Enter your email. We will reset your password and send you a new one.
Last 5 email alerts sent for docker on Hacker News
Excellent. If there are things you notice, please feel free to raise as an issue, and pull requests are always welcome! > useful in my CI environment For sure. I've been meaning to play around with getting a docker image with the shell set as the default. It's definitely a use-case I had in mind.
by cnity 2020-08-07 09:48:03 | link | parent | submission
Yeah, linux now actually works with wifi, sleep mode, decent fonts, native docker, a good package manager and a variety of games, all at the same time!
by kochthesecond 2020-08-07 08:37:47 | link | parent | submission
Now that GitHub has a CI system, you can create a scheduled workflow to run once a week or something, and if you can package the feed discovery logic in a docker container, then you can run it in their CI pipeline and push the changes back to the repo If you haven't already considered it, you can also likely push those files to a branch named gh-pages and GH will cheerfully serve them on https://alexyorke.github.io/oss_rss/libreoffice/all_torrent_... (although unlikely with the correct mime type :-( )
by mdaniel 2020-08-07 01:59:33 | link | parent | submission
Maybe you have a lot of busy tests and you can get feedback twice as fast using less RAM on a SQLite memory database on your laptop, which is not a maxed-out current model, and you know that every commit you push will go through a CI build which uses the same database as production. Maybe you are consciously trying to avoid locking your project into one database accidentally. Maybe you work in an enterprise environment where you can’t run Docker or network services on your local system. Maybe you know that your CI process will run against more data than fits on your laptop and so you’re not worried about missing something. My point wasn’t that you shouldn’t test in the same environment but that it’s too quick to say that because you have never had this need nobody else does either.
by acdha 2020-08-07 01:37:27 | link | parent | submission
I think the answer is simply that Ubuntu has become good enough. The whole point of running MacOS was to get POSIX compliance with a polished GUI. No Windows, pretty terminals smooth fonts good UX. Now MacOS has no edge over Ubuntu in any sense. Ubuntu runs Docker natively and Cuda. It has an insanely user friendly installer, it runs on a wide range of hardware with no issues and its default GUI is great.
by tinco 2020-08-06 23:51:42 | link | parent | submission
Last 5 email alerts sent for Kubernetes on Hacker News
Last 5 email alerts sent for aws on Hacker News
But the big difference is that Amazon still controls aws in China, the product, the brand, the IP. And aws is developed by Americans in Seattle. It's just operated by the Chinese company. The Chinese company deal with servers, deployment, accesses to the servers and stuff. Amazon also get the majority of revenue from that market. That is totally different from US gov forcing Bytedance to sell tiktok. Bytedance will no longer own tiktok. It's will have 0 shares. No control, no revenue sharing. Technically Microsoft can do whatever they want with tiktok in the future.
by mikechen233 2020-08-07 09:11:34 | link | parent | submission
Hello, what to do if you need to tag a lot of ec2 instances, a more s3 and few other services? You can spend week by tagging them manually or you can use awstaghelper. Allow you to easy tag hundreds of AWS resources just in few clicks
by rip9991 2020-08-07 08:59:42 | link | parent | submission
The whole reason Apple let a Chinese company manage their customers' data is because the Chinese government changed the law to forbid them operate those kind of cloud services for Chinese customers themselves, the same reason other companies like Amazon have to let Chinese companies run their version of AWS: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-apple-icloud-insigh... "In a statement, Apple said it had to comply with recently introduced Chinese laws that require cloud services offered to Chinese citizens be operated by Chinese companies and that the data be stored in China. It said that while the company’s values don’t change in different parts of the world, it is subject to each country’s laws." Also note how the Chinese government effectively set up and runs this company, so the government more or less forced Apple to give their Chinese operations to them.
by makomk 2020-08-07 08:26:18 | link | parent | submission
Last 5 email alerts sent for coreos on Hacker News
There may well be evil at google, but it's not here. My take on this is that CoreOS and google have different use cases, and the beset solution would have been to fork the project. Since google is big [citation not needed], most development effort would probably end up there, but people who wanted the simple version could stick with it. The difference between a HTTP API and gRPC is one of scale. If the HTTP one is a few bytes more per message, and takes a few more clock cycles to decode, then at google-scale that might mean extra energy use on the order of a small town. RPC makes complete sense for google here. Then there's reliability. If something fails one in a million times, it's a minor inconvenience to someone who uses it once a day but if you're running it four billion times a day then you start to notice. gRPC is strongly typed so it actually removes the malformed HTTP failure mode - and you can bet that google's SREs are taking care of the other ones too. When the OP says "Quality is, alas, a dying art", I'm not sure whether that's an honest description of just how many "nines" the google SREs are building into their projects. It's not like they invented gRPC to make their systems less stable! I can recommend rachelbythebay's comments on this, she's a SRE who has done the rounds in silicon valley - appropriate posts here are "Some Items from my Reliability List"  where she famously says "there is far, far too much JSON at $company" and ends that section with "Why aren't you using some kind of actual RPC mechanism? Do you like pain?" - at the scale she's operating, RPC is less pain it would seem. In "We have to talk about this Python, Gunicorn, Gevent thing"  she criticises the use of a popular python framework at the scale she's operating at (I'm sure this was shared on HN in the past). This doesn't mean that python, "RPC over HTTP", JSON or etcd are in any way bad. In fat their simplicity makes them great things for beginners to learn and medium to large companies to use - they're not just prototyping tools, people can and do build a lot of real stuff with them. It's just that at some point before you get to the ridiculous scale of google's infrastructure, there's a tipping point where going full RPC starts saving you a lot more than it costs; that's not a bad thing and it has nothing to do with trying to "capture the market" or anything like that. A corollary of this: precisely because google works at such a scale, there will be a lot more developers working on grpc-etcd than the "consumer" one. Summary: developer builds great tool for A; big company has use case B.  http://rachelbythebay.com/w/2019/07/21/reliability/
by red_admiral 2020-07-15 08:08:02 | link | parent | submission
I'm not exactly sure what you're asking. But Flatcar Container Linux is completely open source. In fact, everything we do at Kinvolk is. We do not build open-core products. For example, we've gone a step further than CoreOS did and have a fully open-sourced update server, Nebraska ( https://github.com/kinvolk/nebraska ). We also generate a list of contents and licenses for each build. Here is an example from the most recent stable: https://stable.release.flatcar-linux.net/amd64-usr/2512.2.1/...
by blixtra 2020-07-15 01:16:31 | link | parent | submission
> There are people attacking the author for a statement made about CoreOS, and for some hate towards Kubernetes. That's not really surprising, and maybe should be a lesson to the author. If you want to make a particular point, you shouldn't make inflammatory/controversial statements about other, only-tangentially-related things. It distracts from and dilutes your point. For my part, I know one of the CoreOS founders, and while I have no opinion on CoreOS itself, it's really off-putting to see some random armchair quarterback on the internet shitting on the work of someone you know. While I more or less agree with the actual real point of the article, the unnecessary attacks really divided my attention. The article starts off with a cheap potshot at CoreOS, followed by a screed about Kubernetes, and then finally , more than half-way through, we get an admission that the author has "digressed", and we get to the actual point. Certainly the point required some background about Kubernetes, but I can understand why people focus on the negative CoreOS and Kubernetes aspects of the post, since they consist of more than half of the content.
by kelnos 2020-07-15 01:06:44 | link | parent | submission
The problem, as I pointed out elsewhere, is that the post makes very few constructive comments and presents a lot of opinions and assertions without justification or reasoning, making it extremely hard to actually make meaningful comments about. As someone else pointed out, if it were an HN comment, it would be flagged. I don’t agree that this is a statement about complexity, so much as it is a rant about the author being inconvenienced by technology they personally deem pointless and unnecessary. If the CoreOS comments aren’t a sufficient red flag, the HTTP/2 ones really ought to be. On the other hand, its difficult to argue with overly cynical type attitudes.
by jchw 2020-07-15 00:26:03 | link | parent | submission
Hi, thank you for admitting in your first sentence you're not qualified to comment on the subject at hand, yet felt compared to share your two cents. Here's the context for your totally uninformed opinion: I was a major contributor for etcd 2.3-3.2 at CoreOS. The people who extended etcd to support gRPC included the original etcd author (hi Xiang). gRPC support was necessary for good performance; we had benchmarks to justify the decision. Likewise, v3 brought about a key-value model change that was incompatible with v2 to better support binary data, ranging over the keyspace, transactions etc. A v2-style gateway for v3 with a pretty JSON API was planned but never completed due to lack of resources; the ugly gRPC json gateway turned out to be good enough for most people. Similarly I wrote a proxy to run v2 requests over v3 instances, which does support the v2 JSON API. This isn't as if a new group of people showed up and ruined the software without caring about existing users. None of us were "Xooglers". It seems what you're proposing is what the author both argues against and wrongly believes is what happened. We constantly pushed back against k8s influence. If we didn't, etcd would be a k8s sub-project right now. I'd also like to point out that removing the people who do the difficult work of actually writing the software from the decision process is incredibly insulting and devalues their labor. How dare you.
by fightme 2020-07-14 23:19:38 | link | parent | submission
by cnity 2020-08-07 08:38:50 | link | parent | submission
by gureddio 2020-08-07 08:38:37 | link | parent | submission
by marcus_holmes 2020-08-07 08:32:10 | link | parent | submission
by ssokolow 2020-08-07 08:09:08 | link | parent | submission
by necovek 2020-08-07 05:33:25 | link | parent | submission
Last 5 email alerts sent for machine learning on Hacker News
This is actually practical for general workloads. Homomorphic encryption not so much (although there have been advances for machine learning inference recently)
by anonymousDan 2020-08-07 05:49:50 | link | parent | submission
1) My bread and butter for the last 10 years has been machine learning. When all you have is a hammer... 2) We don't extract surface contours, we learn a volumetric radiance field! To oversimplify, we learn a (smooth) function that, given a position in space, produces the differential opacity and color at that space. To render an image from a camera viewpoint, we approximately integrate along rays emitted from each pixel of the camera. Check out NeRF and our paper to learn more about this representation!
by duckworthd 2020-08-06 19:59:22 | link | parent | submission
> This looks amazing! Congratulations. Thank you! > What was the most challenging aspect of this? Wow, that's hard to say! Our work truly stands on the shoulders of giants (Mildenhall et al, 2020). I can list off a few challenges:
figuring out if an idea "kinda works" or "definitely works" or has a bug,
figuring out how to measure progress,
coordinating a group of 6 researchers living 9 hours apart,
and assembling everything together for a simultaneous paper-website-video release! > I'm curious to see how you performed edge detection on the transient objects and were able to isolate them so cleanly. We don't! All of this comes by the magic of machine learning :). We train our model to attentuate the importance of "difficult" pixels that aren't 3D-consistent in the training set. We also partition the scene into "static" and "transient" volumetric radiance fields without explicit supervision. We do so by regularizing the latter to be empty unless necessary, and providing it with access to a learned, image-specific latent embedding. We discard the transient radiance field when rendering these videos, thus removing tourists and other moving objects. > For some reason, the paper isn't loading, so feel free to say it's explained in detail there. Well that won't do. Download it here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.02268 . It's 40 MB, so your download bar may indicate it's almost done, but it actually has a good bit left to go. > Do you plan on releasing code? I hope so! As with most code, what ran on our machines may not run on yours. Migrating the code to open source will be a big effort. I hope what we describe in the paper is sufficient to build something like you see here.
by duckworthd 2020-08-06 19:51:22 | link | parent | submission
Last 5 email alerts sent for python on Hacker News
Since there are lots of alternative shells being mentioned, I thought I'd give my tuppence. I want two things from a shell: - Easy process execution, including branching on exit codes, overriding env vars, providing a working directory, etc. This must support concurrent processes (e.g. pipelines). - Easy file and stdio management (i.e. piping). This must support streaming (passing along chunks of data as they arrive, rather than gathering them into big intermediate values). Scripting language REPLs provide everything else I care about (string handling, looping, variables, etc.). Their built-in support for these two things is usually really bad, but libraries can plug that gap. I've tried a few for Python, Haskell, Scala, etc. but the best experience I had was Racket's shell-pipeline library ( https://docs.racket-lang.org/shell-pipeline it's also used by the Rash shell that I've not used https://docs.racket-lang.org/rash ). This makes really good use of Racket features, e.g. - Quasiquoting for mixing commands with normal functions in a simple, sane way - S-expression syntax works well for shell-like code, e.g. no comma-separation, distinguishing between (unquoted) symbols for names, flags, etc. and quoted strings for data, allowing special characters in names (e.g. to allow things like > in our pipeline), etc. Of course, Racket can be written with I-expressions, sweet-expressions, etc. too, but I've never bothered. - Stdio redirection works with Racket's existing "ports" mechanism - Env vars can be managed using Racket "parameters" (dynamically-scoped variables) (Note that the API seems to have changed a bit since the version I used, so I'm not sure how the new stuff like laziness fits in)
by chriswarbo 2020-08-07 11:30:52 | link | parent | submission
> You can put comments in Python files... only if the comment pertains to a django feature, not to a schema feature that cannot be expressed in django (e.g. a partial index designed for a specific query). > You can name your migrations with: In the example there is a foreign key name, not a migration name. It is persisted in the database, it's not ephemeral like a migration name, for which choosing a meaningful name has only a temporary value. Just two factual corrections; for the rest our experiences diverge, that's fine.
by dvarrazzo 2020-08-07 11:23:08 | link | parent | submission
> “ because the system itself was designed around the shell. ” Windows wasn’t designed around the command prompt, it wasn’t designed around shell utilities. When I call “cat”, it’s not important that I’m writing those three letters, they are a library way of calling a set of file open/read OS functions. When I write “ping”, it’s not the ping tool I care about, it’s the network api calls it does behind the scenes. The Unix/Linux shell is then seen like a “Python standard library” of ways the user can control the OS, and it’s a hugely inconsistent, undesigned, ad-hoc agglomeration of names and parameters and bodges, which cheats out on dealing with the complexity and instead offloads that straight on to the user in a user hostile way. What powershell tries to do for Windows is make a somewhat designed, consistent, and more user-approachable set of wrappers around the Windows OS system calls, along with guidelines and support for vendors to build in that style, a human interface that is introspectable, built to be programmable, but still composable and modular. The objection that trying to do such a user-focused thing on Unix makes a “useless” system is weird because that - a user interface to tools/library of OS call patterns - is what the shell is. In what way is “resolve-dnsname” pretending to be one with the system that dig and nslookup aren’t? They’re names which trigger a pattern of network traffic and show a result. In what way is piping text from dig to sed “real” and piping resolve-dnsname to format-list “pretend”? In what way is running “docker compose” from sh real, but running it from zsh is pretend? In what way is it a better design to have (a pile of shell tools and Python library wrappers and Python wrapping shell tool calls), instead of (a Python based shell with transparent shell tool calls)? Like, “I want what I’m familiar with, too many things to relearn”, or “too many things are awkward in this approach (cough PowerShell)” are reasonable objections, but “trying for a more consistent, more human friendly, interface with more high level language constructs at one’s fingertips makes a thing useless to me” feels heel dragging or Stockholm syndromeish. Presumably you don’t object to there being a choice of multiple command line tools to do a task? Why object on principle to a choice of other OS “front end experiences”? Is there any version of things which you can imagine as being both “better” (less arbitrary and inconsistent than shell) and “not pretend”?
by jodrellblank 2020-08-07 10:12:20 | link | parent | submission
Last 5 email alerts sent for ruby on Hacker News
Well, I think a book to motivate you and get you out there, making something the quickest, is RE:WORK. It was written by the Ruby on Rails creator and his co founder at Basecamp. It’s pretty different than most books and most ideas are 1-2 pages long and I found that it got me motivated to build faster than any other book.
by elamje 2019-04-20 17:05:49 | link | parent | submission
> everything compiles to the same assembler code so lets not pretend these languages are doing magical things. They don‘t and many of the dynamic features of Python (and Ruby) cannot be efficiently compiled. That‘s why it relies heavily on C modules.
by quonn 2019-04-20 16:01:12 | link | parent | submission
>It's also why you don't get multi-line lambdas. Everything is a compromise. Arguably too much of a compromise. This is just Guido doing a "because I say so" and imposing his bias against functional programming. Give me a properly-designed language like Ruby any day over Python's bag of compromises.
by cutler 2019-04-20 15:30:56 | link | parent | submission
by kijin 2019-04-20 14:58:07 | link | parent | submission
by ksec 2019-04-20 14:38:31 | link | parent | submission
Last 5 email alerts sent for ios on Hacker News
What else is new? When you buy an iOS device, Apple only wants you to use software that benefits them. If you want to use and control software of your choice, don't buy mobile devices or computers from Apple, end of story.
by vortico 2020-08-07 05:42:02 | link | parent | submission
It will be interesting to see if the checkra1n team can get this to work on the A11 SoC. They'll have to do something, since the new iOS betas now check the "Boot Progress" Register. As this check is done by the SEP core, bar an exploit, the system can refuse to decrypt the user's data partition. I'm fairly sure this bug is related to how the SEP handles it's 64 bit numbers... so it might not be exploitable on newer chipsets. IIRC the iPhone X has an ARMv8 SEP vs Cortex-A7 in earlier models.
by hfse 2020-08-07 05:37:02 | link | parent | submission
Last 5 email alerts sent for bitcoin on Hacker News
Is it possible to securely transfer bitcoin offline? Like if someone hands you a thumb drive and says “this contains a key for a $1m wallet”, you don’t know if they kept a copy of the key. But is there some mechanism whereby it could be guaranteed that you have the only copy?
by Tycho 2020-08-06 22:53:34 | link | parent | submission
I think your argument is _almost_ right. You should be applying that logic to the total "market cap" of the asset, not to the unit price. In particular, the huge bull run in crypto happened because mass retail and institutional money came into the market, bidding the price up. Arguably, if TSA agents are already bought into bitcoin (the implication being that TSA agents, as a class of people, are very unsophisticated investors) there isn't a lot more money waiting on the sidelines that could flood the market (not completely true, as there are still untapped pools of institutional money).
by maest 2020-08-06 18:42:34 | link | parent | submission