skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> You mean like when they called...

Kamala said none of this and was repeatedly way too nice to Trump.

In addition, some of this is just factual. Trump has said racist things. Trump supporters did attempt an insurrection. Trump supporters have used violence. Those aren't up for debate, so don't attempt to try, because I really don't care for alternative facts.

> Then you must necessarily be every -ist and -phobe they can think of, and many of them will hate your guts from then on.

When Trump is questioning how black people are and the right is running ads depicting trans women as burly men who beat up little girls (yes, real), it's hard not to see where the "ist and -phobe" comes from.

Conservatives often get very offended when you repeat policy and political speech their representatives have said back to them. It's incredibly strange to me, I've never seen such an overwhelming amount of personal shame in a population.

It's difficult to claim you're not transphobic when you vote for the people proposing anti-trans legislation. Actions speak much louder than words, and conservatives are already pretty bad at the words part. When your representatives aren't saying something racist or transphobic, they're passing laws with that ideology. Which... is worse.

If that offends you, feel free not to vote for them. But voting for them and then crying when someone simply tells you their policy or literally quotes them is nothing short of pathetic. If you don't agree with the things Trump has said, then don't put him on your ballot.

> She denied being black for years, then flipped the script

This isn't true, and I'm not gonna sit here and debate how black Kamala is. This is one of the stupidest points the conservatives have brought up. She's always been biracial, end of.

Even humoring this line of thinking displays some amount of racist rhetoric. There's absolutely zero reason you should be concerned with how black Kamala is. It's weird, it's strange, it's not normal. Please stop.

> I don't want our political discourse to be lowered any more

How rich. Instead of talking about Trump's absolutely horrible fiscal policy, we're talking about how black Kamala is. But you don't want political discourse to be lowered any further? Give me a break.

Modern conservatives couldn't articulate Trump's fiscal policy if their lives depended on it. They couldn't describe how tariffs work if you put a gun to their head. But they can tell you that kids are getting sex changes in the school nurse's office and shitting in litter boxes, and they can sit around all day and debate how black Kamala is. Trump has lowered the political discourse to an almost Neanderthal level. It's truly absurd to me that you can look at the right jumping all-in to identity politics and stuff nobody should care about and then complain about lowering the level of discourse.
Good time to direct people to the classic work in this genre: https://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/
I always recommend this article: https://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/
I think this topic is super important and I’m really glad I didn’t follow advice of saying your “expected salary or expected +20%”. Here my anecdotal SWE salary history:

Worked at a startup for a bunch of years making 90k by the end

Got offered a place at FAANG. Recruiter pushed me a little bit on expected salary but I didn’t give one using all the approached from the linked article. They offered me 250k. I would have never ever assumed that I can be payed this much.
Instead of accepting I again followed the advice and asked for time to think. I had no counter offers but spoke to the recruiter thanked them for the offer and asked if there’s room for improvement. And they were nice and reasonable, they said yes if there are counter offers or you are leaving unvested stock behind. I was leaving unvested stock in an unprofitable startup, but I wrote the amount and vesting schedule and got offer bumped by 25k.

After working there I considered going to trading shop. Used the same approach and they offered 400k. Again this number seemed insane at the time. So I asked for more, this time I had much lower counter offer. But I could use it as some form of leverage. They upped the offer by 150k by the end (this is sign on+ salary+guaranteed first year bonus).

I am writing this not to show off the numbers, but to show other engineers that your idea of how much you should be payed could be completely wrong. Let the employer give information first and don’t back yourself into the corner by revealing your ignorance of market or minimum comp you are willing to take.
I like writing to myself / talking to myself... but I'm trying to convert that internal captured thought / language into brand value and useful information in a wider contexts.

Good points about recognizing the fantasy of doing something vs. the actual work might be part of this.

also, lol meta, thanks!
The peculiar world of Gentoo package testing
I mean, given how much undeveloped area exists inland, probably a very very long time?
If I had to sum up the reason in one word, it would be laziness.

Wild to read this from a modern perspective. It's like reading about women being shamed for being 'hysterical', or religious peasants blaming their natural sexual feelings on demons. It just doesn't hold up to scrutiny...

What is 'laziness' when applied to something that you clearly want to do? How can someone want something, yet simultaneously choose to not want it? Turns out the answer is simple, and the nerds have known it since 1801[1]: you don't exist. Your continuous, unified self is an illusion brought about for instrumental reasons.

Treat yourself like a system to be optimized, not an ineffable soul to be brought away from vice through logic. If you were tasked with improving a malfunctioning software system, you'd be laughed out of the room for starting with "well, clearly, the system is just sinful, and choosing to make mistakes."

[1]: Immanuel Kant, The Critique of Pure Reason, Chapter I.2.II.1: "Of the Paralogisms of Pure Reason"

Now to these conceptions relate four paralogisms of a transcendental psychology, which is falsely held to be a science of pure reason, touching the nature of our thinking being. We can, however, lay at the foundation of this science nothing but the simple and in itself perfectly contentless representation “i” which cannot even be called a conception, but merely a consciousness which accompanies all conceptions. By this “I,” or “He,” or “It,” who or which thinks, nothing more is represented than a transcendental subject of thought = x, which is cognized only by means of the thoughts that are its predicates, and of which, apart from these, we cannot form the least conception. Hence in a perpetual circle, inasmuch as we must always employ it, in order to frame any judgement respecting it. And this inconvenience we find it impossible to rid ourselves of, because consciousness in itself is not so much a representation distinguishing a particular object, as a form of representation in general, in so far as it may be termed cognition; for in and by cognition alone do I think anything.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4280/4280-h/4280-h.htm#chap7...

For the more empirically minded that are understandably resistant to such an unnatural conception, try to find discussions of "laziness" in these articles. I'd be surprised:

https://www.webmd.com/add-adhd/executive-function

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/symptoms/23224-executi...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_dysfunction
Solar and Batteries for Generic Use Cases
What is the value?

Having stories? Or having authors?
Yes, big time fumble.

I've met a handful of folks who used it in the .NET Framework days and hadn't kept up with the changes in Core (multi-platform, object-functional hybrid, minimal syntax for console and APIs, etc.).
Damn. It's only for nulls: https://github.com/fsharp/fslang-design/blob/main/RFCs/FS-10...

Wonder if they will generalize:
https://github.com/fsharp/fslang-design/blob/main/RFCs/FS-10...
You're correctly understanding the mistake the court made. The principle does not normally apply in this context under ordinary rules of statutory interpretation.

I even gave you a source from the author of the law itself.

You are correct that congress can fix the issue. Due to deadlock and a lack of care they have not.
My first career was at a fintech company that sold auditing data. All of our clients were accountants, auditors, lawyers, etc.

Every single person worked in Excel. It didn't matter how old our website was, how crappy our code was - all that matter was that we generated a CSV.

I used Excel often - I think many people underestimate how powerful Excel is and how much of finance / auditing relies upon it.

My co-workers used to joke that the world runs on Excel. That some of the most important economic documents are probably some .xlsx file named "economy-v3" that people send back and forth over email.
You’ve misread my comment.

I definitely think this policy is a step in the right direction.

My reference to python is a response to people claiming that rust will fail because of this trademark policy. If Python didn’t fail because of their similar policy, then Rust won’t either.
I can disclose, but when I have people start trying to negotiate as if it's a starting position, they get really happy with the number and then irreconcilably annoyed when they realise the number doesn't change.

Hindsight and looking externally on the situation would have you think that you'd react differently, but it's a 5/5 repro rate.

If I think the money is enough then I'm quite happy, but if they expect more then I have to emphasise other parts of the job (remote first structure for example, and flexible working hours) - I wouldn't need to do that if their request was lower than what I offer.
probably easy to get ethics approval though ;)
I’ve been using Linux for a long time for personal purposes and I understand what the blog says. But I also feel like it doesn’t have to be this way: Linux should be easy to use, with little hassle, friendly to newbies, with a community of support.

Over the years Linux desktop has indeed improved, but still with much problems to use. We should adopt a growth mindset instead of sticking to asceticism.
The 1966 "26 commissars" is b/w, so maybe later than that? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8riDkh3hJHY

There's a painting in colour, however: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/26_Baku_Commissars#/media/File...

Lagniappe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijan_Democratic_Republic...

EDIT: wrong geography, but apparently the "technical" long predates the Toyota Hilux: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9fbO9NX1no#t=3553s
The Styling Dilemma in React
The 6.51M pole vault and another AI stupidity
Motherbase from mgs5
One other thing to have in your back pocket:

In certain jurisdictions, it's actually against the law for employers to ask you for your current salary during the interview process (pre-offer), as that can perpetuate wage discrimination. (This is different from asking about salary expectations.)

It looks like 17 US states have a ban that applies to all employers: https://www.hrdive.com/news/salary-history-ban-states-list/5...

(The relevant laws in DC, NC, PA, VA only apply to local government, and AL's law is somewhat weaker in that it only prohibits rejecting a candidate based on not providing salary history.)

Notably, many of these laws are worded as a prohibition on seeking salary history, and do not differentiate between asking the candidate directly and querying third-party databases like The Work Number.
I can see how you would think that. The concept of purity is double edged, on the one hand it can seem pure to eat an apple from a tree, but on the other hand, raw sugar has a very high purity!

So windows is pure in the first sense, but linux is pure in the second sense.

You say that with linux you get the bare essentials, whatever grew from the ground, but take a look at the size of a linux distro, linux is actually very distilled, Windows is RAW. You get a binary in there that nobody knows how it got there and there is no source code.

There is source code/recipe/ingredient list/dependency manifest for a vanilla and fudge pastrie, but there is no source code for an apple/windows, you get what it is. For the most part windows didn't have source code in the early stages themselves, it's not like they kept the source code hidden under lock, rather they discarded it or lost it to the ages. It's like compilers, it's just something that grows over a couple of generations from the previous version.
For both C# and F#, the version of .NET indicates the version of the build tooling (msbuild, compilers, nuget packages, etc...) that will be used to build the code whenever you invoke `dotnet build`.

That means, for example, that the F# team _could_ have shipped a language change between versions 8 and 9, but if they didn't then at least they could have shipped a compiler change or an msbuild change that required .NET 9 for whatever reason.

For developers, usually you can just update your code to the latest available runtime version unless you have to wait for your deployment environment to have the latest .NET version installed. Nowadays that's not necessary due to MSBuild changes to create self-contained deployments, but something to know.
> - Is this a new tactic, at least in terms of open source communities

Large open source projects have trademarks since forever. Nothing seems particularly novel here.
> Either way, it's interesting to see committees and foundations going for these sorts of power grabs.

I really hate thinking of this sort of stuff as a power grab. Unlike copyright, trademarks are something that is useful for the consumer/user. I want to know whether something is official or not, and throwing a trademark around ruins that.

For uses of trademarks that make it clear that they are not official uses, it doesn't even matter what the trademark owner's policy is because they don't have a legal leg to stand on. People have the right to refer to you no matter what you think. That being said, when you're not talking about FOSS stuff, people have the right to pull your licensing if you don't abide by their policies. But when it's FOSS, there's nothing they can do about it.

There is nothing to any of these FOSS foundations other than their trademarks. They exist to decide what they approve of and what they disapprove of, and allowing the mark is how they make that clear. You can fork everything that they have, change "Rust" to "Bust," register the "Bust Foundation," and name yourself president, all in the same day. The Bust Foundation will be no less legitimately a steward of the code than the Rust Foundation. But I'll be sticking with the Rust Foundation, at least for now, and the mark helps me do that.
> I feel like C# is quite underrated

That’s fair, I consistently underrate it myself. Last time I worked with C# was a big messy codebase written by mostly junior developers who didn’t understand what entity framework was doing behind the scenes. I came away from that experience with the impression that C# is a terrible language.
> If you have to reward someone valuable then it should probably be via bonus' imo.

That, and it should be individual, instead of the "based on how the company performed" thing many do.

A star engineer who overhauls cuts your server costs in half shouldn't get dinged because someone in sales couldn't be effective
It's really difficult to imagine in 2024 just how much H4 changed the world...and Harrison was a carpenter from the country who taught himself everything about clock and watch-making! Blows me away.
A Lunar Space Elevator Could Be Built for $2B [pdf]
Since OIDC is a layer on top of OAuth 2, it inherits its complexity. OAuth 2.1 (currently draft) will help bring some sanity. GNAP - https://oauth.net/gnap/ - will, one day, tie everything.
In my experience KeyCloak can be a very mixed bag.

And if you are especially unlucky might be so painful to use that you could say it doesn't work.

But for a lot of use cases it does work well.

In some context it might safe you not just developer month, but years (e.g. certain use cases with certification/policy enforcement aspects).

But it also can be a story from running from one rough edge into another where you project lead/manager starts doubling or tripping any time estimate of stories involving Keycloak.

E.g. the REST API of Keycloak (for programmatic management of it) is very usable but full of inconsistencies and terrible badly documented (I mean there is a OpenAPI spec but it's very rarely giving you satisfying answers for the meaning of a listed parameter beyond a non descriptive 3 word description). (It's also improving with each version.)

Similar multi tenancy can be a pain, depending on what exactly you need. UMA can be grate or a catastrophe, again depending on your specific use cases. SSO User management can just fine or very painful. There is a UI for customizing the auth flow, but it has a ton of subtle internal/impl. detail constraints/mechanics not well documented which you have to know to effectively use it so if you can't copy past someones else solution or only need trivial changes this can be a huge trap (looking like a easy change but being everything but that)...

The build in mail templates work, but can get your mail delivery (silently) dropped (not sure why, maybe some scammers used Keycloak before).

The default user facing UI works but you will have to customize it even if just for consistent branding and it uses it's own Java specific rendering system (and consistent branding here isn't just a fancy looks goal, one of the first things though on scam avoidance courses for non technical people is, that if it looks very different it's probably a scam and you shouldn't log in).

I think Keycloak is somewhat of a no brainer for large teams, but can be a dangerous traps for very small teams.
Not so safely dead as I had hoped
I mean all of these issues basically boil down to that these services and platforms that now constitute whatever can vaguely pass as if you squint your eyes enough a third place, though if you analogize it to a park, it's a park where like 6 marketing people follow you around and make note every time you stop to look at a flower, but that's a different conversation.

People are entitled to express themselves in any way that's not illegal per the first amendment, but because all these companies are entirely, 100% beholden to advertisers to continue to exist, that expression is necessarily limited to suit the tastes of those advertisers. Perfect example is Twitter. They've adopted much looser restrictions on content and as a result, the company is worth about a fifth what it was when it was purchased by Musk, and the ads in that time have shifted significantly from prominent, respected brands and being... ubiquitous, but not to an extent that it felt so, to being virtually every third or fourth post, and completely unknown companies hawking all manner of unimpressive goods, crypto schemes, dude wipes, and of course weight loss drugs and dick pills. Basically the exact kinds of ads you'd expect to find on crank conspiracy websites circa 2010 (and probably today) and a shitload MORE of them, because they're trying desperately to keep the company financially solvent.

The government intervention would probably be something like these various networks (or a new one) that is owned and operated by the public, like a utility.
> seemingly simple modeling decisions can have unexpected consequences as systems grow.

And is this not the cruz of the engineering Goldilocks problem? We need to solve the problem at hand, not the one we might have in a year.

There is a good argument to be made against over-engineering.
As a side gig or full on dedication?
> the thing is when you’re only consuming a collection,
> a lot of the types have the same semantics, so they
> don’t need separate read interfaces

> Most APIs should only consume collections from callers

I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by "consuming a collection." Can you expand?
I think this is a great point; I don't think it is widely known (it certainly was not to me) that stock photography sites already have a model release process to reference.
Focus on your docs, code, and blog because they’re under your control. Write for yourself. Write for the people who use your work. Publish smaller chunks of work. Add value to your real network.

X, HN, and other socials are far less important. You have no control over whether the algorithm decides to amplify your content. Most work that’s foundational to society isn’t popular on socials today and won’t ever be. There’s a lottery chance you’ll get picked for amplification. Winning that lottery is great, but playing the lottery is not investing in your future.
Presumably we're talking about remote roles here, in which case this is nonsense. A Zurich developer is not worth more in a remote role than a developer in Warsaw. The only reason large cities have inflated salaries is because that's what you have to pay someone for them to live within range of your fancy office. If it's a remote role anyway, the companies that aren't out to exploit you will pay the same salary band for all roles anywhere where they hire.

Location-based pay in remote roles is a major red flag that the company doesn't reward merit.
Thanks! Nice! This kid is pretty sharp, can't wait to see what else he does!
The history of the epigraph from Appointment in Samarra (2022)
I agree with you but your locals need to be educated on this issue. Many may think it’s a good deal, especially if promises are thrown in. They would sabotage themselves but it’ll take some time for them to find out it’s a bad deal.
Thank you so much for giving Chonkie a chance! Just to note Chonkie is still in beta mode (with v0.1.2 running) with a bunch of things planned for it. It's an initial working version, which seemed promising enough to present.

I hope that you will stick with Chonkie for the journey of making the 'perfect' chunking library!

Thanks again!
I thought those are the same and I realize that there is a difference.
There's nothing to get. It doesn't do what it claims to do. What's more concerning is that it's still on the front page for so long somehow.

Almost like people upvote titles without actually clicking on them...
"Our findings indicate a fundamental genetic program that determines the neuronal circuitry and behavior of worker bees"

This dogma - that bees are little machines "programmed" by genetic code - won't lead very far. A single gene may turn off our auditory system because it controls production of a protein that's necessary for hearing, and loss of hearing would make us less social, but it's a wrong conclusion that the "auditory gene" is what "programs" our social behavior.

IMO, Michael Levin's research is closer to truth. If we extrapolate his ideas to a whole bee colony, we could find that behavior of a bee hive can be changed without messing with genes, although some of the genes make bees receptive to "social cues" that makes such large scale behavior possible.
Not on the elevated lines (with the exception of some stretches that are being replaced now), to my knowledge. The elevated lines are some of the loudest in the city.

(Ironically, the biggest reduction in noise along the J/Z line in recent years has been due to lead abatement: the temporary sheds they're using to cover the superstructure while they remove the lead paint makes the surrounding streets noticeably quieter.)
I just want to appreciate how the author used the sane "fear of not being good enough" instead of the idiotic "impostor syndrome" that everyone uses to mean the same.
Here's the epigraph: https://www.k-state.edu/english/baker/english320/Maugham-AS.....

I was thinking of this legend because, somewhat improbably, it shows up in the last 20 seconds of the video for "Particle Man": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsAiCs66l40 (thanks pvg!)

Here's a melodramatic rendition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLeVHqiAGcY.