HN user
Ah. I wasn't able to figure that out from the homepage, the first docs page, or the "getting started" link in the docs. Homepage has nothing, and the first two docs pages I looked at made it seem like some MVP lambda-alike.
Looked at the homepage. Looked at the docs (only way to find out more about WTF I'm looking at, without signing up?).
Doesn't... look meaningfully different from AWS lambdas or CF workers or other things along those lines. Just with way fewer features. What am I missing?
Exam's used in American English, plenty. It tends to connote something a bit more serious or formal than a test, but I don't think you'd get much of a difference in reaction just using the two interchangeably, in most contexts. At worst, you'd come off a bit pretentious, using "exam" to describe lesser tests.
"Test" dominates in primary and secondary school, "exam" becoming more common in post-secondary education and for professional certifications et c., but both occur in both contexts.
The "trick" is that it's frontend-only in the same sense that Serverless has no servers.
Looks like it's some kind of authorization proxy.
The average "technology professional" in the US made about $104,566 in 2021. Certainly not bad, but not "save half your money" good, if you have... like, a life, and a family. Maybe if you're single and don't do much, and live in a low COL area.
People in the SV/fintech sphere tend to have a really skewed idea of what typical salaries are for people "working in tech". What they really mean is "FAANG(-alike) and fintech", not "tech". They're in the third hump of the trimodal distribution of developer salaries, and may have some inaccurate ideas about the rest of the market, as a result.
(BLS gives me a median of ~$97k in 2021, if you're wondering if there's a big difference between the average and the median)
Hooks are half of an object/class system (implemented on top of a language that already had a whole one—arguably, two, from a DX perspective, though they're one under-the-hood) with non-standard and hard-to-read declaration syntax and bizarre behavior (FIFO-by-declaration-order property access and method invocation). It's not your fault you're having trouble with them, they're a weird boondoggle.
No. Lawyers sometimes call out that they are not offering legal advice and/or that the reader is not to consider themselves the lawyer's client, out of what is, in most contexts (I'm pretty sure) excessive caution to prevent liability and stay within ethical bounds (but then, IANAL). But AFAIK (IANAL!) there's no remotely-realistic risk to someone who's not a lawyer, and has not represented themselves as a lawyer, posting opinions about the law in a context in which nobody with two brain cells to rub together might for some reason believe they're a lawyer without their saying so (i.e. this isn't LawyerNewsOnlyForLawyersAllOurUsersAreLawyers.com), without such a disclaimer.
As far as I can tell, this is the result of people reading lawyers announcing that they are lawyers and posting such a disclaimer, and other posters specifying "I am not a lawyer" purely out of consideration for the reader, not out of legal obligation, and getting the two all mixed up together, while deciding that both are necessary (I'm quite sure one is not, and I'm pretty sure the other one isn't exactly necessary, either).
Consider how many published pieces and TV news programs feature people who are and are not lawyers, providing opinions about the law, typically with none of these disclaimers. It's evidently not a problem. I think lawyers only bother to do it in forums because there's some remote chance that someone might be able to argue they were mislead by the conversational and two-sided nature of the medium into thinking the lawyer had taken them as a client or was offering advice in an official capacity (I'm skeptical such a case would get very far, in any event, though).
They also don't have to cater to special education students (although some private non-profit schools do, for sure), and they don't have to subsidize special education funding with normal student funding.
Yep, absolutely, and that part of their ability to select their students is a major factor in the "look, private schools can educate kids for less than public schools spend, with similar or better outcomes!" sort of stats that get passed around.
Yes, of course, they benefit hugely from the ability to select students. They're also less answerable to parents or the public than public schools, in many way, which can free them up to ignore stupid demands from parents (they select families, as much as they select students)—or free them up to maintain stupid policies or approaches that could never fly in public schools, which is sometimes exactly what their customers want (as in the case of e.g. fundamentalist religious schools). They're more answerable to the set of expectations they've created for their families, than to the particular whims or desires of any given family, or any constituency present in the broader public.
... which doesn't necessarily mean preferring a better school that's only better due to selection bias (and knock-on effects from being able to remove very-disruptive or low performing students) is a bad way to go, at the individual level, if one has that option. The observation's more relevant to policy-making, than to the relative merits of those options to any given family.
If it were happening a bunch, there might be a good case to be made for changing permission-granting UI. Maybe not kernel-level, but OS-level, at least.
In fact, lots of distros now warn when a user attempts certain sudo actions, for similar reasons—mistakes were being made, and adding a little or the right kind of friction could prevent them.
I've seen $15k up to ~$50k /yr (non-boarding—I've seen boarding as high as $70k)
The ~$15k ones tend to be Catholic or otherwise religious, and quality varies from "worse than the local public schools, actually" up to "notably better than the local public schools, though not as good as a really good private school".
Some cheap secular schools are only a little more expensive than the bottom end of the religious ones, but they don't tend to be much better than average public-school quality (nb. that may still be a lot better than some particular public school district)
React development has had multiple major changes over that time span, as far as what's culturally allowed & encountered in the wild (if not what's technically possible). Just-functions, classes-and-functions mixed as appropriate, redux becoming a nigh-standard, the HOF invasion, hooks, and classes becoming deprecated.
I dunno... when you're building a hierarchical tree of nameable components and several, ahem, instances of each nameable component might exist, and these need to respond to signals, that seems like a case when it's non-crazy to use classes.
To quote myself:
without extensive human adjustment and editing
Current AI tools are a bit helpful if you're using them for "good". They're immensely helpful if you're using them for "ill" (spamming, scamming, astroturfing, et c.)
Human output may merit some benefit-of-the-doubt if we don't initially understand it. Someone took time out of their life to create it, and presumably were attempting to convey some actual meaning.
AI (at present) doesn't know what "meaning" even is. Generating mountains of output with it is cheap. Analyzing it is a trap—there's no other to try to understand and appreciate. It's an accident that happens to resemble something with intent behind it.
I think that's part of why people react so poorly to it, and especially to trying to pass its output off as human-generated.
(Spoilers for Watts' Blindsight)
In Blindsight, the (intelligent but non-conscious) aliens think human communication is some kind of adversarial gibberish intended to mimic meaning in order to tie up opponents' resources with nonsense. Just chaff, basically. They're not able to understand the not-directly-and-strictly-business output of a consciousness as anything else, because they're used to a universe of intelligent but non-conscious actors.
Today, that's what our AI tools actually do, as far as what they're capable of doing without extensive human adjustment and editing. They are, by far, at their most-efficient when used to generate noise. That noise may be useful for some purpose, but it's not any good purpose, because it's only useful at that kind of scale in cases where truth and meaning aren't valuable.
[EDIT] For comparison, look at other forms of communication where humans go out of their way to avoid meaning. It's pretty much all reviled: marketing-speak, lawyer-speak, politician-speak, HR-speak, et c.
I've been writing code for pay for more than 20 years and will forget basic syntax and keywords for a language I wrote hundreds of lines in yesterday without other code to crib off of, IDE assistance, and/or reference material (google, whatever). Like, I'll forget if it's "else if" or "elsif" or "elseif" or "elif" or whatever. Or I'll mix up how to access hash/list members. How to designate a constructor. Stuff like that.
The existence of some amount of risk, and the conclusion "is safe", aren't necessarily at odds.
The pyramids at Giza are really, really old.
Cleopatra was part of the Macedonian/Greek dynasty in Egypt, which comes basically at the tail end of what one might consider "ancient Egypt". The time span we lump together as "ancient Egypt" (specifically, dynastic ancient Egypt—"pre-dynastic" stretches back many centuries before that) is so long that stuff from the first third or so of it is farther, time-wise, from Cleopatra than the moon landings were.
Wikipedia:
All [the three big pyramids at Giza] were built during the Fourth Dynasty of the Old Kingdom of ancient Egypt, between 2600 and 2500 BC.
Cleopatra is tied up with Julius Caesar and Antony (as in Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra) and all that happens just before the BC/AD transition, and these numbers are large and fuzzy enough we can just call her time 0. ~2500 years after the pyramids, ~1970 before the moon landings. Plus or minus a few years, but it doesn't make much difference.
Every time I open Firefox it presents me with some message instead of content I want. Usually in the form of a new tab. Sometimes, it's a pop-under new window (I think this is some weird interaction with its restoration of previous sessions). Every now and then, it's one of those plus some call-out bubble message or a pop-up window.
Safari practically never does that shit, which is one of the reasons I prefer it on platforms where it's available. IDK why modern Firefox is so damn eager to interrupt me. Just open a window with my last session or my default tab and shut up. I don't care if you just updated. I don't care if you're weirdly-enthusiastic about introducing me to a feature that hasn't been novel in a browser in at least a couple decades (color themes—LOL, that was just embarrassing). I certainly don't want an actual advertisement. And for god's sake, no, I still don't care about Pocket, and I never will.
For less-technical users, this stuff isn't just annoying, it can disrupt their entire browsing session. "Wait... where's my email? Is it gone? Is this the right program?" Firefox (and other teams that do crap like this, in their products) should knock it off. It is not OK.
Does that help you understand better what people are thinking? And who they are blaming?
It... definitely helps me understand what I'm seeing on here better, yes.
Japan, Singapore, and Italy all appear to be a worse off than the US (a lot worse off, in the case of Japan), as far as government-debt-to-GDP ratio. They already lack the benefit the US gets from its "petro-dollar system".
Are any of their bonds rated "junk"?
That was my recollection, but I thought maybe I'd gotten it wrong.
Gotta say, the "takes" I've read on HN while this has been going on have been illuminating. If quite a few people believe this is a "both sides" thing and that both parties are playing games with the debt ceiling, it explains how the GOP could possibly think it's sound strategy. I guess maybe they're even right. It would never have occurred to me that a lot of folks are "reading" this as about-equally the fault of the Democrats, but evidently, they are, and that explains some things.
I was aware of YouTube Shorts, but didn't know Stories existed until this headline.
(Hopefully, Shorts will go next)
1) There's automation for the "deleting it" part.
2) Viewers understand that the video is only temporarily available, without your having to tell them.
Both parties do it and always compromise just fine in the end.
When have the Democrats refused to raise the debt ceiling without conditions? Maybe they have and I've just missed it.
If you think it's GOP brinksmanship you are entitled to, but a savvy operator knows, It takes two to tango.
Do you believe the Democrats would decline, if the GOP House offered a "clean" debt ceiling increase?
Anti-imperialism had a history of being used (successfully or not) by oppressive, expansionist states to enlist the aid of or to commit imperialism against colonized countries. The Nazis attempted the former in, especially, the middle east, and Soviets did a fair bit of the latter. IIRC the Kaiser's government made some similar moves in WWI (but every major player in that war was imperialist, more or less). Anti-imperial revolutions or movements sometimes really were Soviet attempts to install autocratic puppet governments.
On the flip side, of course, so were many US and NATO interventions—but this is why "anti-imperialist" might be taken as possibly actually meaning anti-NATO and pro-Soviet—much "anti-imperialism" was really just a smokescreen for Soviet maneuvering, same as "liberation" et c. often has been, when the US does it—it'd be foolish for actors on the international stage to take either claim at face value, because they've a history of being half-true or not at all true, just a PR cover for realpolitik Great Games.
Hell, even the British, one of the most-colonial of colonial powers ever, used this against the Ottomans, and it was a lie then, too. Seen Lawrence of Arabia? Stirring up Arab nationalism against the colonizing Turks, not actually for their sake, but just as a convenient play in a larger game?
This is why US elites at the time might genuinely have believed that going to war in Vietnam was a good idea—even bordering on necessary—and perhaps, truly, believed it was morally defensible.
Never mind that the whole war was a crime in the first place, I guess.
"Sure he was robbing a bank, but that guard pointed a gun at him! That makes the killing justifiable!"
Well, it might. But under the circumstances, no, it doesn't.
Plenty are still made well... they're just not usually blockbusters that get a ton of advertising.
The science being made-up isn't a feature of every credible definition of what sci-fi is. Some would perhaps admit Melancholia, others would definitely not. IMO the stronger argument for its falling outside sci-fi is that the scientific elements are basically all metaphorical—it's not actually about what would happen under those circumstances. The other planet and the impending, unavoidable doom are all externalizations of internal states of mind, and manifestations of a shared and very real and certain doom we all face. It's depression's weight realized, given physical form where all can see it.
[EDIT] I mean, then again, that's almost as true of Annihilation... which is why it's hard to nail these things down with certainty.