[1] https://z.ai/blog/glm-5.2

> Hence what, for lack of a better name, I'll call the Python paradox: if a company chooses to write its software in a comparatively esoteric language, they'll be able to hire better programmers, because they'll attract only those who cared enough to learn it.

[1] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/...

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23411656

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Another great book on FP is "The Functional Approach to Programming" [2], which is a bit like SICP but using Caml (OCaml without the O) instead of Scheme.

[1] https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~lp15/MLbook/pub-details.html

[2] http://pauillac.inria.fr/cousineau-mauny/main.html

Kernighan also co-authored a (imo) really great book with Rob Pike (once an assistant of Penn & Teller [3]) called "The Practice of Programming" [4]. Unfortunately, this one is a bit over the 200 page limit.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elements_of_Programming_St...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SUkrR7ZfTA

[3] https://youtu.be/z4iVAcYyWN0?t=180

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Practice_of_Programming

Also, a related HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21357638

Once set, authentication will require confirmation via a GUI dialog provided by the ssh-askpass command. However, it does not mention the command or process requesting for authentication.

It works great on Linux, but I couldn't get it to work on macOS with the system keychain.

[1] https://man.openbsd.org/ssh_config.5#AddKeysToAgent

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22855608

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Background: JPEG XL is a combination of Cloudinary's FUIF [1] (successor of FLIF [2]) and Google's Pik [3].

Committee Draft (Aug 2019): https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.03565

Technical Details: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of...

Features / Goals:

- high quality compression (> 60% over JPEG-1)

- royalty-free with open source implementations available from the start

- versatile: supports alpha transparency, high bit depth (16-bit), lossless compression, animations

- progressive decoding / "responsive by design"

- legacy-friendly: reversible transcoding of JPEGs with 22% size reduction (demo available [4])

Comparisons:

- JPEG 2000, JPEG XR: only marginal compression improvements

- WebP: limited (8-bit, 4:2:0), no progressive decoding

- BPG/HEIF (HEVC): patent-encumbered (not royalty-free), no progressive decoding, complex

- AVIF (AV1): no progressive decoding, complex, slow?

[1] https://cloudinary.com/blog/introducing_fuif_responsive_imag...

[2] http://flif.info/

[3] https://github.com/google/pik

[4] https://google.github.io/brunsli/

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21612708

Points: 7

# Comments: 3

Not only did they plagiarize your work, but they did a really poor job of it too. The print is full of formatting issues. The code blocks are not properly indented, which is not only poor style but also broken given that python is white-space sensitive. And bizarrely enough the letter "q" is continuously in bold throughout the whole book. You can easily verify this from the pictures by the reviewers. I don't actually own a copy of the book myself.

To make matters worse (or better?), they only decided to include the first four chapters, ending at "Conditional Execution". Yes, the plagiarized book claims to be a guide "from beginner to expert", yet it didn't reach the chapters on loops and functions!

If you read the reviews, you'll quickly notice that it's full of fake five-star reviews with very vague sentences, some of which don't even make sense. You'll also (now) see a lot of real one-star review, which means that quite a number of people have fallen for this scam.

Surprisingly, one of the fake reviewers even got in Amazon's top 100 reviewer list. Check the profile of "Kip Krenz" [2], who is currently at rank #53. Somehow he managed to review two to four books on a near daily basis for maybe a year or more, mostly five-stars (the rest are four-stars) and full of generic sentences. The books reviewed are most likely "fake" as well. They often fall under one of the following: a beginner book, a self-help book, a cookbook, a trading book, or a book on one of the latest fads.

This book is unfortunately just one of the many fake books (not the jazzy kind) that have proliferated on Amazon. If you look at the other recommendations, you'll probably find another one of these books (Python seems to be one of those profitable topics).

A common technique used by these books is to put themselves under some niche category in order to get a high rank. For example, this book categorized itself under "Microsoft C & C++ Windows Programming" [3], and is currently at #9 there (it used to be #1, but thankfully the real reviews probably dragged it down). For a more peculiar example of this, take a look at what's #1 under "Windows XP Guides" [4].

Sorry for going on a tangent with such a long wall of text. I spent a night "investigating" this whole thing a few weeks ago, and after seeing this post, thought that it would be best to spread awareness of the issue here.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Python-Programming-Beginner-Intermedi...

[2] https://www.amazon.com/gp/profile/amzn1.account.AGXMOOP4UKWV...

[3] https://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/3967

[4] https://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/6134002011

Using Murphy's Law is not very convincing. Even with action creators Murphy's Law guarantees someone would have just constructed the objects manually anyways. Having to grep the tag is not ideal, but it's not likely to be a problem in practice.

I doubt that the bundle would be significantly larger (especially after compression). Using actions creators introduces additional (function call) overhead too (and that would be insignificant as well).

While I'm sure the author did not intentionally try to make TypeScript look bad, (imo) they didn't put enough effort to make it look good either. There's a lot more to TypeScript that this post fails to mention. ReasonML is a good language (I think OCaml was just fine though), but TypeScript is good too.

The author says "ReasonML is everything TypeScript tries to be (and a bit more) without all that JavaScript weirdness.", but I strongly disagree. Embracing "all that JS weirdness" is the whole point of TypeScript, and what makes it so successful. Unlike most typed languages, TypeScript (for better or for worse) adapts its type system to the developer's code, not the other way around. This is why its type system is much more expressive than many other type systems including ReasonML's.

If you insist on having the action creators, they can easily be written as one liners each, which is a lot less bloated than the original example.

  export const addMovie = (movie: string): Action => ({ tag: "AddMovie", movie });

  interface State {
    movies: string[]
  }

  // you may also use { tag: "Action", payload: string }
  // if you prefer something more structured
  type Action =
    | ["AddMovie", string]
    | ["RemoveMovie", string]
    | ["Reset"]

  const defaultState: State = { movies: [] }

  const reducer = (state: State, action: Action): State => {
    switch (action[0]) {
      case "AddMovie": return { movies: [action[1], ...state.movies] }
      case "RemoveMovie": return { movies: state.movies.filter(m => m !== action[1]) }
      case "Reset": return defaultState
    }
  }

  const someAction: Action = ["AddMovie", "The End of Evangelion"]

[1] https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/advanced-types....

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20626834

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Also, for "Set-Cookie", the relatively new "SameSite"[2] directive would be a good addition for most sites.

Oh, and for CSP, check Google's evaluator out[3].

[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/Re...

[2] https://www.owasp.org/index.php/SameSite

[3] https://csp-evaluator.withgoogle.com