skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>So, shouldn't it be used by people who believe it works?

You can't ignore opportunity cost when evaluating value/ROI. It's not merely about the absolute benefit any given method/material provides, but about how that compares to whatever else might have been done instead. This stuff is very much not free (hence being a "billion dollar industry"), either in terms of money or time, so the only way it "should be used" is if there was no superior (cheaper, faster or both) way to induce the equivalent placebo effect, and no other way whatsoever to produce an actual effect beyond placebo. That seems highly doubtful, given proven benefits from other forms of actual study. With the time/money spent on this sort of pure-placebo "Brain Training" someone could have worked on learning another language for example, or invested in other valuable training.

The same argument you propose here is commonly applied to other highly profitable placebos pushed to the public, and in general the flaw in reasoning is always the same one of ignoring comparative ROI. Probably the most classic example would be homeopathy, wherein people literally just buy bottled water for hundreds to thousands of dollars per gallon. By definition there should be no negative effects, because there is nothing there but water (perhaps with a few flavors or non-bioactive aromatics), so worst case there is no harm, best case somebody experiences a bit of placebo benefit. That leads to "well what's the problem then, it can't hurt." But people don't have unlimited resources, any spending on pricey water directly subtracts from what they might have spent more productively elsewhere. Worse, choosing a non-medicine placebo may result in them failing to use actual medicine that was appropriate.

So it does matter when something like this is pure placebo. Perhaps most humanly, it matters because it's not what people were being advertised, signing up or working for. "We lied to them because it was good for them" does not cut it.
I don't think anyone really believes that startups can move faster than large corporations.

Startups can merely fully dedicate themselves to exploring new spaces that open up because they're not burdened by things such as being already occupied with doing something, especially something that's profitable.

So when something new appears like VR/AR a startup can jump right in at first opportunity without having to think too much about it. This has the potential to be an advantage and means that startups are "faster" (really just earlier) to certain things.

Github is a profitable business that has nothing to do with editors, so I'd argue that it's not a startup anyway, certainly not in any far that gives them advantage in developing editors or IDEs.

Quite frankly I really don't get why they even bother. It doesn't differentiate their actual business in any useful way and it doesn't make money. In the meantime they're actually facing competition from Gitlab, a company that's adding features so powerful you can and other people have build entire business around them.
Agreed, the biggest thing is that people have to want to be there. Some of these places are getting a little of the SV success due mainly to generally being a desirable place to be, and getting a little push from the local government.
A Serpent Send Exploit
What's interesting is that it is the opposite for buyers. So much easier to buy of CL than eBay.
It doesn't suck "getting old" -- and you only find out about stamina by trying to do things ...

(We are fortunate that most of what is "new" is more like "particular 'news'" rather than actually "new". From the standpoint of actual categorical change, things have been very slow the last 30 years or so.)
Interesting choice of names - Monaco was the name[1] of their web-based Visual Studio editor that looked very similar to Visual Studio Code, except it came a couple of years earlier. It's pretty clear they're the same evolution of code

[1] https://dzone.com/articles/first-look-visual-studio
> I.e. if you have solved a lot of "guess the next shape" or "find the odd element" you are probably going to perform better because you know how the thing work.

I hear this repeated a lot. I happen to have worked with someone who was into this (former something in Mensa), and as far as I understood one of the hallmarks of a good IQ test is when previous experience have small influence on the testscore.

Some people tend to say that anyone can train for this. I guess if that was true, Mensa would have a lot more members.
> Trees can sequester a bounded amount of carbon from the air.

So plant more trees? It's a continual process. It's not like you can plant a tree and say "Ok, I'm carbon neutral now!"
Probably not much different. I'm pretty sure most fossil fuel power plants have comparable efficiencies. It's not like the steam produced by burning dinosaurs is somehow less capable of driving a turbine than what comes from splitting atoms.
Wow, this is remarkably biased.

It doesn't even consider systemic problems like exorbitant	legal expenses and deforms US law making to some kind of corporate contract killer.
A shit sandwich is better than a catered shit buffet, but that doesn't make it good in the slightest.
If the server had bcrypt configured to take a second per password, multiple everything by 4. And so on. What I think is needed as a supplement to "use bcrypt / scrypt" is a "and use it this way so you don't accidentally open your server to DoSing or give a poor experience", because a 10 seconds-to-compute-on-a-Xeon hash is great from a security standpoint if your hashes get leaked, it sucks from a user experience to have to wait at least 10 seconds to login, and if you have to service multiple logins at once your server's not going to be able to do anything else if you just use bcrypt/scrypt synchronously.

If you're in a situation where you're needing to rely on hashing a user's password for every action, your application has far worse problems than what password storage method is in play. Moving from your current password storage method that is inadequate to one that would be better also takes into account that you haven't done something completely wrong with session states.

[edit]

I misread the poster I was responding to assuming that they meant that the user was re-authenticating on each request. My thought process was that if they're storing credentials in a cookie in lieu of a session ID then that needed to be addressed first before even going down the avenue of correcting password storage.
It seems like Wright is attracting more and more (overly credulous) journalists to perform fawning bio pieces on him in lieu of the only evidence that will ever actually conclusively convince anyone. This evidence, unlike the several hundred thousand extraneous words here, also happens to be something that is extraordinarily simple to provide: cryptographically sign a message that we can all verify. He has not provided this single, legitimate proof to the public and worse yet he has provided fake proof that shows a deliberate willingness to deceive. Moreover, he seems to have demonstrated a willingness to exploit journalists' and the general public's lack of understanding about cryptography. This seems diametrically opposed to the spirit of the technology he allegedly gifted to the world - Bitcoin.
I'm not talking about hormonal emotions. I mean calculated decisions like "should we bomb lybia because they are creating nuclear weapons."

That is a question about an (arguably) existential threat, where force is used for (arguably) protective purposes.

The question is, if the AGI thought that a human was threatening it unprovoked (which would probably happen) would it just let itself get "killed" simply because it was a human doing it?
I still don't understand why people so desperately want to find out who or what is behind Satoshi. It could be a person, it could be multiple persons, but what's to gain by identifying someone who gave the world something that's generally found useful, and all they asked for was privacy? Either you trust it or you don't. If you do not, what secret entity could be useful to be discovered behind the Satoshi identifier for you to trust it more or less?

I mean, for instance, I'm unaware of people trying to identify all members of the PaX team.

EDIT: For a community that asks for privacy in many instances, it's interesting we support the search to uncover what's behind the Satoshi identifier.
- Anyone with startup experience will high five you during the interveiw when you mention the failure, and will be interested in discussing what went wrong.

- People coming in from the outside, such as HR and recruiter staff won't get it, and will snidely try to get you to admit that you were actually fired for cause, or were responsible for the ship going down.
Can I use that with external PPAs?

Or I have to install the PPAs before I can use the metapackage (which kind of defeats the idea of using a metapackage instead of a script)?
> Not saying that's a good idea, but it is getting closer.

No, that isn't getting closer it's getting farther away. The whole point of containers is that they make the host machine completely fungible. If I can only schedule my DB containers on a specific machine then I might as well just run my DB on that machine and be done with it.
What is Actor Model lacking?
> When will we get better at saying what we mean?

The hard part is knowing what we mean - really knowing, not just thinking that we know.
"Wait a week+ and repost this in the correct thread."

Just to clarify, the thread for job seekers to post their information in is the monthly "who wants to be hired" post:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11814830

The "who is hiring" post is where employers post their job ads.

There's also a posting for freelancers:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11814829

All these threads are automatically created on the first business day of each month.
The intelligence is all in my mind?
You want your devs all running the exact same version of the compiler. The last thing you want is someone with a slightly different version than used by everyone else (and production!) which writes some code that compiles and runs fine without problems, but crashes or exhibits a bug in testing, QA, or worst case, production. Having something like that occasionally gum up your development pipeline is a good reason for pegging tool versions (depending on the type of tool).

Having things use rustup is great. Don't assume that's sufficient for certain populations of users (and a populations you really may want, such as enterprise). At best, they'll use rustup as a basis to start some other packaging, but even that's risky because rustup is complex, and it's hard to contain all the variables unless you're very careful about exactly what version you use with it, so then you're packaging rustup, and then package what it created. Easier at that point to just skip rustup.

It's all about reproducibility, which is king in enterprise. Rustup is about ease of use, and easy iteration. Enterprise already sacrifice that on the alter of reproducibility, so it's really not a selling point for them. It's great for everyone else, it just has less to offer for this subgroup.
Where Geek Girls Come From
At least YCombinator still requires location in Silicon Valley, don't they? Until they start going "on tour", I don't think that'd be what the poster was looking for.
You're saying the same thing you said earlier. This doesn't clarify anything for me.

If you want to advocate for liability for software security negligence, I won't argue --- at least, not on a moral basis (I think "be careful what you ask for" but whatever).

But I do not see what any of this has to do with liability for intruders.
You're basically describing IPFS protocol.
Do you have a link to where he mentioned Urbit?

I find the whole project (politics aside, though i wish this caveat was unnecessary) stunningly beautiful, especially the focus on verbalization (#spokenDSL), and having Alan Kay be interested in it is flattering even though I have no relation whatsoever :)
https://imgur.com/g31emJv

I'm using extensions.
Depends on which of the two products they're using:

https://sagitta.pw/hardware/gpu-compute-nodes/invictus/

https://sagitta.pw/hardware/gpu-compute-nodes/brutalis/

I'm assuming it's one of them given it was a gift from Sagitta. Quite a while back when I was in it. Then, they were using FPGA's to offload cracking from our Pentium 3's and 4's. High end FPGA's cost $1-2k. Systems that integrate them were often a lot more expensive but one could get coprocessor cards. So, not sure if password cracking has come down in cost or gone up vs FPGA's.

The combo of algorithms supported, flexibility, and performance is certainly better than cranking out HW implementations on FPGA's.
Diets don't work. You need to change your life(style). It's pretty common knowledge outside of commercially-promoted media.
I don't think we've discussed revenue anywhere, where did you get this number?

We'll certainly do our best!

Disclosure: I work at Google on Kubernetes.
Thx Fizzbatter, I indeed have no horse in this game (I'm not involved in the industry) - I've seen all of the mainstream "brain games" be thoroughly discredited.

Dual N-Back is the only one that has at least SOME indication that it may have actual benefits, and it's not owned by one of these big brain game companies - so you can at least be more impartial and less subject to hype.

You're right, I deliberately pointed everyone to a skeptical discussion of the research.

Brain games as a whole ain't great, but of a bad bunch, this is the best, both in terms of research behind it, and in terms of cost (not some monthly subscription - often a free download) and impartiality.
How is that any different from "I can reasonably infer that my customer ID is 101, but I told you it was 102 in a URL to see the account information for a different customer"?

These issues are less fraught than people seem to think they are. We walk through commercial spaces all the time that are full of unlocked, unmarked doors, and it rarely takes us more than a moment to realize when we've gone somewhere we weren't meant to be. It's not a new problem.
Is that not where you're coming from? Because it sure sounds like that's where you're coming from.
You'd think with all the datamining Amazon does, this would be a worthwhile problem to solve with it. After all, it is good for Amazon if people can trust their transactions there.
Apparently aphantasia doesn't appear to affect dreams (from research I've read), when sleeping I do have visual dreams, but awake, nothing but black even with eyes closed no matter how hard I try to imagine a picture.
> Why are songs on the radio played for free?

Because conventional radio airplay acted as advertising. Wanted to listen to the song when you wanted to? You had two choices - sit by the radio with a cassette recorder, fingers posed over play and record, or buy the record.
He might want to put that in his profile if he intends to speak in the name of OpenAI...
Due to caching implementations which change between OSes, programming languages, and routers, DNS is actually a really terrible discovery mechanism at scale.

For example, I'd never want to implement service discovery via DNS in Java, which ignores expiration times and caches queries according to its own settings. I've also seen some server configurations which result in every gethostbyname call to a fully recursive query against DNS.
I asked for the email addresses of my interviewers to thank them personally but was told they weren't allowed to give them out.
3 Journalist Traits Every Content Marketer Should Have
I should clarify this. I didn't exactly mean as a language to program in, but as (a) a "building material" and (b) especially as an "artifact to think with". Once you grok it, most issues in programming languages (including today) are much more thinkable (and criticizable).

The second question requires too long an answer for this forum.
The Late App: Track and shame friends who are late
Keep track of how long your chronically late friends/family have wasted of your life
> It's incredibly obvious you have a dog in this fight and are incredibly biased.

Because you disagree with him, apparently.
Yes, anything that challenges Google's "Don't Be Evil" propaganda is hard for some to swallow. Thankfully, at least some of us don't fall for that kind of bullshit.
Visualising the .NET Garbage Collector
Thanks! This research was my first thought when I saw big companies starting to come out with things like smart watches, hyper-local beacons, and home automation products.

But strangely, it seems like companies are still treating those all as separate lines. For example, Apple markets their home and watch projects totally independently of one another. But I have to think that they are working toward ubiquitous computing, much as they worked toward the Dynabook over the decades.
Respectfully ... I think you missed the point of my answer.
But where would the market go when carbon nanotubes and fibers move from exotic and expensive materials to "cheaper than aluminum". It could displace a lot of aluminum and steel.
I read a book where they talked about a Boeing (I think) pilot training exercise. They constructed checklists for new pilots of what to do in various situations, gathered from their best pilots (likely not exclusively their best, my memory is fallible). These lists worked very well - but they noticed their best pilots didn't exactly follow the list.

The book I was reading made a point that early learning on a topic is rote (You do this then this because you are supposed to), while advanced practitioners _intuit_ . "I'll check this because it feels like that kind of problem, and if that isn't it I'll hit the other more likely things in turn or question my assumptions, but I don't think those steps out explicitly, I just do them". That certainly matches my programming experience, though my anecdote does not data make.

IIRC, this book was focused on how to improve skills, and was making the point that you can't expect to jump straight to intuit without experience, you have do rote first. So in this example, "smart" people will go straight from A->C, people with only moderate experience will have to go A->B->C, people with enough experience will go from A->C, and careless people MIGHT end up A->C, but more likely never made it to B and so can't even get to C from where they are.

Thus the appeal of "brain training" - people want to up their ability to intuit with less experience, and they feel that training can do it like most skills. This study (I've not yet read article) seems to be saying "no, it doesn't work that way".

Assuming the headline and study are correct, it's shame but I don't feel people should be mocked for feeling it was worth a try. There are certainly a number of other studies that show forced mental effort helps avoid degradation at a minimum. (I recall a study about Bridge delaying Alzheimers as an example, though I can't say anything about how well that study has held up).
There's a recursive sense in which "training" "System 1" involves assimilating more abstractions, through practice and spaced repetition, such as deferring to the equations of motion when thinking about what happens when one throws a ball in the air. Going as far as providing useful interfaces to otherwise difficult cognitive terrain (a la Mathematica) is still part of this subproject. The process of assimilating new abstractions well enough that they become part of one's intuition (even noisily) is a function of time and intense focus. What do you see as a way to aggregate the knowledge complex and teach further generations of humans what the EEA couldn't, fast enough that they can solve the environmental challenges ahead? What's HARC's goal for going about this?
An interesting article. I'm glad to see someone giving an equal treatment of SQL and NoSQL databases for a change. I appreciate the analogy of SQL being an optimized and general-purpose high-level language and NoSQL being a more powerful but specialized low-level or assembly language.

However, I feel like the article fundamentally fails to address the core question of "When should I pick NoSQL over SQL?" If SQL is indeed the choice 99 times out of 100, how can you know when you are faced with that 1-in-100 time when NoSQL is actually the right option?
Does anyone here have a solar lease? I'm a homeowner and it seems appealing but the opinions on it seem really muddy.
Banks don't make this easy. There isn't a secure way of doing it in the vast majority of cases. Companies like Digit use Plaid to offload the risk of storing these credentials (like how most startups offload PCI/credit-card to Stripe). Intuit's big enough to have their own solution for Mint.
You also have to have people wanting to start businesses in that area. And you can't get that if people aren't free to start their own companies at night, while still maintaining their day job. Far too many of the places on the list still enforce draconian non-competes.
I really wish the restrictions can be reduced so board of directors (like @pmarca) can tweet more on the companies.
> ...instead relying on another service for authentication.

If you are suggesting something like on-premises Kerberos, I agree - better yet: just design with PAM in mind. But if you are suggesting something like "login with facebook" then I have to disagree - unless your goal is to add a serious point of failure, major dependency, and huge source of information leakage all in one step.
Right, which is why I said for such distros I expect rustup-obtainable extras to be packaged as well and installed in the same way. Again, unsure if this is the actual plan.
It's time to do another children's language. My answer a few years ago would have been "in part: Etoys", "in lesser part: Scratch (done by some of the same people but too much of a subset)".
But how does it compare to Safari on Apple computers? AFAIK Safari is extremely power efficient.
>The primary issue is that through misuse it degrades almost instantly from unbreakable to "little better than ROT13". And, it still appears secure to the hapless user.

Please explain how this does not apply identically to every form of encryption, particularly as we have directly seen vulnerability after vulnerability. That implementation matters goes without saying in these discussions, but if you want to go there then in that respect OTP is fundamentally much simpler and easier to get right then public-key crypto. Generating decent random noise, storing it in an ordered way, then deleting it automatically after use are comparatively straight forward operations to automate. Using each bit is just a matter of an XOR operation and that's it.

So I disagree with you that technical challenges are in any way even remotely the "primary issue" when it comes to OTP. If there was a need for it it'd be rapidly adopted. But outside of certain very niche scenarios, maybe, there simply isn't any need for it, nor will there be in the foreseeable future.
This is only version accessible to most people today. Where the contextually driven actions are performed by your smartphone, not by the swarm of devices in your vicinity.

A few devices issuing orders, and a bunch of dumb devices taking orders.
Too large a subject -- sorry!
I'm not sure how you'd confuse either..
Now use the speeches of Hitler, compare the similarities, and calculate the accuracy of mr Sam's belief.
The only real "brain training" is reading, learning practical and technical skills, and perhaps living a healthy lifestyle.

Other than that, forget it. Brain power and being a quick-witted genius is all about GENETICS (like most things in this life)
(Wasn't in my profile but just added. Thanks!)
This isn't worth worrying about at this stage. Spend your energy on something (almost anything) else. If you fail (which statistically speaking is very likely) the domain won't matter. Focus on not failing first, domain later.
Transportation Enabling a Robust Cislunar Space Economy [pdf]