skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
people become 'blind' to scary screens. see: windows UAC dialogs.

i wish they would clearly indicate what problem it is that they're solving.

---

edit: after reading the post you linked, it's clear they're fighting against software installers that 'conveniently' install firefox addons.

for example you download skype, and it 'helpfully' installs an addon for firefox.

---

their solutions might solve the problem, but I think it goes too far.

Is it possible to require the user to approve and addons before they are active on the user's firefox install? even if they came from a 3rd party source?
Finally, a better way to search repos on GitHub
SpaceX is going 10x higher than Blue Origin. They can land on the ground, perfectly fine. They just haven't figured out how to do it on a moving barge, yet. Because launching from Houston means burning extra fuel to put the rocket over land. Fuel that could be used for boosting.
There is sufficient data about it, electromagnetism is probably the best studied field in physics to date.
Magnetism is in it's base not generated due to the modulation of an electric charge but due to a much more basic attribute of charged particles, their magnetic moment which is a result of their spin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_magnetic_moment
So until you find a zero spin charged particle with a magnetic moment (which will contradict everything we understand about magnetism) I'll bet on that we understand it quite well.

As far as UFO's using the Earths magnetic field we can pretty much rule that out because we know just how weak it is on average it is about 30 Tesla, and 16 Tesla's is about the force required to levitate a frog.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15420771.600-frog-def...

So unless flying saucers weight just about as 2 mid sized frogs I'll take the bet that if they do exist they use something else to keep them from crashing in the backyards of hillbillies.
I agree with a lot of the posts here, but noticed one way of learning (specifically about programming, but it applies to most creative endeavors I've enjoyed) that I have not seen mentioned, which is to learn by teaching. I'm self-taught, and there is an enormous segment of things I've learned by trying to help someone with something I had No Idea how to do.

A couple lifetimes ago (say, 99-01) I used to spend a lot of time on a back-then-well-regarded designers forum, and every time a web development question would pop up, I generally didn't know the answer. I was just learning, myself, and the questions always intrigued me. So I'd dig in and start googling and hacking and reading / researching and documenting and finally write up a thorough response. Follow-up questions came with more hacking and research, but always ended in an answer, even if it was "no clue - but here's where I ended up...".

I'd eventually become very well known in that community as an experienced developer, though I was generally answering questions I had no business answering. That turned out to be very lucrative for me over time as those designers got further into their careers - some of whom I've been working with on-and-off for more than a decade.

I did the same in the early days of StackOverflow. I'd see an interesting question pop up that I knew absolutely nothing about. I'd open up my IDE of choice at the time and start hacking away. 50 browser tabs and a few iterations later, and I'd have an answer. Sometimes it was weirdly brilliant. Sometimes it was ridiculous. But I'd learned TONS along the way.

I still do the same when I start new projects. I start with my own questions. I flip everything I've done before upon its forehead, ignoring previous assumptions. I open hundreds of tabs and email myself a whole bunch of links to read after I've slept a bit more. And then I pick a few things that seem reasonable and start running until the project looks like something tangible. I've built quite a few successful things this way, and consistently learn quite a bit more every step of the way.
One of my closest friends is Chinese, and what you are saying confirms my observations and what he has anecdotally told me.

After finishing college here in the US, he got a very lucrative job at a consulting firm and was doing very well. Yet his parents (especially mother) kept pressuring him to go back to Hong Kong because, according to him, that's the rightful place of a family's only son. Keep in mind that such a move would mean upending his life and also taking a big pay cut (he compared salaries).

He also told me that Chonese schools reward conformity above all else and strongly discourage (sometimes with physical violence) sticking out or taking initiative.

That's not to say the author's observations and opinions are wrong. In fact what he shared is very valuable - people who come from middle class or above families tend to take their privilege for granted, and in fact can't even imagine what it is like to be poor. I myself only learned it by volunteering at homeless shelters and soup kitchens. It's very heartbreaking that the world's richest and most powerful country has so many struggling people, but it can also be instructive in terms of what one can do to help fix it. So I commend the author for writing this piece.
I don't think the smaller booster is harder. It's almost by definition easier. It weighs less, doesn't need to reach orbital velocity and can have an engine that throttles all the way down to hover because the MTOW is not that different from it's dry weight. Not reaching orbital velocity is the main thing here, it's what makes all of this easy in comparison.

The solutions they are exploring are many times less complicated and difficult than what SpaceX is doing. Saying otherwise is mischaracterising both of their achievements.
I grew up other side of the world, amazing by what I heard in the news - that there existed a world beyond mine where smart people with smart ideas built great companies overnight. I am smart. I have merit. I dropped out at 19, taught my self how to code, and built a 6-figure business with my projects online. I want to learn more.

I got turned down by 15+ companies and startups in the past few weeks because they couldn't sponsor my work visa. This is Canada.

The USA? Being a dropout makes me ineligible for any US work visa.

So much for merit.
Great series from Egghead! What can be said is that Cycle.js is indeed a new paradigm for JS. Anyone who has worked with other frameworks out there will know, that Cycle.js is cleaner, necessary and leading progress forward into the functional reactive future.
I'd consider the goals similar. Both want to land and re-use orbital rocket boosters.

SpaceX landed an orbital booster, but they have yet to re-use that booster. I'm sure they would rather dissect that booster, since they have a factory and are continually building new ones.

Blue Origin landed a sub-orbital booster, and then re-used it. However, this booster is much smaller than what would be needed for orbit. So this rocket is more of a technology testbed (and potential fun ride). They'll have to build and design a whole new rocket in order to reach orbit - and they've already started doing so.
The problem with people that make generalizations is that they're always wrong. /j

Everyone here in the SF Bay Area doesn't have a comfortable cushion. I bootstrapped my business in 2014 and didn't make a single penny the whole year--in fact, was in the red since I'd personally been lending money to the company.
Not just higher, also faster. Much much much faster, to the tune of probably around 9000km/h faster.
This comment is hilarious to me. How the fuck is F# more suited for services than Rust? I don't even know where to start.
No. At one point, SpaceX has ambitions that they would recover the second stage of their Falcon 9, but then scrapped this idea as too difficult (until their next family of rockets). The reason is that the second stage is going much, much faster than the first stage, so it's a completely different problem to bring it back.

Blue Origins is not trying to get into orbit, and therefore is nowhere close to dealing with the issues that would confront a return of the Falcon 9 second stage. Quite the opposite; from a speed perspective, the Blue Origins rocket is more like an easy version of the already-recoverable Falcon 9 first stage (although as Bezos notes, some of the balancing issues may be harder by virtue of having a smaller moment arm).
War and Peace and WebGL
I'm willing to bet someone said almost EXACTLY this same thing at the end of the dot-com-bubble.
I think the problem is more that development has really slowed since they lost the sponsorship of the company that was funding development (which employed almost the entire dev team). It's not clear to me what the future of Groovy is. However it's about 1000x more accessible to Java developers than Scala is. Scala reinvents the whole type system and uses custom collections etc. That makes reverse interoperability (I write a class in Scala and then use it from Java) significantly more challenging than Groovy where Groovy code looks identical to native Java in most respects.
Which ones? I can't remember ever coming across one.
TLDR: People complained so we're back-pedaling.

There are good technical reasons for requiring signed add-ons. Well, maybe not so much "good" but necessary because of other bad things in Firefox that prevent a less extreme requirement from being implemented.

But the signing requirement isn't what upsets anyone. It's that add-ons must be signed _only by Mozilla_. The whole mess could have been avoided from the start by saying that add-ons must be signed by a trusted certificate but the end-user gets to choose what certificates are trusted.
You might be able to watch the network tab in the chrome developer tools to see what they send back and forth. Trello also has an api that may prove illustrative.
>Look at the Cash for Clunkers program a few years back.

Which was done just after a recession. That's not evidence of overproduction in general, just one year when demand unexpectedly went down.

>But just because we don't overproduce right now doesn't mean we couldn't if we wanted to. I'm still not seeing where production is the problem. If production was the limiting factor, they would be running the factories 24/7 instead of shutting them down.

But if we can produce so many cars, why are cars still expensive? Shouldn't the ability to create massive supply drive the price down a lot?

There are plenty of people that want new cars. And are willing to pay for them. It's not like we have more cars than people actually want. It just costs a lot to make a car. And that cost includes fixed costs like the factory itself. But factories wouldn't be closing down if other costs weren't also very large.

Yes in theory we could make millions more cars than we do. But not for free. It would require buying more materials, hiring more workers, building new production lines, etc. Those costs must be greater than the expected return for selling another car. Otherwise they would already be doing it.
Take a look at this Rails gem, https://github.com/mixonic/ranked-model/

It's a bit more efficient than traditional ordering...

From the readme:

ranked-model is also optimized to write to the database as little as possible: ranks are stored as a number between -8388607 and 8388607 (the MEDIUMINT range in MySQL)
Like that drilled crossbar. Could you imagine being the inventor of the only invention to survive in your 50,000 year period?
Yeah, it's a bit like comparing stopping two cars running max speed into a parking spot with a wall in front: on car being a Bugatti Veyron and the other being a Smart TwoFour. It's certainly impressive to do it in the Smart, but it's rather much a different thing than the Bugatti.

Even that isn't a good analogy, because the speed difference between the Veyron and the TwoFour is only about 2.5x. So maybe if the 2nd car were my bicycle, then we'd be able to make a valid analogy.
Read this article in the original when it arrived in my mailbox that year...genius and mastery...

If you enjoy reading about the very best in a particular genre--in this case card manipulation--you'll enjoy this read, and should definitely check out YT for a few of his videos...
I don't think you understand what "low runway" means.

If you have "low runway" every month than your company is already dead. Runway is the time left, with current revenue and expenses, before your company is out of money.

Bootstrapped companies should typically have infinite runway by either keeping expenses minimal or growing revenue.
Quantum field theory is a framework for building models. You can choose a largely arbitrary symmetry group structure and a largely arbitrary collection of matter fields in representations of that group (subject to a handful of mutual-consistency conditions), and wham: a possible universe. The Standard Model in particular is based on a not-very-elegant collection of symmetries and particles: SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1), with a weird (but miraculously self-consistent) grab bag of matter particles that inexplicably shows up copied three times.

Extending the underlying quantum mechanical formalism of QFT to be consistent with general relativity would be fantastic, no matter how it's done. But it's entirely possible that you'd still be left with an equally broad framework, and that the Standard Model would look just as weird and arbitrary as it does today. My impression is that something like this is the goal of most loop quantum gravity researchers, and proudly so: they're trying to solve one incredibly hard and incredibly important problem, so why borrow trouble by muddying the waters with more complications?

The ideal "theory of everything", if such a thing turns out to exist for our universe, would not just be a framework, but would also tell you the unique set of specific details that describes our universe: something that looks like our familiar Standard Model under ordinary conditions. As I said, I don't have the impression that most LQG researchers have ever considered that to be a likely outcome of their work: it's just not the business that they're in (perhaps by deliberate choice).

String theory has at various times in its history aspired to be precisely such a "theory of everything." (I'm not sure what fraction of folks in the field today would still claim that as a realistic expectation.) Because so many details of string theory are dynamical variables rather than God-given constants of nature, there's at least the possibility that there is a unique "lowest energy state" of all those variables that might turn out to be equivalent to the Standard Model. (Even almost philosophical questions like "How many dimensions of space do we perceive?" could in principle have a unique stable answer within string theory.)

Now, in practice, the way we generally analyze string theory today does not point us toward a unique answer, but rather something like 10^500 equally valid answers. Maybe there's some deeper principle that will select a unique one of those as "truth" (which we'd then eagerly compare against the Standard Model as a test of the theory). I've done a bit of work looking at such possibilities, and mostly my conclusion is "this is ridiculously complicated". Or maybe string theory is also merely a "framework" in the same sense that quantum field theory is. (But a very nice framework: one that does unify quantum mechanics and gravity in an elegant way, along with whatever approved collection of symmetries and matter you happen to stick in as its background.)
The main story, this comment, and many other user comments are really interesting and human. Would love to see someone compile a series of them, HONY style. These stories don't get talked about enough in the startup world.
More to the point: the FP Global 100 list was simply a proxy for "what's a list of search tokens that's likely to indicate meaningful conversation?". I picked the FP list as it was available, comprehensive, and Not Mine (that is, I didn't select the names, and disagree fairly markedly with several inclusions).

The individuals named cover a range of backgrounds, from natural and social sciences to politics, religion, and a few authors, artists, and other creatives.
If I were a founder who wanted to make sure employees and founders get a better deal, what are my options?

Can I accept money from investors only on the condition that they get paid only after employees and founders get paid a minimum amount, like $1M each?

The stronger version of idea is to not grant stock / stock options to employees (or grant only one share if needed for legal reasons). Instead offer a guarantee that only after they earn some large amount, enough to retire, say $10 million, will any investor receive anything. Employees would never make more than $10 million, but they would maximise the chance of making $10 million. This would make the startup a less risky place for an employee to work, assuming the goal is to maximise the probability of making enough to retire. Then the investors can have whatever liquidation preferences, seniority, ratchets and so on, as they want, and it wouldn't matter to either the founders or the employees.

I'm willing to accept a lower valuation (the certainty of a $100 million company is more important to me than a 20% chance of a billion dollar company).

Does this make sense? Would you suggest a different approach to reduce risk for founders and employees?
> It seems like Linux is getting harder and harder to use without [systemd]...

This Gentoo Linux user is getting along juuuuuust fine without systemd. :)

Edit: To bring it on-topic: It's a damn shame that PA -apparently- doesn't let you set playback/record device preference lists that let you specify which of the potentially many sound devices in your system should be used when some or many of them are unavailable. It seems that KDE4 and -IIRC- 5 use Phonon to add this on top of PulseAudio. (Or, actually, they add this on top of whatever sound playback system you're using... whether it is JACK, ALSA, PA, or something else. I've never written software that interacts with Phonon, but -from an end-user perspective- it's pretty great.)
almost 600MB of memory on mine !!!
> Why is it that in a "Democracy" we have to purchase access to the law through a private party?

You don't. What you have to purchase through a private party is electronic access to the annotations that the private party adds to the cases. If you just want the public domain cases you don't need to purchase anything from a private party.

First, there is PACER [1]. PACER is not free, but it is pretty cheap and it is owned and operated by government, not by a private party. The documents retrieved through PACER are usually public domain, and so once someone gets a particular case they can legally share it. I don't have a link handy, but I believe there are startups that gather together cases contributed this way to build a growing body of PACER material that you can get without having to pay even the small PACER fees.

You can also get the material for free at government and school law libraries that are generally open to the public.

[1] https://www.pacer.gov
They do fork the kernel and add their own packages for some stuff but yeah, 90% of userland is just recompiled RedHat.
And for virtually every WSJ post to HN, I cannot access copy via Google search.

HN don't take kindly to flagging. But really, either play social or go home.
> And the vertical landing architecture scales extraordinarily well. When you do a vertical landing, you’re solving the classic inverted pendulum problem, and the inverted pendulum problem gets a bit easier as the pendulum gets a bit bigger. Try balancing a pencil on the tip of your finger. Now try it with a broomstick. The broomstick is simpler because its greater moment of inertia makes it easier to balance.

They're specifically doing smaller rockets to tackle the inverted pendulum problem first, then they will scale up. They see that as the bigger challenge, and may greatly affect the design of larger orbital rockets which have a great deal of research available to draw from for other challenges they run into. In the article they say that one of their major solutions is a gimbaling engine, which I imagine is something you would have to design a larger rocket around, rather than add in after the fact.
I am planning a transition from middle class to capital class, which will take 10-20 years and require investing in real estate.

Real estate is a great investment (at least in Australia) because it allows you to get access to larger amounts of credit to purchase assets which will generally go up in value over time because of the policies of central banks to target inflation. In addition buying in the right location will insure that on top of location future scarcity will add more value to the investments.

It is also super transparent compared to stocks, where you don't really know what is going on inside a company, land is land and all the data you need to assess the investment is available. And you can control the asset (think renovations, rebuilds, subdivisions etc.) so there is more you can do compared to the stock (buy, and perhaps short the similar stocks)

The downside to real estate is you have to be a little bit patient. Did I mention 20 years? :-)
You aren't owed a million dollars because your house was falsely searched. That's absurd. The police have a right to do searches if there is decent evidence or suspicion of a crime, and 99% is way more than enough for probable cause. A 1% failure rate is actually incredibly good and means it will be very very rare for innocent people to get searched at all.
Excellent post. But I feel that we need to go beyond talking about what we can personally do to improve our situation. Either the vast majority of people are ill-adapted for success, or something else is going on. I think we should go beyond the classic argument "If we just all recycle, the world will..." Or "If we all buy electric cars, global warm....".

This post had some of that individualistic attitude to a much broader and obviously systemic problem.
Apache Calcite 1.6.0 – The foundation for your next high-performance database
The dynamics problem of balancing an inverted pendulum gets easier as the distance between the COM and the force input is increased.

Of course, its also easier to have very fast gimballing on a smaller engine, and a taller rocket bends more which makes it harder to detect exactly where it's pointed in the first place.
> Fortunately (if a bit paradoxically), in the UK, for taxes, following the letter but not the spirit of the law is against the law.

Or, in other words, you can't actually follow what the law says, you have to anticipate what the government would prefer to be paid and pay that, or you might get prosecuted. That doesn't seem "fortunate" to me at all. How can anyone reasonably follow the law if the government can't even manage to write it down?

Personally, I'd favor the idea of a tax code that fits on a single page of normal-sized text, but everyone wants the myriad exceptions they've bought and paid for. And now it's not even sufficient to understand and follow the tax code as written? If people take advantage of "loopholes" written into the law, and the government doesn't like that, then they should fix their tax code to say what they mean.
Trello gives each card a `pos` attribute, which is simply a double (64-bit float). When the first card in a list is created, it is given a `pos` of 16384. When a card is added to the end of a list it is given <pos of last card> + 16384. If added to the beginning, it is given <pos of first card> / 2. If inserted between two cards, it is simply the average of the two neighbors.

Finally, if two cards end up with values too close together (just some magic number - .0001 apart or something) then those cards and some nearby are all re-numbered.

This means that most of the time you only have to update a single card. In degenerate movement cases, you might update up to an entire list, but that can only happen every so many moves (~20 or so, but depends on exact values) even in the worst case.