jasonshaev

I dunno, you're not providing any evidence to back up the assertion that "we" talk way more about inclusivity than "powerful elites." Who is "we?"

HN? Are you talking about in the news? A specific news outlet?

The imbalance of power between the ultra-wealthy and the rest of us is in the news all the time, at least that I watch and read.

What? The 2008 Mortgage Crisis was the biggest news story for at least a year.

Comparing that to "inclusivity" is also strange because inclusivity is not an event. A single event has a natural decay of relevance, the further into the past it gets.

How do you know that? Because someone switched careers they must be after "one thing and one thing only: cash?"

Just because someone has a CS degree they can't be primarily or solely motivated by cash?

Again you're making a huge, sweeping generalization about a large group of people. That's called a stereotype and it's not helpful.

Is a CS grad really that much more capable of creating a native Windows UI application than a "bootcamp-graduated js-monkey?"

I certainly did not learn anything Windows related as a CS major and little to nothing about UI/UX.

Calling people "js-monkeys" is a bad look. We can have a conversation about the quality of applications on different frameworks without stereotyping an entire group of people.

Repealing 230 would force companies to moderate much more heavily so as to avoid liability. So if the goal is to reduce moderation, repealing Section 230 won't solve that. Not giving companies 1st amendment rights is very troubling to me because ultimately a company is just a collection of people with a governance structure. Compelling a jewish coffee shop owner to allow someone to post anti-semitic notices within their business would be an immediate consequence.

I don't see any easy answer here. I'm as uncomfortable with the amount of influence companies like Facebook yield as anyone but most of the "easy" solutions would, in my opinion, make the situation far worse.

You can't, uh, just write a law that overrides the 1st amendment. It's in the Constitution. Any law that overrides the 1st amendment is unconstitutional by definition.

In the US, the 1st amendment grants private companies the right to police content within their purview. Preventing them from doing so is in itself a violation of the 1st amendment. Thus, in my opinion, the suggestion that private companies should NOT police content, despite their explicit 1st amendment right to do so, is antithetical to the 1st amendment.

FYI, the GP comment said "The issue was resolved/disclosed very quickly, and in a professional manor."

So they didn't say their "entire set of actions" was "professional" just that it was disclosed and resolved professionally.

And here you are making pseudoscientific judgements (chemical imbalance?!) about a huge number of people you've lumped into a group and referred to as "these people."

I'm seriously surprised you haven't been downvoted off this thread.

Referring to other humans as "subhuman" is disrespectful, at best. Where do you get off saying ANYONE isn't a "living being[s] with spirits and hopes and dreams?"

Having different priorities than you do does not make someone "subhuman" and I would seriously reconsider the language you are using.

By what metric is NYC demising and what data backs up that that "demise" is accelerating?

Your brief post just seems like repetition of a partisan talking point about a place you don't like.

>We show that despite Google's attempts to mitigate Spectre by deploying Strict Site Isolation, information extraction via malicious JavaScript code is still possible in some cases.

The allusion to Spectre seems odd to me too. This really has nothing to do with Spectre, other than it (sort of?) being a side-channel attack. So Google's Spectre mitigation not "fixing" this isn't surprising.

> There's also the matter that a raise doesn't need a promotion.

This is a critical point. I've been a manager at companies where the primary, and sometimes only way, to get someone a raise is to promote them because of strict salary bands defined by level. This creates a perverse incentive to promote too early.

Salary bands are usually in place to -- ostensibly -- make sure salaries are fair. Fair salaries are a good thing. That being said, there HAS to be a mechanism to reward top performers with additional cash that doesn't require promotion otherwise it can feel like "teaching to the test."

My guess (and this is purely a guess) is that it's "solvable" to within some threshold. But what is that threshold? I have no idea. If you turn the knobs too far, you'll presumably end up with more false positives. What's an acceptable threshold for false positives? I have no idea.

If you asked me 3 years ago, I would have naively answered that technology can do a much better job consistently enforcing moderation rules than our current technology actually can. Realizing how hard it is, even for "trained" humans, eviscerated that naivety real fast.

I definitely agree it's, literally, impossible for 15k moderators to accurately review anywhere near enough posts to get to whatever that acceptable threshold is. I'm also not convinced doubling that number is enough either.

There's always a certain arbitrariness and subjective interpretation in content moderation. Someone will always end up unhappy with the result.

I agree it's not enough. I simply wanted to point out that Facebook, tacitly or otherwise, admits it's not a problem they can solve purely with technology right now (...without making massive changes to their platform that undercut their bottom line, as you said).

I don't love defending Facebook, but as of last year, they employed 15 THOUSAND content moderators (https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2020/06/09/300000-...)

Content moderation at Facebook scale is really, really hard. Even for real people.

Again I hate to defend Facebook, but your comment is very misleading by ignoring that Facebook HAS hired humans to help solve the content moderation problem. A lot of them.

The tax laws are public, but it's hard for most of us to understand how those laws apply in practice to people whose taxes are radically more complicated than most, and are prepared by the best tax experts money can buy. We also don't know the inputs. I think there is public interest in seeing how the tax code works in practice. I'd wager the results are a lot of different than the average person naively assumes.

Playing the "both sides" card is a hell of a take regarding WW2, especially when the article is literally about liberating Auschwitz.

Of course both sides committed atrocities in war. But only one side committed mass genocide on an industrial scale.

I am vaguely familiar with Light Table and Eve (coincidentally my college roommate grew up with Chris but I don't know him personally). It's been awhile but my recollection is Light Table/Eve had a more targeted set of selling points -- a killer IDE with some slick features I hadn't seen before and then a new language designed to be written as prose.

Regarding Beads: time travel is definitely a cool feature. Most languages have some kind of step debugger but the experience can often be improved. Having a built in graph DB could be an interesting selling point too. I'd love to see a quick example of what having a graph DB built into the language enables. For instance, this post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27315018 cites a Neo4j demo that, in a few lines of code, shows me something their product does "better" than SQL. I would love to see, on the Beads front page, a small (5 lines max?) code blurb that shows me something Beads can do harder, better, faster, stronger (or whatever ;) ) than other languages. I don't quite know what that is, but I imagine the author has some thoughts :).

Happy to connect more if you'd like.

How you present your ideas are as important as the quality of your ideas. My suggestion is that your website's presentation does not present your ideas in a way that is likely to reach your target audience. That's an opinion of course.

Your comment clarifies that you aren't claiming to replace UNIX but that you can use Beads as a general scripting language. Consider updating the big graphic on the front page that says UNIX to Say Bash (sh, zsh or whatever).

Lastly, your response is selling me on graph databases, but I never objected to graph databases as a technology, just your bold statement about them with no caveats or citations. Saying, "graph databases are considered more powerful and modern than relational databases..." is a good way to start a flame war but not a good way to convince someone to use your product.

All that being said, best of luck with your project! I do mean that sincerely.

I would seriously consider toning down the marketing speak. This project is making very bold claims, without citations, while trying to appeal to an often skeptical crowd (developers).

"Graph databases are considered more powerful and modern than relational databases," ... okay? According to what benchmark and for what workloads? A statement like that is an immediate turnoff because it is dismissive of 30 years of database development.

"In many languages the slightest error in input data can cause a program to seriously malfunction. Beads has special rules of arithmetic and a robust mathematical model, that makes it extremely difficult to have a serious malfunction." I don't see how "special rules of arithmetic and a robust mathematical model" makes it "extremely difficult to have a serious malfunction."

Replacing "Unix, SQL, Rails, Ruby, RSpec, Templates, HTTP, HTML, CSS, DOM, jQuery and Javascript" in one language? How does this replace Unix? HTTP? It's not an operating system or a transport layer.

My goal isn't to crush someones idea, but consider your audience: developers.

Just a note: one serious limitation I've encountered is that linux running under WSL2 (or WSL1 I believe) is unable to access USB. This was a show stopper for firmware development for me.

The solution seems to be uh, patch the kernel? https://github.com/jovton/USB-Storage-on-WSL2

I agree (hence my original statement: "With such a small percentage of the workforce unionized, it's highly unlikely those employees enjoyed any additional bargaining power or job security that could result from having a significant fraction of the workforce unionized. With such a small fraction I don't think you can draw conclusions in either direction.")

However I then, uh, went on to draw a conclusion anyway in contradiction of my own statement saying we shouldn't draw conclusions because of the sample size. Methinks it's time for more coffee :).

You're right -- my last statement was a bit too much of a leap. In this case I wonder if it would have even mattered if a significant percentage of the workforce was unionized.

To be fair, there were only TEN unionized employees at Instacart who were let go (out of 1900 jobs cut). With such a small percentage of the workforce unionized, it's highly unlikely those employees enjoyed any additional bargaining power or job security that could result from having a significant fraction of the workforce unionized.

With such a small fraction I don't think you can draw conclusions in either direction.

[edit] In other words: these employees would have lost their job regardless of their union status [/edit]

Can you expand on this "Fungi being more likely to grow in humans are one of the underestimated consequences of climate change which we might run into in the future." ?

Why would climate change lead to more Fungal growth in humans? Genuine question

Avoid words like "obviously." What is obvious to me may not be obvious to another.

This is a neat idea. Also, many apps don't need your EXACT location, just something like a zip code for convenience. AFAIK there is no mechanism for an App to request permissions to get a "rough" idea of where you are as opposed to a precise location

I thought the same thing. More than anything, having the data in a table without a basic time series graph makes it harder to visualize the impact (for me).

This is a bad take and odd place to criticize Go programmers.

Go convention is often short variable names, but the only place I know where single-letter variable names is encourage is for receiver methods. https://golang.org/doc/effective_go.html#methods

In that case the definition of the single-letter variable is literally a line or two of code away.