example? Because that would be a laughable point to make
How do you "reduce polarity" without censoring voices? If you do believe in 'just a little censorship', then absolutely you are a censorship maximalist. How else would you achieve your censorship goals?

The censor class have repeatedly censored discussion in the name of correctness that were later proven to be either murky or outright false (see: lab leak theory censorship, mask effectiveness censorship, Hunter Biden laptop censorship etc).

As history has repeatedly shown, censorship is principally used by those whose ideas cannot be backed up in public debate -- the opposing view must be forcefully crushed.
Weekly reminder that FFmpeg powers all online video
This link just takes me to a sign up screen. What am I supposed to see?
I like it. It would be nice to have some extra comfort in who your org is and what steps you have to assure you guys are not the man in the middle here. Also how you expect to monitize if you do since free as in your data is our data is not what you want in this case at all. That said I like the do one thing and make it easier approach and plan to try it. Keep doing what you are doing on the roadmap my only mid term advice is this would be marketable to enterprise if you could self host and roll your own endpoints for in house owners. Nice setup so far and good luck getting a userbase !!!
There is no concept of SQL-level joins in Prisma. This was one of the most shocking revelations to us. In some queries we inspected that supposedly should have used SQL Joins or subqueries, we discovered that at a low level, Prisma was fetching data from both tables and then combining the result in its “Rust” engine. This was a path for an absolute trash performance.

This is terrifying. OTOH they were coming from MongoDB, so what were they expecting? A sane DB layer? /s
I'll admit this isn't fully fleshed out. I've yet to design the gulags.

But the core of it is a change of focus away from "everyone must contribute as much as they can" which the lefties also support. It's more the recognition that actually we could (maybe!) get more done if we didn't insist on everyone doing something.
Police ignored the laws of datacenter climate control
I agree with pretty much everything you say here. But a thought hits me on the dan luu kernel issue - let's say we fund a team of kernel devs and they reduce TCO by .5% - the nature of FOSS means that the reduction in cost is illusory - all their competitors get the same TCO.

The funding of the kernel team is similar to paying taxes to fund science research ... it's just the more I look around the more I see a vast socialist society we live in that we think is some red in tooth and claw capitalism.

The main value of capitalism seems to be the creative destruction- replacing old inefficient companies with ones newly formed, built
differently.

It's just that if we found a way to close down companies after say ten years and forced them to build new, would that solve as many issues as schumpter?
A good example of what? A platform not seeking to maximize outrage?

Yes. They banned the Donald Trump subreddit. That one subreddit produced more outrage than probably everything else in the history of Reddit combined. And they banned it. A company seeking to maximize outrage would not do that.
I don’t know that every acronym is necessarily bad.

DRY, KISS, SOLID etc.

Yeah they’re buzzwords, but they serve a pretty useful function of constantly reinforcing objectively good behaviours that should be inherently obvious but often are not.

That said, my argument falls apart with DevOps which is simply moving automation to more stages of your delivery (which is good) because it’s been utterly co-opted by snake oil salesmen and uppity gatekeepers. Seriously, the amount of exceedingly difficult but otherwise passable workers I’ve had to straighten out because they’ve mistaken having access control rights to work with the production environment with being in charge of the whole development process is utterly wild.

(I’ve checked too, no-one has told them or lead them to believe this so I’m sure it’s
A DevOps thing).

And, you know, Agile. But it’s not an acronym so I’ll leave that rant out.
Welcome to experience our AI content marketing tool and look forward to your feedback.
> Mac OS X had a yearly release cycle in the beginning if I remember correctly.

That's not correct. Here are the # of months since the previous Mac .0 release:

10.1.0 6

10.2.0 11

10.3.0 14

10.4.0 18

10.5.0 30 (delayed due to iPhone)

10.6.0 22

10.7.0 23

(Steve Jobs resigns)

10.8.0 12

10.9.0 15

10.10.0 12

10.11.0 11

10.12.0 12

10.13.0 12

10.14.0 12

10.15.0 12

This was a logical progression until 10.8. The fundamental software development principle is that immature software is easier to improve, because there's a lot of low-hanging fruit — glaring bugs and missing features — whereas mature software is harder to improve and easier to accidentally break. That's why major updates should come more slowly as the software matures over time.

It's no coincidence that Tiger and Snow Leopard are viewed as high points in Mac OS X quality and stability. It's not because of the .0 releases, which were very buggy like any .0 releases; it was because they ultimately became very stable after many many months of minor bug fix updates with no major updates (30 and 23 months respectively).

Also worth mentioning: major Mac OS X updates used to cost $129. Now they cost $0. You get what you pay for. Now users are pushed into updating whether they like it or not. You might wonder whether the principle starts to apply: if you're not the customer, you're the product. After all, Apple has been transitioning into a so-called "services" company. They'd rather sell yearly "subscriptions" (more accurately, rentals) than major OS updates.

> In my opinion, the drop in quality was probably at least also related to Steve Jobs‘ death.

This may be true, but note that the change in OS release schedule coincides with the death of Jobs. Mac OS X 10.8 was the first post-Jobs release and also the start of the annual schedule.
How so? I for one have been using a remarkably similar JVM stack for backend development over the last decade.
I can somewhat do this, but I think that the idea is overstated in many people's perceptions -- that is, it's not that I can always clearly see anything in my mind or hear or smell things in my mind, it's only in specific situations and specific moods.

I enjoy cooking for example, and if I really like a meal somewhere, I can slowly start to break down the components that provide the taste, the smell, even the texture (i.e., cooking techniques) for the meal.

Music is a bit easier for me even without a ton of familiarity, but I can hear the notes quite easily in my mind, scale them and find their "friends" (not sure what the real musical term is), I just lack the physical ability to hit some of the notes in my mind.

The point of this is that it's not an omnipresent feature for everyone, and I'm willing to bet it's much more isolated as I'm describing, but I don't insist that I'm accurate in this bet. I don't think that I really trained for this directly, at least not in all subjects -- I did play an instrument as a child, and while I couldn't recite the different scales or tell you which notes to play by name, I could just show you with my instrument because it "sounded" right in my head, and if my teacher corrected me and showed me, it was easy enough after awhile to "hear" the right note in advance.

With visualizing items, again it's nothing that I would train on and it's not something I do all the time, but it does happen; remembering directions to some place in my city I might just give the basic directions without thinking of what it looks like, but if someone is unfamiliar with my city, I can "see" the various places they'll spot on the way, almost to the point it's like going on a walk in my mind through this place.

The visualizations typically start out very amorphous for me unless I'm _very_ familiar with the subject; usually only a few vague aspects of the image appear, and as I remember other details, the picture becomes more clear. It's maybe a bad example, but imagine watching a painting come together one layer at a time, or a Timelapse of an artist doing a painting. Or maybe some game where only part of the image is shown at first with some blurring or distortion, and over time (as I think of more details), it becomes more clear.
I'm glad this now has a name. I realised I couldn't do it when I was pretty young, after the first few times I encountered the concept of "counting sheep". Like, what sheep? Even if there are sheep, surely my eyes need to be closed in order to fall asleep? Can other people really see sheep whenever they want to see sheep?!

Unlike the writer of the article, I would definitely "fix" this if I could, a mind's eye sounds like a very useful thing to have. (I have other deficiencies/differences which I wouldn't choose to fix, though.)
Well yeah, it's not easy right now, because we are doing precisely what you are saying, basically short term optimization.

Not saying that hasn't served us well for a long time, but I think there are improvements we could make in our society.
See, this is what immediately turned me off the article.

I don't WANT a payment system that is about beating up other payment systems in the schoolyard and making them cry.

I want a payment system that takes money on my behalf and then pays me with it.

I'll put up with a lot of inefficiency if it's boring and predictable. You're gonna have a heck of a time prying me away from Patreon in favor of your new lunch-money taking payment system with crypto and hookers. If you're leading with 'take their lunch money', I don't trust you.

I don't trust Jack Conte THAT much, but it's sure a lot more than you.
I can see that these are indeed targetting musicians and are way more sophisticated instruments than what I'm looking for. I'm still grateful for the info!

Thanks for sharing!
Agreed, it is limited to active participation. Although this might not be such an issue; a lot of creator payment platforms (Bandcamp, Ko-fi, Kickstarter) depend on active payments, and Patreon’s recent announcements seem to suggest they will lean more heavily on this.
I don't know if I necessarily agree, especially with D = decoupling. However I do like the idea of dead simple code. Often I'll find code written by self styled haxors who omit curly braces and nest ternary operators because they can. That's great but it ends up biting you in the ass.

The code itself should be treated internally like part of the product and it should be easily extensible, of uniform style, and written so safely that if a child added a line to the code it wouldn't break it entirely.

This is especially true of languages that support macros. If inclusion or modification of macros in your code cannot be done, it is probably a bad sign. When writing code to be resistant to hardware attacks for instance there is a different style that must be adopted entirely, if everyone is writing the fanciest for-loops fathomable then it becomes inefficient and a risk to code correctness to mutate the code to resist classes of attacks. This is terrible and not worth it just because an elite haxor wanted to write a for loop in a single line.
> It will the result of informed, enlightened and passionate people banging about the cause for as long as it takes.

The interesting part is that people that post bullshit online often believe that they are "informed, enlightened and passionate people banging about the cause for as long as it takes".
...so that we can censor these even more.
It doesn't count as beating the market unless if you're doing so due to skill. It's not particularly unusual to beat the market and come out of a casino positive. On the other hand, bragging about how good you are at slots, is what will get you "weird dogmatism."
> Life rarely involves absolute truths but some people refuse to acknowledge this.

The way this is phrased sounds like absolute relativism: no truth really exists, everything is relative, every opinion is as relevant as any other.

This is a dangerous perspective, and often used to give too much focus to fringe opinions that do not merit that much attention.

Your username is waihtis on hn, 2+2 is 4 in mainstream mathematics, not true equals false in boolean logic, and the sun will rise tomorrow are all truths. People arguing against these truths better have a compelling argument, or they can be safely ignored. That is not censorship, but a thoughtful use of our time.

Aka, you are free to speak your mind, but you are not entitled to people listening. No one owes a platform to fringe opinions because of free speech.
I was surprised to learn that the US government allows duplicate passports for exactly this kind of situation.
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/passports/have-pa...
>The only people who want to remove polarity from online conversation are hardcore censorship maximalists.

Even American civic debate culture is heavily centered around limitations on how to present an argument. Polarity in itself isn't what matters in productive discourse, it's truthfulness, factfulness, lack of bad faith argument style, and so on.

Anyone who is interested in debate producing truth rather than being a sort of entropy entertainment machine must value civility. People can be completely polarized and argue complete nonsense, there is no value in it whatsoever. The literal site we are having this conversation on right now is very strongly moderated when it comes to civility and avoiding needless polarization, but HN is not censorship maximalist. It's ironic to try to argue this especially here.
JavaFX Notebook [video]
Chrome 119 Beta Released with CSS Relative Color Syntax, WebSQL Disabled
Samsung Galaxy Tab A9 and A9 budget tablets debuts (unofficially?)
Or drugs like in Culture.
Found the logical positivist. Discussion doesn't necessarily or even reliably lead to "absolute truth", just as armchair pondering about idealized versions of some phenomenon doesn't necessarily lead to actionable predictions about it. Most phenomena aren't amenable to being studied purely in logical abstractions and thus a search for "absolute truth" seldom makes sense for them in the first place.

If we want to talk about "objective truth" - an adjacent and popular buzzword - we should at the very least be attempting operationalization and experimentation on our claims, as empiricism is the framework best suited to supporting the epistemic claim of "objectivity"

Really the notion of an absolute, objective, and knowable truth is often an unrealistic standard if we don't have good means to study the phenomenon in question, and tends to be something more like a pissing contest about rhetorical prowess or credentials in most conversations in practice.

Reaching agreement is a valuable but far from certain outcome of a dialogue. It is not the same thing as ascertaining "truth" in some epistemically meaningful final sense
You don't want your customers OD'ing, you want them to keep coming back.

Just because there's a limit to the outrage tolerated, it doesn't mean that outrage isn't part of the plan.
So no source?

Again, no Tesla owner thinks autopilot is full autonomy, since it very clearly isn't. I don't know if you have ever used it, but you would find out after driving a few meters.
I like "Hello Chinese" but as the name suggests, it's just for Chinese :D
Correct. In fact I'm having trouble thinking up a single counter example of an algorithm competition that doesn't give penalty for failed submissions.
Metropolis is actually about the fear of the mass industrialization and the class struggle. Fritz Lang was Austrian, but the movie was produced in Germany in a period were things were quite grim there.

The protagonist of Metropolis is in the title: Metropolis, the city, from the greek μητρόπολις, meter = mother, polis = city (or state).
> Years ago, when I was younger and more idealistic, I would have expressed my opinion on the choices made, even forcefully so. After I got fired at one of my previous jobs, I tend to side with the boss, strategically.

Perhaps I'm a natural-born sycophant, but I always understood that my primary role in the company is to serve/help my boss, and, most notably, making him look good in from of his boss.

Incidentally, I'm already financially independent and retired at 42 yo.
The First Quantum Engine Is Here and It Could Power a Revolution
(minor spoiler alert)
The language that the systems concoct - if only someone in the film's production crew had fleshed it out - so that we could see it now, and grok it, and (ofc) evaluate it critically.
> Apparently this offended a lot of people on HN.

Because it's nonsense.
I'm very similar to you - I can't consciously visualize - I just get a blank when I try. But I can lucid dream, and then I can visualize perfectly, even designing complex 3d mechanisms. When I'm fully awake, I'm sort of aware those visualisations are still happening in my subconscious, but I can't access them consciously.
> Sturgeon's Law, 90% of everything is crud, and that explains almost everything

> In professional settings, approximately all of my time goes into solving problems introduced by people that are just indescribably bad

Translation: everyone except me is stupid.

Why do we let people say things like this without calling them out on it?
It depends on the definitions of a housing crisis, but according to “ The Guardian” [0]Spain is in the worst housing crisis in Europe.

Here this the summary:

“ In Spain, a significant housing law, aimed at enshrining housing as a fundamental human right, was implemented on May 26, following years of development. However, its future is uncertain due to the recent gain of rightwing parties in elections and a snap election called by Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez for July 23. The law's roots date back to 1956, aiming to transition Spain to a nation of homeowners and establishing "publicly protected housing," which could be sold after 30 years. Spain, with nearly 80% of homes being owner-occupied, faced a crisis in 2008 when global real estate issues led to widespread evictions and skyrocketing rents, amidst only a minimal increase in wages. This disparity has resulted in Spain having the highest housing cost overburden rate in Europe and sparked a housing movement driven by anti-eviction activists and tenants’ unions.”

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/05/spain-...
New Freeware Detects Fake USB Drives with Inflated Capacity