skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think we're talking specifically test automation like unit tests, integration tests, and end to end tests. You can't write software without ever trying to run it, which is functional testing. A solo developer e.g. has to be doing these sorts of "QA"/functional manual testing.

Let's look at the source code for Doom: https://github.com/id-Software/DOOM

How many _test files do you see? Millions of people played Doom for endless hours and the quality beats a lot of modern software with tests.

Again, tests certainly have their place in modern software development, but the kind of thinking that if you have tests that means your quality is good is wrong and actually leads to worse software quality. Tests are just a part of an overall approach to quality software.

EDIT: Re hiring. I would be looking for people that understand the nuances and the why vs. people that approach things through a religious lens. I.e. they understand the tradeoffs. If you're writing tests then your tests are code. Should you write tests for your tests? If not why not? How do you know that your tests are correct? If your religion says 100% unit test coverage for all code then it's pretty clear this is a religious belief not subject to reason (because otherwise you'd be also asking for 100% coverage for your unit test code by other unit tests).

There are situations where unit tests have a ton of leverage. There are situations where they have less. Testing happens in other disciplines, e.g. mechanical engineering, where certain things get tested (including with automation) and others do not. The decisions depend on the function of the component, the impact of failure, preexisting knowledge about the technologies, etc. software engineering can learn something from some of those other engineering disciplines...
thanks!

> In practically every example so far in aviation, adding automation makes things harder, not easier.

While somewhat unsatisfying as an answer, I think the industry has done it wrong, exactly because the result was harder, not easier. the UI/UX of modern glass cockpits is incredibly unintuitive and difficult to use. It's extremely opaque as to what the system's actually doing, if much. And no one has truly tackled the core problem of stopping our less trained, less rigorous part 91 pilots from losing control of their airplanes.

We definitely recognize that this creates a new failure mode. However, we're address those failure modes with redundant systems and following the same engineering standards as commercial aircraft. Many of them fly pure fly-by-wire and rely on the probably of a total electrical failure to be extremely low. We are doing the same.

If everything really does fail, there's the full airframe parachute to bring the airplane to the ground as a final layer of safety
The behavior of `-fno-exceptions` isn't standardized, because it's a compiler feature, not a part of the C++ standard. The standard says:

> In the situation where no matching [exception] handler is found, it is implementation-defined whether or not the stack is unwound before std::terminate is invoked. In the situation where the search for a handler encounters the outermost block of a function with a non-throwing exception specification, it is implementation-defined whether the stack is unwound, unwound partially, or not unwound at all before the function std::terminate is invoked.

So, the whole thing is basically implementation-defined (including `-fno-exceptions`, since that is something that implementing compilers provide).
While it doesn't quite recreate the dinner atmosphere of the article, the Mt. Wilson Observatory hosts a range of events[1] every year, mostly to support the maintenance of site. If you're in southern California, pay it a visit!

[1]: https://www.mtwilson.edu/events/
One of the Sonic games for Sega Genesis had some weird trick you could do by only fully inserting one half of the cartridge.
Curiosity is fine. The problem is that if you want to achieve something, you need to go through a lot of small steps that don't involve anything new. It's just the repetition of things you already know, and this is what I have started to hate.

However, it seems that some people can enjoy this, and I don't understand how they do it.
I'm talking more about them posting new product launches, I/O livestream, gmail pinned to the top, etc. Embedded stuff in search results is fine for the most part, although their intent their is primarily to prevent click throughs to other sites and increase the chances of an ad click
I can think of 20 billion reasons.
God forbid their advertising looks anything like it does in Apple News. But with their recent Taboola deal it would seem like their standards are falling, not rising.
My favorite is that it doesn't have enough pins for native HDMI. Those Lightning to HDMI adapters have a proper controller chip that takes compressed video and decodes it to output HDMI.
People mostly don't care about the composers/producers of modern pop music. But if you want to find out it is really easy on all music platforms (Spotify, Youtube music etc).

Being a performer and a composer is a very different skill set and a very different business model.

Also, it is very difficult to compare the amount of fame of someone in 1800 vs someone in 2020. I am not so sure being a composer was ever a "public facing profession".
Can we stop the decline of monarch butterflies and other pollinators?
I'll say something that sounds really unhelpful until one day it makes sense. You don't really choose the process, the process chooses you. You can't make yourself 'enjoy the process' for something that doesn't resonate, because it will always feel a chore. So the one and only trick is to really pay attention to the thing you keep going back to, and in a way accept that this is a path.

Some people might say "But I only enjoy video games!" and if that's the case, I don't really know what to say to that. All the people I know who have found great alignment with a path of progress are ones where the effort tickles an itch they would have regardless, so might as well scratch that itch.

And there are still goals, that doesn't change.
I do deep research for a living and it's the only search engine I've tried that returns superior results over Google Search.
>> Apprentice, Journeyman, and Master

Those are now more properly referred to as Apprentice, Journeyperson and Main.
IMO, this is the best think that could happen for Firefox. Mozilla as an organization has been thoroughly corrupted by huge buckets of money being thrown at them by Google. "The Resource Curse" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse) doesn't only apply to countries.
It's not my experience that C can be obviously free of UB and I'm curious to know how you approach that. I'm not aware of any methods or tools that claim to achieve it and there's a long history of "correct" programs written by experts were discovered to contain subtle UB with improvements in automated analysis. Here's one example, from Runtime Verification:
https://runtimeverification.com/blog/mare-than-14-of-sv-comp...
Thanks for clarifying. I think you might want to make this clearer in the blog post, since many people had the wrong impression.

> The value of tests depends on the domain.

I agree with this. And like I said, for small throwaway projects and quick experiments I can see how tests and version control can be tedious to deal with. But even in projects like your Freewheeling Apps, where you're releasing them to the public and encourage people to use, you're doing them and yourself a disservice to not have tests.

But you clearly know what you're doing, so I'll stop preaching. :) Good luck with your projects!

BTW, I'm a big fan of LÖVE and it's super interesting what you're using it for. I only imagined it was good for games, not apps.
I think the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to figure it out.
> It's probably worse in tech, due to the rampant age discrimination that's been normalized in this industry.

I haven't worked many places, but I have a feeling that working for a company that has tech but doesn't identify as a tech company is probably the way to go. Also stay the hell away from the Bay Area.

Tech company culture seems so dysfunctional (e.g. the normalized age discrimination, etc.).
Dont think Apple would make a deal with any other engine. They basically used Microsoft to get a good deal with Google, but never had any intention to use Microsoft.

The thing is the deals are a revenue sharing deal - Google gives 1/3 of the revenue to Apple. With microsoft, the number could be 100% and would still not reach a significant number for Apple. Mozilla would jump at it, and I hope Google still invests in them as part of a grant or something while not getting anything in return.
We hacked Anki – 0 day exploit from studying someone else's flashcards
Something like mandating the binary be released for the version operating at the end of the product's life would be good - not ideal, but since making everything open source by fiat isn't feasible, this would still allow people to operate software after it's been abandoned.
I have observed that while having some can be beneficial, usually banging the "soft skills" drum are those that do not have the capability to learn much else anyway, as soft skills are the lowest hanging fruit.
I don't think that's fair. While I don't think personal aircraft is a net good, both things can be worked on at the same time.
1. That sounds like an Apple issue, not a Google issue

2. That sounds perfectly reasonable. Google doesn't want people to bundle other things for users who want to install just a different default search (and not "your hotbar" like the Netscape days).

3. I'm not sure what you're talking about, is Chrome on Linux default search configured differently than Chrome on Windows?
This is a good Q, I didn't know the view in the other reply, at least specifically. In general I know profit : stock price is necessary for calculating rate of return.

my dumber answer is "only if dividends and buybacks exceed profit sustainably", which is an oxymoron eschewing extreme circumstances (taking on debt at that you won't pay back, or being offered debt at 0% interest despite the fact you're giving it away)

There's lots from there (ex. couldn't we pull that off? Bank doesn't know we're liquidating if we don't tell them) -- in general the abstraction finance uses is "is the rate of return higher than bonds?", which of course is true in the short run in this extreme of a scenario, but unlikely in the long run
It means that we previously had crude photographs of screens taken during the event. Those are the pictures you see in the article. You can even see the pixel arrangement of the CRT display in the pictures.

What has been found are the original Amiga files saved on a disk. They haven't been released to the public, or might never be depending on who buys them from the guy. He should just release them.
It was awesome meeting you guys way back in 2022 during our YC batch. I’ve always loved this idea and I’m so stoked that you’ve made it a reality. Would love to try it out :)
What‘s the license?
Good, I'm glad you find it infuriating. It likewise annoys me when I see people praise low-effort garbage, so I see it as only fair.

>And yes, I have talked to artists about absolutely trivial paintings. During that I learned how.. nontrivial putting poop on canvas may be

And I've talked to artists who have told me they agreed with me, and that they think pseudo-artistic shitposts devalue the work they put into their own pieces.
In the 70s when a lot of this system was designed, the industry was selling 10x the number of GA planes it does today, so I imagine 10x more were flying as well. So we have the capability for an order of magnitude increase. We'll need more controllers, sure.

But, you are totally right, we need to move away from voice based ATC to more digital systems that allow a management of more aircraft, and allow the GA aircraft to manage themselves through a "peer to peer" type ATC system, but like we have with our cars.
https://archive.ph/35U8U
That doesn't mean all Apple users use it.
Thanks for your comment mkuznets.
I appreciate your input regarding XSD to class conversion - I agree that this is a super useful concept for sending ISO20022 files.

I think there's always some ergonomic gap between these XML Schema generated classes and SDKs that developers are comfortable using. My intention for this library is for a non-payment developer to be able to interact with the ISO20022 schemas, while being as true to the underlying models as possible.
I don’t like google and I don’t like the way their shitty search is stuck in every hole.

But denying by court a company a right to honestly pay to another company for distribution of their services has much worse long term consequences and is wrong.
On top of that, the mindshare of "Googling it" dominates users brains just as much as Kleenex branding does. I'm sure most of us have watched someone use another search engine to look up Google before.
How to Write Shaders (In SwiftUI) (2023)
I had no idea, Dan. Thanks for letting me know. I'll stop posting them.
Some of these are a bit different in scope to some of your points, but here a few things I believe aren't really covered:

Predatory hiring: Hiring key employees from competitors primarily to weaken them rather than to benefit from the employees' skills.

Patent abuse: Using a large portfolio of patents to stifle competition rather than to protect legitimate innovations.

Regulatory capture: Using influence to shape regulations in ways that benefit the monopolist and create barriers for potential competitors.

Killer acquisitions: Buying potential competitors primarily to eliminate future competition rather than to integrate their technology or talent.

Data hoarding: In digital markets, collecting and refusing to share data that is crucial for competitors to enter or compete effectively in the market.

Self-preferencing: In platform markets, giving preferential treatment to one's own products or services over those of competitors.

Vaporware: Announcing nonexistent or deliberately suboptimal products or features to discourage customers from switching to competitors' existing products.
We're definitely keeping the extensions going, just need to prioritise a few parts internally.

You can just git clone the new chrome extension and 'load unpacked' if that's of any use. It's extremely simple.

https://github.com/kagisearch/chrome_extension_basic
No?

Firstly, they say right before the line you cherry-picked that they're not an individual contributor. But your statement makes the implicit assumption that you are one or the other. If you're not a manager, you much be an IC, if you're not an IC, you must be a manager.

The best organizations I've ever worked for have had their front-line managers still responsible for significant IC-type work. If you work somewhere where the lowest management level has a dozen direct reports and spends all day every day doing "management things," run away as fast as you can because they have no idea what they're doing. The lowest management level at my current role can expect at most 2 reports if they're managing a different team than what they came from, and at most 3 if they're getting moved from IC to management on the same team. The other ~60% of their time is spent writing code and doing these "Staff+" tasks. There can absolutely be a gray area and in the best organizations there definitely is. The top 2-3 IC levels and the bottom 1-2 management levels will be nearly indistinguishable from each other with the exception of whether or not you have direct reports.
Agreed! Learning how to fly alone is the easy part. The hard part is all the rest.

Also, this is inconsistent:

> large commercial airplane technology has developed to the point that the planes practically fly themselves

> We think stick and rudder skills are definitely a necessity for airline pilots flying hundreds of people on board for the extremely rare cases where emergencies do happen and many people's lives are at risk

So which is it? Do modern airplanes fly themselves or not? Pilots need to be able to fly. All pilots. Otherwise everyone's at risk.

Some of the worst recent accidents happenend when under-trained (AF 447) or misinformed (737 MAX) pilots didn't have a clear mental picture of what the airplane was doing.

It would seem this is solving for the wrong problem.

And the whole paragraph about "sexyness", aluding to sports cars and iPhones, seems very wrong to me. What makes flying sexy is the nerdiness, the skills involved, not shiny control surfaces.
Even in this print magazine, they only have photographs of a CRT display. I'm looking forward to seeing the original saved files on the disk someday.
Using GPS doesn't mean you can't be jammed. GPS is quite low power and easy to jam, and feasible to spoof[1].

[1] https://www.newscientist.com/article/2415318-ukraine-will-sp...
Massive fan of age and congrats on its success!! On size padding, I know you've patiently listened to me before on this, but I'll always take a chance to advocate for an approach like PURBs ( https://petsymposium.org/2019/files/papers/issue4/popets-201... ).

Let's say you're in a country that suppresses certain material, like copies of the Bible, or the Hacker Manifesto, or whatever; if the authorities find an encrypted file that closely matches the size of that material; that could do you in. But maybe a more realistic case is how the size of maps tiles alone is enough to figure out where you are looking on a map (https://ioactive.com/ssl-traffic-analysis-on-google-maps/), or the size of streaming video segments (https://www.cs.cornell.edu/~shmat/shmat_usenix17.pdf) gives away what you are watching. Both real-world examples of size side-channels. It's not un-imaginable that someone could use a tool like age to build bigger systems like that, where the leaks creep in.
Yeah exactly, with Go this should literally just be the type definition and that's it. You can do XML marshal, byte reader and http request with the standard library
Because your opponent will thank you for the nice juicy target and you will not only lose your drone but also all the others tethered to your carrier.
It is exclusivity. I've been involved in some of these contracts going all the way back to the Summer of 2004 and they absolutely involve exclusivity. If Safari or Firefox product managers added a new search access point and their business people tried to sell default placement for that new search access point, they'd violate their contract. That's exclusivity. Opera used to do that kind of thing, they had three different search defaults for three different access points in the 2000s but by 2010 Google was no longer allowing that in their contracts because exclusivity.
While they are certainly dependent on Google funding, I believe this dependence is a net negative for the long term health of Firefox development. It implicitly skews the incentives of Mozilla leadership, making them comfortable with getting lots of money they didn't really work for and giving them some funny ideas on where their priorities lie.

Presumably a proper non profit would be more incentivized to stick to the projects ideals so they can brag about it in their fundraising activities (with perhaps a little too much of that money going into administrator pockets on the down low). Meanwhile Google's funding creates a status quo where it's pretty much fine with anything so long as Firefox continues to exist as a scarecrow to anti-trust suits. It effectively muscles out all the potential well meaning donors which could have helped steer things in a more positive direction, and acts like a sword of damocles floating over Mozilla's head, engorging the organization in addictive cash they don't deserve, and implicitly discouraging them from ever stepping on Google's toes lest the money hose gets turned off.

These days I'd call Firefox "good enough" from a privacy & open source perspective. It checks the boxes, and while I'm actually pretty open to the UI changes they have made over the years, I've gotten the sense that top Mozilla leadership don't really care about Firefox anymore, even distancing themself from it in certain respects. These days Firefox doesn't really seem to be going anywhere, it does the bare minimum by implementing web standards but all efforts to distinguish it from Chrome seem to be gradually extinguished. I wouldn't even be surprised at this point if they eventually turned off Mv2 support in a few years from now, despite all promises to the contrary, citing complexity or perhaps even "security" like Google's been doing as the reason.

If in the "worst" case Mozilla shutters down or abandons Firefox development after losing their money hose, perhaps the mindshare of the community they have been hoarding away all these years will coalesce around a healthier fork with an organization structure closer to the Linux foundation, maybe then Firefox would actually have a future again.

One can only dream.
> where students aren't asked any more to spend time on things that machines can perform trivially for us.

Why do people lift weights at the gym if machines can trivially do that?
I am talking specifically about automated tests.

> automated unit/integrations tests

Since that's what the blog is talking about. Formalized manual testing is a different topic, that also didn't universally exist in the 70's and 80's.
That's true, ISO20022 was designed to be extensible, meaning banks add their own crazy variants to it all the time. Currently iso20022.js can create a minimum viable working ISO20022 file, and in the future I'd love to support as many specs as we reasonably can
Thanks! I should test it more thoroughly. Wrapping a couple of the blurs and masks in @supports will probably quickly fix a couple of the issues.
There is no proof-of-work or proof-of-stake involved. There is no consensus required. This is a marketplace. The blockchain is used to handle and log transactions.
> Solar ? Short lifespan, land occupation, requires mining

Almost everyone I know of who has had solar panels for a long time reports they last a lot longer than promised. And even if some part breaks, it can be replaced. You don’t need to repeat the whole time and expense of acquiring the land, building the facility, grid interconnect and permitting. This means humanity gets a dividend in energy over the very long term, which balances favorably against the upfront cost.

The issue of intermittency is more valid. It can be mitigated with battery storage, which has its own cost and downsides, but the chemistries are advancing rapidly, so I think the future is bright for energy abundance.
>WoW took 4-5 years to develop with "The original World of Warcraft was created by a team of 40 people, which eventually doubled in size as the launch drew close." Where as as Helldivers 2 has about 100 devs at the end of development taking 8 years according to their CEO. So not seeing the wins there.

Even if we were only comparing cloud teams, I don't see the wins from WOW from 20 years ago working on asset pipelines that was simply 1 3d modeler, compared to an HD release in 202X. Bandwidth hasn't really kept up with asset fidelity, and at the same time consumer demands for ping also went up (as in, lower ping haha).

>we have tons of precedent of these middleware licenses working just fine when redistributed as binaries to users' devices, so how is this handwavy?

Every license is different, and it only takes one important middleware being difficult to stall the whole thing by months. I imagine licenses for server tech are more prohibitive than middleware tools that can work offline (which needs to be distributed for the game to run).
See Directive 2019/770 for the definition of "functional" in this context. It's already a codified term: The digital content or service must be able to perform its intended functions reliably, meet the quality and performance expectations set forth in the contract, and be compatible with other systems as expected by the consumer.
How doesnt he pay tax?