skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I wish the discourse that Go is a "simple" language would die.

Despite its veneer, once you start writing Go it quickly becomes apparent that it isn't simple. Hidden complexity and footguns are abundant (e.g., https://archive.ph/WcyF4).

It's nevertheless a useful language, and I use it quite a bit, but it's not "simple".
Claude Prompt Improver
What are your thoughts on this kind of approach ? I'm not sure how helpful it can be
UK Sent Ukraine More Storm Shadows Ahead of Strikes in Russia
I love the fact that I can pick up a Go project from 5+ years ago and it still compiles with the current toolchain. I might need to do a 'go mod init' first.

It didn't get 67 new features that start shooting deprecation warnings on old functions in the meantime. I don't have to learn new paradigms or switch integral parts of my code to something new.

Generics has been in Go for dunno how long, haven't used it once. Didn't need to.
YouTube users report their recommendations are suddenly a total mess
Isn't the literal meaning "drawn strip"?
I own a car which sits unused for 99% of the time. Traditional taxis and unreliable/unpleasant public transport are the reason I keep it.

I can imagine many people are in the same position and would gladly do without the hassle if only there was an easy and reliable alternative.
Yup, unless that component has been disabled (which is quite rare) or the other side is bird, a bgpd that doesn't buffer anything !
I mean I miss some language features for sure, but the problem with adding language features is that it adds long-term inconsistency. Take a Go codebase from 10 years ago and it should look mostly the same as it would if it was rewritten in modern Go. Do the same with Java and across generations you'd go from straight for loops, to generic iterators and their for-each syntactic sugar, to for-comprehensions, streams and their functional programming style, to whatever Java is up to in 2024, I stopped paying attention years ago.
Just something I got used to do. My right palm is always conveniently hovering above the right Ctrl, Alt and L, Enter keys, making those combos easy and instant.

After hitting Ctrl+L, I usually do one of these: 1) "Enter" to discard current page; 2) "Alt+Enter" to open in new tab; 3) "Ctrl+Enter" to open in new tab but keep focus on current page (e.g. read later); and 4) "Esc" if I got an answer from the address bar (math, currency, history, already open page, etc).
But wouldn't allowing plain addition of 1-byte pointer offsets and 2-byte pointer offsets to a current address (just integer addition, no involvement of segments) have been simpler to design and for CPU usage? Rather than this non-linear system with overlapping segments. This would still allow memory-saving tiny pointers when things are nearby
> The weird "return tuple" , which obviously just exists for errors because there is not a single other place where you can use tuples in the language

MRV, go does not have tuples.

Go is not the only language with MRV (as a special case) and they’re not necessarily bad, iirc Common Lisp uses them as auxiliary data channels and has a whole host of functions to manipulate and refit them.

Go is singularly incompetent at MRVs though, in the sense that only syntax and builtin functions get access to variable arity (e.g. if you access a map entry you can either get one return which is a value, or two which are the value and whether the key is/was in the map). So MRVs mostly end up being worse tuples infecting everything (e.g. iterators needing Iter and Iter2 because you can’t just yield tuples to for loops).
> consistency of code

There are many stylecheck tools that should be apart of a good stack. Accepting the creator's style is putting a lot of weight on their opinion. Most organizations have their own preferences for good reason.

> short ramp up for junior engineers

Junior engineers aren't a place you're concerned on being productive. Most of the time at that stage in someone's career they should be learning more, getting up to speed with professional practices, tools, and trying to learn code bases+patterns. Ramp up time for a language is a very minor consideration.

Both of those things have very little to do with server environments.

Bigger corporations struggle with Go's module system and forced reliance on seperate repos for separate modules. (Can you bundle multiple modules in the same repo.. yes but you're going to have a bad time)
A Dyson hole
Don't miss this excellent video from NotJustBikes about self-driving cars:

https://youtu.be/040ejWnFkj0
> they haven't released anything new in two years, after exhausting the backlog of already developed things.

I'm not a Twitter user, so I might miss the lack of some essential features, but it seems to me that the platform is mostly feature-complete. Just further bloating the software for the sake of it is not necessary a good strategy, yet it is one that a lot of startups follow, just because that VC R&D money has to go somewhere.
There are several problems with the paper and with the idea itself.

First, code is unavailable - github repository [1] does not contain any code.

[1] https://github.com/tgchomia/ts

The algorithm, itself, has some black holes. For example, 256 integer codes are turned into 6 groups at some point. How? Why six groups?

Algorithm, also, does not create a model per se, it needs a history of previous observations to compute predictions from.

What is interesting there is that contexts are compared on the curvatures in them, not on actual values. This generalizes to many applications, including language modeling, I think.
> Ha, Ha, Ha! The juxtaposition of these two phrases is really funny. I would like to apply for a position on the Testing team :-)

It had its moments: used to go to a range where we'd set off detonators. Once or twice in production on site where we'd set off actual explosives.
Do you think that there exists a big-enough market of consumers who will happily pay a recurring subscription for FSD-esque features in their car?

What would be the price point of such a subscription? I struggle to think of a cost that strikes the balance between value for money and me being suspicious of the quality of the service I'm getting. 100s of dollars could easily double or triple the monthly lease/loan which will directly impact the value-prop math we do do in our heads when buying a car. Tens of dollars will immediately make me suspicious of the quality of the service I'm getting.

I'm not so sure about any of this. My feeling is that the majority of consumers will not opt of such a subscription, especially if it's something "I can just do myself for free" (drive my car). I have no data to back this feeling though, so I'm curious to know what others think.
> All the stories in this book are in French, for the French-speaking market

OK, so why is the ad in English, then?
I find it fascinating the extent to which language choice makes a programmer emotional looking around at these comments.
Try/catch can bubble through multiple layers. You can decide/design where to handle the errors. If you don't `if err` in Golang, the error is skipped/forgotten, with no way to catch it higher up.
Looks great!

Once upon a time, when you opened a new browser window (tabs were not a thing yet), you got something called the homepage. Some adware you installed changed that, and that caused pushback - it was generally agreed that the homepage belonged to the user and they could set it however they liked.

These days, the new tab page has taken over most of the role of the homepage, to the point that when my browser starts I see the new tab page. I actually had to check what my homepage is set at because I never see it (it's about:blank apparently).

Browser manufacturers mostly agree that the new tab page belongs to them, not the user. I tried Brave a while back and it wouldn't let me change the thing in the first place (I think that's fixed now). Would you like some sponsored links carefully curated for you? News from a source we have an advertising agreement with? (In this country, if you try and adjust your "news source" in anything Microsoft-owned, there's only one option and it's a right-wing tabloid.) The default new tab page is basically an ad, and you can't just change it you need someone to write an _extension_ for that. Good luck if you're not a developer.

People writing ad-free new tab extensions for the rest of us are performing tikkun olam. May the Lord bless you.
Go’s type system is not even impressive compared to python’s.
> I guess I feel bad for people who are particularly sensitive to the areas that Go does not succeed in, because they are probably going to be complaining about it for the rest of their lives.

Well, that’s a stellar
endorsement of the article, because that’s literally the point they’re making.

You’ll use go.

…and then regret it.

…but by then it’ll be too late, and you’re stuck with it.

I think the author makes a compelling argument, which is very difficult to counter, that it is a bad choice and you will regret having it in production in many of the explicitly listed cases, and in many professional situations where companies that are not technically competent use unsuitable tech.

Companies should stick to boring tools.

…but, for personal projects? Sure, go for it.
sorry, the burden is on you to distinguish genuine business accomplishment from what others might suspect, less charitably, is excellence in crony capitalism

No, actually the burden is on the person making that claim (you).
The balance idea sounds like misremembered Hegel. I think the best of all possible worlds theory should be seen for what it is: an attempt to reconcile the idea that a perfect god made the world with its observable imperfections. It’s intellectually more satisfying than the “fallen world” idea which just leads to more questions, and it remains compatible with mainstream Christian doctrine.

If you want to reject mainstream Christian doctrine that’s fine, but it’s not what Leibniz was trying to do.

In any event, his most lasting influence isn’t even in the realm of philosophy. Dude was a genius.
Surely all the peanut farms are sold before people take official government positions?
It's basically the new Heroku with less lock-in, because it works with Docker.

You get edge computing, autoscaling, and load balancing without additional configuration.

Not as flexible as AWS, but also much easier to setup and maintain.

But the reliability issues suck now and then.
Your missed the part about parachutes. Also about flyovers. No landing would happen.

(We've been dropping people and gear for 100 years by plane. And yes, it can be done with Starship.)

On the side of civilian transportation, there is nothing to stop normal passenger planes from having nukes on board. The shape of the object is irrelevant.

Communication is key.
Global AI Vibrancy Tool: Which Countries Are Leading in AI?
Mostly for the lulz for once to be honest, but it would be genuinely interesting to read HN's take on this.
> People tend to forget that Golang was created on purpose for poor programmers.

Poor programmers by Google's standards. I would argue the vast majority of programmers, even those outside of Google, don't want to be language researches, have no desire to be a language wonk, but want to build software to solve their and their companies problems. I read that quote and think it means that Golang is the only language the vast majority of programmers should be using unless they are researchers, not as a some veiled put down.
The follow up video does note that.
Great, just posted my product there PandaExtract
And since Go is so readable, theoretically getting the core functionality out and rewriting it in a more specialized language would be fairly straightforward. And while it's an investment in time and effort to rewrite a chunk, at least you know what you're writing already.

But that's a point made in the article, that Go is also good for prototyping. But there's a few languages good for that, e.g. Ruby which powered a lot of the HN startups in their early days until parts needed to be rewritten for performance / scalability.

But writing a new, unproven product in a high performance, high difficulty language from the get-go is cargo cult; you hope you will need the performance and correctness offered by the language. Meanwhile, halfbaked hack jobs like Facebook and Twitter exploded in popularity and revenue, and while their performance issues gave their developers headaches, at least they knew what problems they had and had to solve instead of guessing and hoping.
You can decide not to catch a thrown exception, it travels upwards automatically if you don't catch it.

I think that's the biggest difference.

With Go you need to specifically check the errors and intentionally decide what to do, do you handle it right there or do you bubble it upwards. If you do, what kind of context would the caller want from this piece of code, you can add that too.
We are not seeing the same cars or not have the same definition of what a scratch is, lol.
Come on, it's time to ditch this "vision alone" thing for self-driving cars.
A computer will never be safe with vision only. Things like reflection and false positives will always wreck the statistics of even the perfect AI, there is no way around it. And I'm talking about good weather conditions.

The numbers show it, the few that Tesla releases about FSD are not up to the level with Google. If it was good, Tesla would be transparent with their results.
I sort of like Go. The explicit error handling is a little obnoxious sometimes, but it's just a way to get things done. Otherwise I see its simplicity as a strength. It is very ergonomic, easy to pick up, and generally performs pretty well. I perhaps wouldn't pick it for every scenario, but there are plenty of scenarios where it would be a good tool.

Then again, I sort of like Java and Python too, two languages I am proficient enough at. All of those are good tools for what they intend to be.

I don't understand why people get so passionate about programming languages. They are tools. You may like soke more than others, but that doesn't invalidate the ones you don't like.
The reason for the disparity in pricing has nothing to do with the "security features" that are offered with SSO and has everything to do with the increased support cost that come with it. The company I work for offers a local based authentication and SSO. The support costs around SSO are higher because oftentimes people do not know how to integrate this they don't understand the mechanisms of it and it takes more work and there's more questions and there's more fiddly bits to get right. When those fiddly bits break the customer themselves doesn't often understand it and are engaging support to not only understand their third party external SSO but also that integration with their underlying identity mechanisms as well.

So all things are not equal between the two and therefore they should not be equally priced.
I typically turn this off. Many times it's too slow, and many times it hides local filenames, and I do want local filenames.
More generally, when it's not well suited for the problem to be solved. Eager coworkers anticipating Google level traffic may want to write the system in Go and multiple microservices when a simple FastAPI server would do.
How is AI regulation a laughing stock in the context of emissions reduction?
Not having a stranger in your car is a big benefit for one.
Fire content
As the British would say the proof is in the pudding.

I do know we didn’t have self-landing rockets nor a massive reduced cost of space cargo until SpaceX.

Whether Musk hired the author of a Moon grant is irrelevant to that fact.

Same with Tesla. We had multiple, massively funded car companies try and fail to mass produce an electric car consumers wanted

Whether Musk overpromises FSD isn’t relevant to that accomplishment.
you just spit numbers from your ass don't you
I want to build things and could care less about intellectual masturbation. It was built for proletarians like myself. I like Go because it's neither Rust nor Python. But I do understand that there are times when having some nice abstractions over common patterns doesn't hurt. At the same time, Go has come a long way over the years.
Surely the fact that it's a three ton machine that can accelerate from 0-60 in 3 seconds is relevant too. As far as I'm aware the F150 can't match that.
There are TONS of them in Los Angeles.
Designing service discovery and load balancing in a microservices architecture
Hard disagree. Exceptions are actually good. They make code clear and errors hard to ignore. I've written a ton of code over decades in both exceptional and explicit-error languages and I'll take the former every day. There's no function color problem. No syntactic pollution of logic with repetitive error propagation tokens.

Also, exception systems usually come with built in stack trace support, "this error caused by this other error" support, debugger integration ("break the first time something goes wrong"), and tons of other useful features.

(Common Lisp conditions are even better, but you can't have everything.)

You can't just wave the word "goto" around as if it were self-evident that nonlocal flow control is bad. It isn't.

> And nearly always, after an exception is “handled”, the application is actually in an unknown state and cannot be reasoned about.

That's not been my experience at all. Writing exception safe code is a matter of using your language's TWR/disposable/RAII/etc. facility. A programmer who can't get this right is going to bungle explicit error handling too.

Oh, and sum types? Have you read any real world Rust code? Junior developers just add unwrap() until things compile. The result is not only syntactic clutter, but also a program that just panics, which is throwing an exception, the first time something goes wrong.

Many junior developers struggle with error handling in general. They'll ignore error codes. They'll unwrap sum types. They might... well, they'll propagate exceptions non-fat ally, because that's the syntactic default, and that's usually the right thing. We have to design languages with misuse in mind.
When the article started the part "but Tailscale still uses it" I almost felt watched
Those are unrelated claims. The fact that "it doesn't matter" for a company (which you called me delusional on, yet don't support it in any way) and the fact that there are companies with more lax personal-device policy.

So nope: I am saying that not all companies have the same policies, nor the same risks, and that this is a legal liability that totally depends on the terms of engagement.
You don’t need crates for it, anyhow is basically a better Box<dyn Error>, if you just want the error signal you can use that. The main thing missing from the stdlib fur this use case is I don’t think there’s anything to easily wrap / contextualise errors built in.
I think you and Voltaire are thinking along the same lines. Both are a rejection of a bloodless utility maximisation creed on the simple basis that human morality just doesn’t work that way.
It's not necessarily true. Many drivers, TSRs and libraries (e.g. all Win16 DLLs) cannot assume that ds=ss. This makes C programming a bit more entertaining...
My experience owning a protected structure soon taught me that heritage officers have zero interest in practicality and would rather see structures fall in to the ground as their owners nearly bankrupt themselves instead of actually allowing the building to be a useful structure in the modern world.
Thanks, that makes more sense of the "down" thing.
You don't need a driver's license.
I'm struggling to think of a reason that an employee would have for trying to hide small package delivery expenses. Was there some kind of incentive for reducing said expenses? and if so, why would the potential recipient of an incentive have access to internal accounting systems?
That says more about the library design more than it does about the library.

There are much better examples of the operator overloading for example cons:

item :: item2

Later you can break that down in pattern matching.
Sperm donation and MAANG interviews are the only screening processes fickler.

Maybe the screening process is compensating to adjust to modern average people being less able to tolerate temporary or minor pain and setbacks and more willing to give up? But, yes, it's a cult of mandatory dishonesty and deception meant to shift the burdens of mental and physical healthcare onto the individual in an effort to deny them care and pretend problems don't exist. It's BS and it's actually weaker since you don't want to deploy folks who have unaddressed problems because they're the ones most likely to be liabilities in combat. And also it's an unwritten rule that mental and physical permanent injuries will be borne by the individual.. as part of being a warrior, regardless of care, but this isn't an excuse to cheap out or abuse GIs. (One of great uncles was a DV who died homeless while his (ex-)wife took his check and the VA did nothing.)
> Startup culture wants to move fast and break things - including my bones in this case - while evil regulations only come in the way of progress.

All car companies comply with thousands of regulations, and it's fine. If you have a simple view of the world, I don't think inverting it and claiming the people you think are the baddies hold that inverted view is going to get anyone closer to understanding anything.
I'm a big fan of Duolingo and I've been building educational apps for a year now. Almost all of my users complained about UI/UX on my apps. So this time I wanted to use Duolingo as a reference. I've been teaching speed reading for years so I had the teaching content ready. Even the app name is Speed Readingo :)
The app is completely free, no ads and all data stored in device. I wanted to test out if its useful for people. If you're curious about speed reading I'd be super happy to teach one to one and get some feedback about the app
That’s to be expected since it is marketed towards beginner and casual programmers.
There are already people doing M1 (and newer) flash upgrades by de-soldering the old flash chips and putting in new ones. I don't know the price, but potentially this kit could take out some of the steps and special hardware (involving USB flash adapters and a separate PC) required to do the job (by have the removable part already configured), and while it won't reduce the difficulty in removing the old chips without damaging the motherboard, potentially it could be easier to solder in place than the new flash chips (although I'd call that a big maybe). I'll be waiting until I see someone else using the kit before getting to excited though.

What I'm immediately looking forward to is someone making after market flash modules for the M4 mini, which uses a proprietary card format similar (but not compatible) with the Mac Studio (which does have after market cards available now).
Same for us, down for ~5 mins, back up and fine, error was 501
Still a child
If I have a flat tyre it's not a recall. Not everything about not being road-legal and requiring immediate action is a recall. That's a bad definition.
What we really need is one of these service directories that excludes commercial results. I don't care about what I can buy, I care about what I can do for free.
I need to ask - is this a joke? No, Tesla is not particularly bulletproof compared to other cars. Its doors may stop a 9mm sure enough, but the windows won't manage even that, and anything above 9mm will go through the doors as well. And 9mm is not even that common among criminal shooters, they usually go for bigger calibers / higher penetration naturally already.

And which Lamborghini specifically?