names_are_hard

I don't know about routing, but in conflict areas they do add generic disclaimers / warnings that information may be outdated, conditions may be rapidly changing and that users should pay attention to "real-world conditions".

I have a little dreidel I'm printing it 3D When it's done and ready Oh dreidel I shall play

It kinda rhymes if you have a southern drawl. After all, Luke Bryan rhymes "weatherman complains" with "rain is a good thing"

When I was little and we'd get ice cream, my mother would get each of the kids a cone but not for herself. Then she'd do rounds and eat a little from each of ours.

We were annoyed, but she explained that this process is called "taxes".

Almost as if what? If you have something substantive to say, say it.

It's not a secret that Hebrew and Arabic share a common ancestor, and that the languages are related. It's also not a secret that Arabic played significant role in Jewish history, some very meaningful works of Jewish literature were originally written in Arabic before being translated to Hebrew.

I'm really not sure what you were trying to get at with your cryptic comment.

Thanks for replying in length and with sincerity. I'm not going to address everything in your comment not because it isn't worthy of a response but because I personally don't have a response that is substantive and thoughtful. If anyone else wants to reply they're welcome to. In any case I'm not a spokesperson for my country. I'll say two things:

0. "Human animals" bothers me - I disapprove of the extreme language I'm hearing in public discourse in Israel these days, after the events of Oct 7 there's been a shift in public discourse that normalizes this kind of language. I think it's wrong and harmful. I wish it would stop.

1. If you or anyone close to you is currently in Gaza (or the West Bank, or Israel, for that matter) - I truly hope they will be safe and come out the other end of this war ok, or as ok as is possible given the circumstances. From what I'm hearing on the news here in Israel, sounds like things are going to get worse before they get better. All I can do is hope that we see better days soon.

I agree. And on top of that, neither of us have actually met John Brown face to face. Our _entire_ knowledge of him is based on indirect interactions. We've seen things he's (ostensibly) done, artifacts of his work, we've deduced a set of characteristics about his nature based on his behavior. In a sense, John Brown is nothing more than the label we give to the entity having characteristics A,B,C,D.

So like you say, if the overlap between your A,B,C,D and my A,B,C,D is sufficiently small we should probably acknowledge that it's not the same entity. See also: Ship of Theseus.

Lofty even-handedness was not my intention, I have a definite side in this conflict because it personally affects me. I'm not unbiased and make no claim to be. I live in Israel and I'm scared of how this will end because I have skin in the game.

It doesn't matter to me who hit the hospital because I don't believe it was intentional. That's not to say the deaths don't matter, they do, and we should mourn them. And that's not to say that blame for the overall war doesn't matter, it does, I don't mean to say that we can't know anything and I'm not offering some bland hope for a ceasefire and end of suffering for all sides.

I'm saying that I don't believe figuring out whose errant projectile is responsible for this particular tragedy materially changes how I feel about the war[0].

Can I prove that it wasn't intentional? No, I can't. But I consider it much more likely than the claim that it was intentional. The Israeli claim is that it was an Islamic Jihad mistake, they're not arguing it was intentional. I don't know if Hamas claims Israeli did it intentionally or by accident, but it is entirely against Israel's interest to hit it intentionally and I see no reason they'd kick the ball into their own goal so spectacularly. Mistakes happen. War is terrible. And yes, this war includes a lot of war crimes.

[0] If eventually we find actual evidence that this was an intentional strike by the Israeli military, I will retract my position and express shock and horror at my government. I already express my anger at my more extreme, fundamentalist countrymen for their actions and statements that I consider to be immoral. The fact that they're on my team does not spare them from my wrath, on the contrary, I get more angry at them for the damage they do than I do at the extremists on the other side.

As soon as the story broke, it was clear to me that whoever did it, it was an accident. So in that sense, it doesn't really matter. It's an unfortunate casualty of war, in which innocent people suffer even when it's not intended.

One thing that I respect about the initial Israeli response was that they weren't quick to assign blame. In a press conference soon after the event, the military spokesperson said that they are aware something happened and are looking into it and will update when they know.

To me, that's a more honest approach than just assigning blame. There's fog of war, a lot of things happening simultaneously, and it takes time to gather information. I trust people more when they acknowledge that they don't know everything and sometimes make mistakes than when they immediately have all the answers.

> The story would look the same no matter who did it.

Maybe, but I think the US government would distance themselves from the story if it was an Israeli attack. Biden told a reporter that his conclusion that it was not Israeli is based on data from his Defense Department. Is he trustworthy? I guess this is subjective, to me he's more credible than Hamas but I'm biased.

I didn't read the comment in any way like "not every man is a sexist", mainly because what the comment says is true - Israeli society is made up of very particular groups, and the political map is complex, its not a single vector of left-wing to right-wing or secular to religious.

The settlement movement is a mix of secular nationalist people and religious Zionist (a group that contains a lot of very religious people but is socially distinct from Haredi/ultra orthodox, and the difference is immediately obvious to anyone who is familiar with the groups based on their dress code alone).

There's even a political party that caters primarily toward immigrants from the former Soviet Union that is simultaneously staunchly secular and anti-Haredi but also right wing and nationalistic.

Israel is indeed a confusing place.

The Haredi (aka ultra orthodox) parties are not the key drivers of the settlement enterprise. They are mostly ambivalent to the whole thing, their primary focus is preserving their lifestyle, which is less about the land and more about everything else in the religion. In fact, just last week one of the Haredi politicians published a populist rant about how Zionism is terrible, the Zionists are the root of all the problems etc etc.

The two most right-wing parties in the parliament (headed by Smotrich and Ben Gvir, respectively) are not Haredi, and their constituents do serve in the military, by and large (although less than their secular counterparts, as the women don't have to serve and there are programs that allow abbreviated service for men as far as I understand).

It's complicated..

Even egalitarianism isn't necessarily an unequivocal good, it depends on your goal function. Individual self actualization isn't universally accepted as an appropriate goal for society, neither is the idea that all people are born equal.

(I happen to share those values but I know people and entire societies with belief systems that don't.)

If all that comes off this entire HN post is that you get a good set of JIS screwdrivers, it's all worth it. It'll save you trouble down the line. Don't try to open the brake reservoir [0] screws with a Phillips. Ask me how I know.

[0] You might have a plastic reservoir with a screw-off cap, in which case... you'll use the JIS for something else.

P.S. Congrats on the new bike! Take an advanced riding course, read Keith Code, and buy good gear and you'll have a ton of fun with it.

Incredible. I sent that to Google translate and it translated fairly well.

(For those who can't read it - the text is English transliterated into Hebrew script, not actually Hebrew. I'm impressed that Google managed to make sense of it)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that GP is partially correct, in that the lunar sighting is not an individual thing, but done at the communal level by the central authority. It's just that like most religions, Islam has multiple streams, and this there are multiple central authorities.

Is this not how it works? I'm not Muslim, this is what I understood from a Muslim coworker. He also implied that there's some politics involved, in that various Middle Eastern countries align themselves with their political bloc when announcing the day, although any political motivations are "alleged" and not acknowledged.

There were a few words about it, actually. TFA mentions that "someone familiar with the matter" told the journalists that a secret Israeli agency once purchased supposedly hacked financial data from Jorge but the data turned out to be useless forgery. Which seems wild to me, that he would try to scam the people who have the most power to stop him.

There's also comments from one of the team that seems to indicate that they aren't involved in such shenanigans locally, but they're not pretending it isn't happening. He still votes because he has "faith".

> As part of that, if you are just starting your work day, please feel free to work from home today.

This closing line is what stuck out most to me. Is there really such a strict WFO culture there that this needs to be said explicitly?

You can buy a Casio watch for about 20 USD that claims to resist water to 100 meters. The battery replacement requires a small screwdriver, does that count as user-replaceable?

Have you managed to find an alternative? Your concerns resonate with me but I still don't know the best way to automatically backup all the photos I take on my phone, search them later, etc

It's a cloud-based product. So processing is a core part of the value proposition - the provider (Google, Microsoft) stores a copy of the data and exposes APIs that the frontends use to download the documents to the users' machines.

The alternative is a product that is not collaborative (no online collaboration, at least) or requires customers to hire a sys admin to install on their own servers and maintain it.

This isn't some nefarious plot by big tech to steal your data, it's the product people want.

I'm not GP so I don't know what they meant, but a key upside to complex logic in the application layer vs the database is that the application layer is often much easier to scale out than the db. Where I work, if I run out of memory in the app I just change a configuration variable and k8s gives me more instances instantly. But if the database is memory constrained and I'm already on the biggest server available to me...I need to re-shard or take some other more sophisticated approach (tuning, replication, other stuff I don't know about).

Of course each scenario is different, YMMV, and as always "it depends".

> Note that allowbox and denybox are not acceptable substitutes here

Hmm...opaquebox and transparentbox? clearbox?

Obviously everyone's preferences are different, so this isn't a direct response but just another anecdote.

I tried VS Code and couldn't get used to it. So now I use Rider for C# and Webstorm for JS. Sometimes I open Visual Studio, though:

> There are some custom plugins someone in my org wrote that help accomplish some team-specific tasks > When I need to work on stored procedures in our SQL databases. Rider doesn't know how to parse the schema from the sql project files, instead it wants me to connect to a live database or it will color everything with little red underlines and give me no autocomplete

I think it's nice that my employer is willing to pay for my Jetbrains licenses despite the fact that it is selling a proprietary competitor and also simultaneously pushing an open source alternative. I appreciate it.

Why do you think 100 light years is the edge of "reasonable travel distance"? I put to you that you are imposing your human standards on other species, assuming that what seems to you to be a long time would also be a long time to another species.

Maybe the aliens have an average livespan of 200k Earth-years. Maybe much more. Maybe they experience time differently, and for them a 100 year journey feels to them like a walk around the block.

> Who gave the mail server permission to access the page?

The recipient of the email, or their employer's IT department that is paying another company for mail services.

If you send me an email with a link then I do believe I have the right to send that link to a third party service that can validate that it's not malicious. If I decide to sign up for a mail service that promises to protect me from phishing emails, then I [0] expect said service to read the emails I receive and examine the links within them. I would be upset if the service used the info I share with them for purposes other than keeping me safe, though.

I readily admit that I have, at various points in my life, signed up for services without reading the entire TOS that I agreed to. I try to choose companies that I feel I can trust to not abuse me too much, and sometimes I avoid certain services because I don't trust the company behind them enough to respect my privacy.

[0] I acknowledge that not everyone is as knowledgeable as me, and many people might not realize that this is how the protection works. So if the argument is more education, I'm in favor.

I'm not sure if you're talking about at the executive level or at the engineer level, but here's some anecdata:

At the big tech (household name) I work we definitely spend a lot of energy talking about COGS a engineers. We have a LOT of data, and we spend a lot of money on cloud services to keep our product running - you want to add a new piece of data to this database to support some new feature? Go calculate how much it'll cost in storage and compute and if it's above some threshold, request special approval. You want to improve performance by caching our indexing? Let's talk about how much that'll be in COGS. This stuff ain't free, all those users add up.

The interesting bit is that all this COGS isn't actually money that transfers hands, the cloud we use is our own. But it isn't free and internal accounting is taken seriously.

The solution is to separate "we use" from "we're looking for". Eg, a job post can say:

We use kafka, big-scale-databigness, BuzzwordDb, and CoolFramework. We're looking for smart engineers with an open mind and a commitment to building to high quality, robust systems. Minimum qualifications:

* Several years developing user-facing web applications * Experience with OOP in a language like Java, C#, Smalltalk, or similar

kkndve English speaker checking in, I did not know that the phrase "sour grapes" comes from Aesop.

Honestly I only vaguely recall reading a few stories from Aesop when I was in second grade or something. Maybe a story about a wolf and another animal and a river? None of it really stuck.

Yeah, you're right. I'm just talking about spherical chickens here. In real life, if your bank quotes you an APY they've already annualized it. I just think it's interesting to think about how in a perfect world, the rule is actually really good. Reality is just way less elegant than a classroom, unfortunately.

So I should have been clearer that I'm not criticizing the article, just offering another perspective on the how and why the rule is imperfect, which the article acknowledges as well.

One thing I don't see mentioned in TFA (I quickly skimmed it) is the relationship of the rule to continuous compounding. The article does say that it works better for "small R", after all - if interest rates where 100%, it should obviously take a year to double, not .72 years, right?

Well...no. Theoretically, if interest is 100% paid continuously throughout the year, you'll double your money in about .72 years. The issue is that we generally quote interest rates as annualized rates _after_ taking into account the compounding frequency (this is the difference between "APY" and "APR"), so the rule is usually applied to annualized rates, in which case it's correct to say that the error increases as the rates increase.

But suppose rates were actually quoted as the annual rate before compounding frequency is accounted for.

With monthly compounding, your return is

> (1 + r/12)^(12n)

where r is the annual rate and n is the number of years.

With weekly compounding, your return is

> (1 + r/52)^(52n)

Daily:

> (1 + r/365.25) ^ (365.25n)

More generally, if p is the number of interest periods in the year

> (1 + r/p) ^ pn

Taking the limit of p as it tends to infinity (ie "continuous compounding) it can be shown than the rate is

> e^rn

Some text books write this as "Pe^rt", where P is your starting principle and t is the number of years. Same same. Anyway...

To double your money, solve the following for n:

> e^rn = 2

> n = ln(2) / r

> n = ~.69 / r

Thus the rule of ln(2) is actually perfectly accurate if you're looking at an annual interest rate that is paid continuously, or close to it. Round ln(2) to 72 for simplicity and it's still pretty close. The big error bar comes from the lack of continuous compounding, which is what forces the hand-waving in the articles derivation ("for small R...").

P.S. Written off-the-cuff, it's been years since I looked at the math for this and I might be totally way off. This is not investment advice, this is hacker news and I'm positive some kind soul will correct my mistakes. After all, the best way to get correct information on the internet is to post something wrong on a forum of smart pedantics.

And never attribute to incompetence that which can be explained by hundreds of individually intelligent people optimizing for their own short term benefit (ie career growth).

We see this in the software industry all the time. Large organizations act inefficiently or against their own interests because large organizations don't actually have consciousness, instead their decisions emerge from the sum of a lot of little decisions and actions, each of which might be individually reasonable.

As an aside, I believe that's how large organizations can come to be evil even if the vast majority of members are not evil.