Varqu

CRA affected: https://github.com/facebook/create-react-app/issues/13171

and everyone whose production build depends on it.

I struggle to understand why there is no "deposit banks" category which would include heavy regulation, with full reserves required.

There is certainly a significant number of people who just want to keep their money safe. They would happily pay 50 or 100 USD per month for an actual bank service where your money is just stored and not lend out to someone else.

Generally the more transparency there is on both sides, the better:

This way, the market can punish bad behaviors (abusive landlords / problematic tenants) and reward those who act properly.

How about ratethetenant.com - I can imagine many property owners paying heavy $$$ for such rating.

A free market for content provider essentially means that they can do whatever they want with their content and rights to it.

It's interesting to see that free market competition actually worsened the customer offering when it comes to streaming services.

Back in the days, Netflix was a one-to-see-all service and that was also one of the reasons why it took people from torrenting to paying for movies.

Nowadays, if you want to watch a particular movie, you have maybe a 10% chance that it is available on the streaming service that you are currently paying for. And it makes more sense to just buy it directly, than pay monthly.

I will never understand why most of Big Tech acquisitions end up with a shutdown. (same for Google, FB, etc, apart from a few outliers)

Like: They could just buy a controlling stake, let it run by the original team and just add some cross promo to their main product.

Is it better than the standard YouTube algo?

Because on YT video it's like:

You picked Rammstein? Sure, here is your next video with classical music, because you were listening to it last week.

To be honest, I find their music recommendation algo still way behind what Pandora (the music streaming, not the jewelry brand) cracked years ago.

It amazed me with the fact that even after creating a radio from a single song, I got exactly what I wanted to hear (including new songs).

It's a shame that it's not available in Europe.

Why not?

Essentially, if I build and host a hobby site, it's my digital property. You have the right to see what are the conditions to visit (essentially: fetch) it and if you don't agree, you are free to go.

I don't understand why it isn't solved in this way:

You get a banner on your first visit, with a list "here are all the cookies and ways how we use your data, if you are not fine with it, please leave this website"

This should be an option for small private websites (different rules for FB, Google and alike), because no one forces you to use a site, same as "my house, my rules"

Is anyone else also getting tired of seeing "GPT" prefix / suffix in the name of 90% new AI-related products?

The numbers might not be 100% accurate (as other commenter mentioned, there is no normalized dataset available) but they show an approximate scale.

It seems though that some Bay located HN readers disagree with both statistical and anecdotal evidence, which might be actually an example of sunken cost bias (it's not surprising considering the cost of property in SF / Bay Area)

With all the EU initiatives, one can see that some ideas make sense (securing privacy, regulating tech monopolies), but once it gets into legislations it ends up with monsters like the cookie banner or GDPR.

In the end it doesn't do what it was meant for but still remains a pain in the a*.

They even discuss it in detail: "What makes NeighborhoodScout® Crime Data uniquely accurate? Most city neighborhood crime data are incomplete and inaccurate because crimes are reported by individual law enforcement agencies, rather than by city or town, and many cities – even small ones – have more than one agency responsible for law enforcement (municipal, university, county, transit, etc.). Even FBI data are reported by agency not by city or town, providing an incomplete assessment of city-wide crime counts. It is an agency-centric rather than locality-centric reporting method. If you use FBI data, you only get city-wide general counts, and only from one agency in the city, so it is generally incomplete for the city overall, as well as not specific to a neighborhood or address."

And further: Once we have these complete set of reported crime data, along with millions of geocoded reported crime incidents using a GIS, we begin our crime data development process.

The results are fine resolution, highly accurate crime data that are comparable nationally.

Our approach provides you the ability to look at small areas effectively.

In some cases a city agency is in charge of law enforcement, while in other areas it’s a county. In many cases it is more than one agency for a geographic area. Since the geography varies, it’s difficult to compare the scores among jurisdictions, or to get a true and complete picture of crime risk. This is why we use a relational database to assess the true count of reported crimes in a locality.

Although most agencies report, not all do. This creates holes in the data. Our method allows us to accurately fill in the holes based on the crime experience of many like locales, and provide accurate crime data for anywhere in the U.S.

You falsely assumed that the data is sourced from UCR.

Where does it state that it's based on the UCR program?

Because their methodology is well described:

https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/about-the-data/crime-rates

Would you mind including some better reference datasets, then?

How does it influence the comparison?

EDIT:

There is no mention of UCR as data source, where did you get it from?

https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/about-the-data/crime-rates

I was talking about crime in generally, not violent crime specifically.

It's quite high for overall crime though.

Crime Rate(per 1,000 residents):

https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/fl/jacksonville/crime - 33.76

https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/in/indianapolis/crime - 42.52

https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ca/san-francisco/crime - 54.33

as a reference point:

https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/mi/detroit/crime - 59.01

At this point, what is the reason to use Google Cloud or any other critical service, if you have a clear track of record with higher probability that it will be shutdown sooner or later?

So tailwind at this point is basically just a bunch of custom CSS classes which are granular to the point of single CSS properties?

How is that better, than just writing custom CSS classes for components + having some util CSS classes?

How is this different / better than the other submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35241212

How is this different / better than the other submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35242174

I would argue that it nowadays teaches more herd-behavior and political correctness than depth of thought (example: last Stanford Law dean case)

As a programming newbie, I would love to see a hard fork of React without Hooks (and their magic)

In my opinion, React was pretty much complete without the introduction of Hooks. Shifting from the previous Component-derived mental models to Hooks was a cause of many runtime issues in at least 2 companies that I worked for.

Unfortunately, React went from less-capable and more understandable to more-capable and less-understandable model. But yeah, that's just a newbie-coder take.

Since when do we consider single viral Tweets to be worth HN main page?

We would be interested in trying it out.

Do you mind sending an intro to hello [at] swissdevjobs.ch ?