genidoi

What special-case syntax? The only brazenly pythonic thing in there was the (iterative) tuple unpacking, as in

(for) k, v in dic.items()

which is just

k, v = (<key>, <value>) for every key value pair in the dictionary

Each to their own, but both the snippets you posted crossed my threshold for headache inducing parentheses tracking

dic = {k: v for k, v in dic.items() if k in other_dic and v == "bar"}

How could that be improved? That's 3-4 LOC minimum in any other language

My main grip is python's ternary operators, since the True value is evaluated before the condition, if you are doing ternaries on things that might throw exceptions the False value has to come first

value = 0 if key not in dic else dic[key] * 5

rather than (throws indexerror if key isn't in dic)

value = dic[key] * 5 if key in dic else 0

I would argue the inverse - at any time there are a tiny set of startup ideas that are so primed for implementation, that they are nearly bulletproof against the inevitable mountain of mistakes that even great teams will make.

I don't care how many years you've been programming, nobody git pulls a 10,000 class java codebase without nervously gulping.

Climate scientists, in an effort to avoid panic, are downplaying the calamity and timescale of this crisis. It's common knowledge in the climate science academic community that the 2018 IPCC report was overly conservative in its modelling of CC progression by lacking any mention of self reinforcing feedback loops.

The two most impactful of these loops are the Arctic sea ice reflectivity loss (less ice -> less incoming light reflected back into space -> more heat captured by earth -> less ice) and the Siberian arctic shelf methane loop, arguably the most devestating one because we already know it caused Earth's worst extinction[0], and it is beginning to happen again[1].

It will be refreshing to see if the scientific community's consensus on how silent to be about the severity of the climate crisis will change as the facts of how rapidly the feedback loops are progressing essentially implicate near-term (10-20 years) civilisational collapse.

More info from the World Research Institute on climate feedback loops:

https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/08/why-positive-climate-feedba...

[0]: https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/earth-permian-mass...

[1]: https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2018/04/28/...

SF maximizes technological intelligence, Wall Street maximizes financial intelligence. Plenty of overlap, but the top talent stays where the rest of the top talent is.

I'm assuming that the value of these papers are self evident from the title if you understand the topic/context of the paper, much like HN with many of the white papers published here.

From that information, I would actively want to check SciHub out if I had never heard of it. Academia + notoriety sounds novel and useful.

Part of why SciHub has succeeded is just how easy it is. Copy/pasting an arbitrary DOI from any source will always beat most journals arcane login systems (especially on mobile) and their divine mission of obscuring "Download PDF" buttons.

This comment is enraging. "Have faith that totalitarianism will work this time" - as if the 20th century didn't happen.

Brilliant - combine this with Russia economically benefiting from climate change - emerging artic shipping routes / oil drilling opportunities from ice melting[0] - and people wonder why climate change cynicism is on the rise.

[0] https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/russia-to-reap-benefits-...

The estimates here were wrong because there was nothing to estimate at all - gig economy is a marketing buzzword for an unusually isolated yet reasonably substantial unemployment bracket. The upper bound of the bracket being the sub-minimum wage compensation that Uber pays their drivers[0] and the lower bound being the amortized cost of the cheapest vehicle that Uber lets drivers utilise for their 'gig'.

That's a really small demographic who would fit both criteria. Recently unemployed people and students come to mind.

Importantly - Uber knows this fact very well and are doing everything they can to survive until fully autonomous self driving cars reach mass production.

[0] https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-uber-driver-w...

They are competitors - for your eyeballs. Just because they don't provide precisely the same service doesn't make them non-competitors.

Youtube competes with Netflix the same way your shower length preference competes with Netflix. The disconcerting (if not narcissistic) elephant in the room being that service providers are viewing any activities that cause you to spend time away from their service as "competition" at all.

After Equifax why would they not? Seems like when it comes to actual tech scandals, nobody cares. Frightening stuff.

Who are you? In the absence of knowing literally anything about you it's challenging to "humanize" your comment. It's just another in a sea of anonymous comments written by arbitrary commentators.

Sure I can trawl through your post history to try to better understand through what lens you see the world, but I don't have the time to do that for every single comment that I read on HN/Reddit.

Most products sold on eBay / amazon are too simple for detailed seller ratings to matter. The usefulness of a 5 star review system is far higher when there is a wide and fairly continuous spectrum of expected performance (food, airbnb) compared to a binary choice between "something this simple really shouldn't break so easily" and "it works fine".

On the contrary they seem like perfectly rational responses to an introductory video that is redundant at best and patronising at worst.

I was dissuaded from installing it because I assume the products quality would reflect how little the founders seem to understand people in thinking that it's necessary to accurately detail what a poor start to the day would look like.

The video should be a simple gif demonstrating how an email with a negative tone is detected and turned into a positive tone. People are smart enough to figure out how that could be useful.

> I don't have a subjective first person experience.

Everything you mentioned after this were mechanisms, however inefficient or poorly documented, that support your functioning day-to-day and are practically irrelevant for supporting your argument that you don't have a subjective first person experience. If you explained those mechanisms and "documented" them then all you would be doing is explaining one way your consciousness is fed data whilst still leaving the original question on the table.

At the heart of what constitutes you as an "I" is someone who can experience eating chocolate or taking a warm shower. There is a you that feels what it is like to do these activities.

The problem with arguing against the existence of consciousness is that even if you manage to somehow win the argument then you are by necessity a nihilist. Of course, all nihilistic arguments are self defeating because if nothing matters, why try to argue or believe that nothing matters?

Why do you need a subjective first person experience when humanity could operate just as well as a society of philosophical zombies?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

Everything in moderation. Such as stopping your 11 y/o kid from playing runescape at 2am when they should be sleeping.

Source: Me.

If you are risk averse, the answer is almost definitely no, because it's just way too unpredictable, even with the right setting / mood / people around you. The experience is so personal that anyone's anecdote bares virtually no weight for predicting how you'll react to it. Not even your close friends.

Ultimately it exposes the underlying machinery of your own consciousness in a way that you've never experienced before.

How you'll react to that sort of exposure is anyone's best guess. Tread really, really carefully with psychedelics. They are not to be taken lightly in the same way that weed or alcohol can be.

That being said, when in the right environment, it can be a fantastic, eye-opening experience.

A counter-intuitive feature is not worth using even if 9/10 python devs know about it. Which they don't seem to. https://twitpic.com/4a52sh

Seems like bad usability.

its anyone's best guess whether apis/libraries with documentation that have buzzword-y marketing get more usage than those that entirely market themselves based on functionality.

if the condescending tone of the top comment is ignored it becomes valuable feedback. good libraries/api's (free or otherwise) do not need to use marketing buzzwords to sell themselves when a clear demonstration of the functionality is usually more than enough.

see the python requests library documentation for a good example

http://docs.python-requests.org/en/master/