I get that the black banner is often for paying tribute to people who contribute significantly to science and technologies. But I feel he touched so many scientists and engineers that he deserve a black banner here. I am sad.

We've lost a lot of familiar celebrities this year but Patrick Stewart was a towering giant among nerds. TNG's stories will be timeless and Jean-Luc quotes feel homely and comforting.

I feel like a few years ago, there would have been no question about adding a black banner. Lately, Hacker News hasn't felt very "hacker-y". Corporate and legal concerns frequently outweigh freedom, talent, and curiosity in discussions.

Not even everyone who contributes significantly to science and technology gets it. Actors don't remotely qualify.

I’m pretty sure there is no set of qualifications and it’s whatever dang decides.

Dang has never decided to put it up for an actor or any mainstream celebrity.

Wow! This is happy twitter.

Such a good name variant.

Sorry, ties, as CCP party committees inside private firms. And in case of Temu, it also has a data-sharing agreement with People's Daily [1], a CCP controlled media group.

Just image having a mandatory political party inside every American corporation which the board has no control over.

1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/05/01/...

Use uBlock Origin plugin instead. It sources from various block lists to block contents. Works great on most sites, youtube among them.

Yes, there are many plus sides if USA were taken over by China.

1. You will see no protest on the street.

2. You will see no homeless on the street.

3. You will hear no more school shootings or any shooting.

4. No more tech companies conflicting with the government.

5. No one will sue the government because it's perfect.

6. All bad people will disappear.

7. Everyone sings praise of the government.

This is better than Utopia, you should pursue it.

Everybody knows movies are staged, even the ones that are "based on a true story". From what I can tell, people seem to think those short videos are genuine.

Is this why China is such a great and technically advanced country?

It is but it has its risks/downsides. Engineers want to build and architecture everything which is why China has shit ton of rail, metros, bridges, etc... but also they don't want to hear anything about costs/ROI/Profitability/PMF or any of that annoying economic speak :)

Law is a weird one and maybe I am wrong but I think law leadership is the worst of all. They have no understanding of neither engineering or economics.

Engineers have no trouble crafting a solution that fits within a given budget.

The real problem, with all of it, is surplus. What happens to the resources you didn't actually have to spend, once an efficient solution has been engineered?

If you let engineers decide, they spend it on over-engineering. If you can do it for ten million but there is a billion dollars in the budget, you can also do it for a billion dollars and then square away lots of implausible edge cases and improve materials efficiency by a sliver etc. But this is wasteful because those things have diminishing returns or a poor cost/benefit ratio and you ended up spending a hundred times more than was necessary for a couple of percent improvement in the result.

If you let politicians decide, they spend it on cronies. This is wasteful, because obviously.

What you have do is to figure out how to make the surplus end up back in the hands of the taxpayer without letting any of these resource parasites get their hands on it.

It is the mix. Not the pure … obviously when nearly all leaders are engineers you have a problem. But if some are not, and others learn. Even for a lawyer leader group, they can learn or have a whole institution that is effectveky independent from them.

It is the mix. And whether you listen and learn. In spite of your ideology or policies. Btw is trump a lawyer …

Everything needs balance at the end.

I prefer to skip straws for most drinks except for bubble tea. Sucking up all those tapioca balls along with the tea is the whole point, otherwise it wouldn't be bubble tea.

Working from 9 to 9 six days a week

I've been organizing my python projects starting with package folders.

Say I name my package "foo", foo is the top level folder for the source code. Inside foo there is a "main.py" file as the project's start point, and other various modules, let's have one called "module1.py". Now, add another package under "foo", the obvious example name here would be "bar", and add another module under "bar" called "module2.py".

The project structure looks like this:

  - foo/
    |- main.py
    |- module1.py
    |- bar/
       |- module2.py

To reference "module1.py" in "module2.py", just write

  import foo.module1

To reference "module2.py" in "main.py", do as follows

  import foo.bar.module2

There is no problem importing from any level.

To start the program from command line, enter:

python -m foo.main

anecdotally I can support that `python -m x.py` is a better way to go than `python x.py`. Somewhere I found the tip that writing `python3.9 -m pip install $pkg` is a more reliable way to run `pip` for a specific version.

It should not be so complicated.