skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
We're already doing this. In Iceland, 85% of prospective parents who receive prenatal testing and discover that their children will have Down's Syndrome choose to terminate the pregnancy. Tay Sachs disease, a condition that afflicts ashekenazi jews, has been eradicated due to abortion upon diagnosis and carrier screening tests for couples that determines their "genetic suitability"

I don't understand peole who are fearful of the elimination of genetic diseases that cause. The majority of articles I read on this subject are littered with lines such as these:

"Deciding what sorts of lives are worth living brings us disturbingly close to the bygone era of eugenics, when only the “right” sorts of people were supposed to procreate."

It's not crazy to think that parents do not want to have to spend extra resources on education and basically support their child not only until their death, but having to arrange for their offspring's care after they perish.

I would like to see these people who think along these lines adopt Down's Syndrome children if they think it is so important. Perhaps if prospective parents know that there is someone willing to take care of their disabled children, more of them may go through with the pregnancy.

Also, if diseases like these end up offering some sort of survival advantage in a future scenario, we still have the genetic data to recreate the condition. it's not like Down's Syndrome or other genetic diseases are going to completely disappear. Also, there will doubtlessly be groups of people who for religious reasons or otherwise will elect not to get treatment

Does anyone regret the virtual elimination of polio or smallpox?
Does that mean you avoid services like facebook or google? Many of those innovations are based on data collection and using that to make customer segments to sell targeted ads. Without that model you may be asked to pay a few dollars or see additional ads that are more likely to be less interesting.
I'm just in America but not American which is why I refuse to accept inches and weird numbering for screws haha.. it's worth the few extra bucks for me, you're right though, you could modify the design and use cheaper screws
Jack of all trades due to necessity. From cleaning toilets to managing a startup to writing software, the later being the one I spent the most time on. The only thing I can't do is interface design.

Really don't know what name I should use for this role. Founder? :)
glad you liked it
That's common for water allotment and agriculture. Western water rights allow for users to take only a limited number of acre-feet of water per year. If there is less water, then some people get bumped off the list for that year.
For things like books, I also find that reading the middling reviews often gives the best S/N ratio. It weeds out the fanboys and weeds out those who were clearly not the audience for the book (or just have some ax to grind). You're more likely to get the "I really love this author in general but I didn't care for this book because 1.) 2.) 3.)."
I second that. Or something like Netflix but for sports (mostly interested in soccer and basketball), would easily pay 15$/month for that.
> Performance: C# performs bounds checking

It does (The JIT that is), but it also often does not. For example a regular for loop does not bounds check anything. The newer x64 JIT ("RyuJIT") is a whole lot smarter than the legacy x86 jit was.

I imagine that once you start producing proper native binaries using whatever backend you want instead of a JIT that has a requirement of being FAST in addition to making code that is FAST, you can get even more optimization done.

Also, bounds check are becoming cheaper and cheaper as memory fetches become (relatively) more expensive with every hardware generation.

C++ code is usually faster than C# code but bounds checking is probably not the biggest culprit. If you use "idiomatic C#" with reference types, most operations have a lot of memory fetch overhead with pointer chasing
etc.

It's possible to write pretty efficient C# code, and it can still look pretty nice. You end up using arrays more, structs more, obviously worrying about AoS vs SoA more. You should also look at the new ImmutableArray types that look like List<T> but have effectively no overhead compared to a plain array. After that comes Span<T>, which makes even more exotic things possible.
I briefly hoped that this would be a link to

https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=%22what+on+earth+...
The Quite Rational Basis for North Korea's Japan Overfly
Family insurance plans in NL can be pretty good though. Can't remember what my wife pays for her and our 3 kids but it's less than 4x one person.
It's superficially similar. The most obvious difference is that you need a CloudFlare Enterprise plan to do that stuff, and we have a free tier + easy metered pricing.

You can probably do a complete Fly implementation in the time it takes to setup a call with one of their sales folks.
doesn't have the same ring to it.. i made a camera that snaps an MP4 and print it.. GIF is more relatable and is becoming the generic lingo to denote this kind of medium
I'll admit that "knowledge work" is a bit ambiguous. Work where the job is to know things, sure that can be automated. Work where you have to apply that knowledge is much further away from being automated.
But my point is that for me, it didn't. Netflix's system was good enough to take into account that people have different systems. Thus when Netflix says "we predict you'll give this 3 stars", that means it was a movie I would like. That might mean you gave it 4 stars or 2 stars or whatever, even though you liked it as much as me. They made my system the only one that matters, as long as I was consistent. Reviews in aggregate are pretty much meaningless, but a good system weighs that problem in.
I'm not a farmer but I would guess it's serious. Land area is measured in acres, and the amount of water that crops need per growing cycle could be measured in feet, hence acre-feet.

An acre-foot is the amount of water required to cover a one acre area in one foot of water, or about 1.2 million liters.
Totally agree - and bandwidth rates on cloud are crazy expensive [1]. The more common use-case for Supernodes are on colocated servers where you have excess capacity already - or for when you need to just deploy additional capacity for a moment (Black Friday etc), or when you have private links that are uncorrelated to the common CDN backbones (e.g. areas in Asia and Africa)[2]. If setting up Geo DNS with healthchecks is a bit much to get going - this is a self bootstrapping option that doesn't require other changes. That being said we run Geo DNS as well :)

[1] https://blog.edgemesh.com/its-time-to-change-the-web-and-sto...
[2] https://blog.edgemesh.com/understanding-diversification-netw...
La Facturación Electrónica en México
Magical thinking right here. The savings by merely switching to simplified billing are miniscule. It's also a bit magical to think that switching to single payer in the USA would result in savings. There is no reason to believe that costs would go down without massive price controls (and thus, shortages/rationing).

EDIT: I'd love anyone down-voting this comment to demonstrate how switching to single-payer in the USA would result in savings without shortages, rationing, or lower quality care. Maybe switching is the right thing to do, but it's best to be honest about the costs.
yup I did think of doing that but wanted to do this version with off the shelf components that others could replicate easily
I just want to point out it keeps armies of US engineers employed too. The amount of work I've had for EU companies implementing their EU regulations as a US tech worker is confusing and funny.

This is just another opportunity for easy money if you're in the states and enjoy/don't mind compliance work.
So they're opposites, except in this exact situation? Cool.

> My complaint is basically: fuck off with the Adobe in a thread about Gimp

OK, sure, but maybe you should have A) said something resembling that in the first place instead of attempting some inane linguistic argument, and B) replied to the person who introduced the comparison rather than the one who had a pretty salient response to that.
Your build status icon says 'failing' but Travis shows passing builds.
Any mail client in the wild today will support STARTTLS and won't submit any credentials to Gmail until a TLS connection has been established. If your connection is MITM'd and you accept the bad certificate error or your laptop is totally pwnd, you're screwed regardless of how you're authenticating. In those situations an attacker could still hijack sessions, exfil data, act on your behalf, etc regardless of whether you went through their browser auth flow with MFA.
Civil engineering has pretty well quantified the rate at which water is absorbed by certain soils, accounting for groundcover, trees, pavement, local detainment, etc. Berlin's sponge mission is baiscially distributed detainment, working to offset hardscaping (driveways and roofing). In other words, it's a well known and very predictable science, but we (we being US land development industry) has not cared. HOWEVER rain at the scale of Harvey cannot practically be planned for beyond "don't build on land that's lower than average"
Talking from experience from a "new" EU country with solid IT scene: the "cookie law" is not enforced at all. Google would be probably the only one theoretically enforcing it (most of websites do show a message because they use Google Analytics), but it would go against Google's interest, so they are not really enforcing it either.
> You will basically need to hire full-time compliance officers to deal with this. The big tech companies already have compliance officers, but GDPR is so massively invasive to businesses that even small companies now need compliance officers.

Or they could, I don't know, just not collect that data in the first place.
> There is no reason for this to expose a tuple API.

FWIW, that is a norm in the standard library that predates named tuples.

For example, sys.version_info and time.localtime() return structseq instances. Those both have a named tuple API.
The are tuple subclasses with named fields. Accordingly, they are indexable, iterable, hashable, space-efficient, and have a self-documenting __repr__().
1 acre covered in 1 foot of water. Makes sense where farmland is measured in acres, and actually probably a bit easier to visualize than "10^6L"-- though I know what you mean.
Nope. A really common one. It's about the annual use of an american household, as well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acre-foot
Goldman Sachs now a conduit for blockchain education
Mustard is the one, true condiment.
Send me an email and I'll help (kurt@fly.io, or support@fly.io)! We've been working on improving the onboarding flow for new apps, but it's definitely complicated. Elastic Beanstalk and EC2 will work fine, and we can help you get setup. You can either run through ELB (if you already have that setup) or use our agent and let us handle all the load balancing: https://fly.io/docs/agents/

It should be obvious when and what we need AWS keys for. We only need those for private S3 buckets and to invoke Lambda functions. We don't want full access keys, just scoped IAM stuff!
This has been working really well for wapo articles,
https://outline.com/
Yes, this was my first thought as I was reading the article. A better title for it would be "Backporting Modern Linux Kernel Features to Our Really Old Kernels Instead of Doing the Right Thing and Keeping Up To Date".

I do -- I really do -- appreciate that version churn is difficult, and the Linux kernel also doesn't make it easy since they don't guarantee any stable internal APIs, but they're also adding a lot of work on themselves by having to maintain their own kernel trees that diverge significantly from mainline. They're also at the mercy (to some extent) of many chipset manufacturers and whatever they've chosen to base their efforts on.

A quick look at some kernel release timeframes from the versions they mention in the article:

4.3 - 11/2015
4.4 - 02/2016
4.6 - 05/2016
4.8 - 10/2016
4.10 - 02/2017

The only kernel out of that list I'd unquestioningly accept as it being unrealistic to upgrade to for Oreo is 4.10. 4.8 might be a stretch since I'm guessing they'd already branched internally for Oreo by then, though they likely had a month or so of RCs that they could have used as a base before that. There's certainly risk to basing your work on a newly-released (or soon-to-be-released) kernel, but given the general high quality of kernel releases, I imagine that'd be pretty far down on their list of risks. Regardless, 4.6 or 4.7 would be entirely reasonable to use as a base, and since they own the conformance test criteria, they could also require that all their vendors use that as a minimum version.

And yet, they are backporting some features as far back as 3.18, which was originally released in December of 2014, and, while it was designated a LTS kernel, it, at this point in time, has moved into end-of-life status. And we wonder why Android security is a nightmare.
> It's also a bit magical to think that switching to single payer in the USA would result in savings

>There is no reason to believe that costs would go down without massive price controls (and thus, shortages/rationing)

He didn't say either of those things.

We can't just switch. It's not a realistic option. He's pointing something out, not saying "hey we should switch now and x would happen".
If you don't want the NSA to gather information on you, the GDPR will not address that.
There's a huge difference between not conceiving people and eliminating the ones already here.
having lived in japan, the amount and quality of food/snacks/drinks/alcohol at convenience stores makes them a pretty attractive option

something as simple as coffee and a sandwich in the morning and some beers and snack food after work could easily add up to a couple hundred a month, even though most of it isn't the kind of food traditionally associated with convenience store junk food
CEO at http://ae.studio
Yeah, and the pumps/tunnels to get it over/under the Rockies and the Sierras.
Yeah I pay around €80 / month but my "own risk" is around €885.

That there's an "own risk" is not stupid, insurance that protects you from every little thing is necessarily more expensive than insurance that only protects you from an unlikely catastrophe.

I save €17.50/month by setting the "own risk" to €885 instead of €385, a difference of €500. This means that if I don't use the health insurance for around 2.5 years I make up that difference and then get a "free" €17.50/month.

I would set it even higher than €885 if I could, but at least with CZ that's the maximum they seem to offer.

The difference in premiums is probably artificially low in The Netherlands since the market is so heavily regulated. I.e. if I expect to get "sick" I can just adjust the premiums yearly, e.g. women expecting to be pregnant do that, so it distorts the market. The insurer needs to eat the cost of your premium adjustment, even if you adjusted it because of a pre-existing condition or expected future medical cost.

Also, you should be careful when bragging about the price of health insurance in The Netherlands. It's a hybrid privately paid & publicly paid system, so most of what you're paying for it is probably coming out of your taxes, not the premiums you pay to the insurer.
US already has a wall to build.
Who said anything about Bitcoin?
I look at an array of very many very tiny lights, and press a super specific sequence of buttons to turn some lights on or off in the way I want.
Magazine editor and web developer. Two hats.
I've seen that a Map is more efficient than big objects
Employee & investor liquidity, who are the majority stockholders of these kinds of companies. And the value of a stock does far better when something is profitable vs not. Past history shows it's usually a bad idea to be a public company and be in the red for many quarters.
Just a note on your comparison - aviation engines/motors are not directly comparable to land vehicle engines/motors. They have different expected duty cycles[1][2] and thus, are designed quite differently.

I believe the engines in an Apache are jet turbines, which may also not be directly comparable, but that's only a guess. They are also "war machines", and likely are built to tolerate abuses Tesla cannot imagine and do not design for (my assumption here is that is what adds quite a bit of weight to the Apache engines).

All this is to say the obvious, one could not simply take a Tesla electric motor and install it in an aircraft, expecting good things.

Things may eventually change, and ultimately you may be right - I just don't want to put that much faith, yet, into this idea.

[1] https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/11527/what-are-...

[2] https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/34361/2294
You don't need to bring it up, is right there in the article.

There are many use cases, and maybe to you per-core performance is paramount, but he's making the case that for the market Xeon-Ws are aimed at, cores are more important than 10% peak performance, otherwise you wouldn't be buying a 36 core monster to begin with.
I'm not running workstation hardware, been on an i7-4790K for a few years now, but sometimes constrained on ram at 32gb, and recently went to a 1gb nvme for my primary drive + gtx1080. I will say that even Threadripper is compelling on value, and Epyc equally so. I'll probably go Threadripper for my next system, depending on how the next year or so shape up. Everyone using these systems has different needs, some need raw CPU power, others more memory, some max both. Intel has carved out too many parts to maximize profits and confuse customers. AMD seems to be sized "just right" on their parts, without killing features.

I'm still pretty happy with my ~3yo pc, I did ditch windows as my desktop OS earlier this year. (aside: win10's aggressive advertising in the OS finally irritated me too much, and I'm not the only one).
> they're lobbying for their business interests.

Yes. But some visits could also have been the White House soliciting information from the industry, or from multiple industries, since Google is in many markets. Indeed, Google's own response called out the many different subjects discussed.

Asked to respond, Google spokesperson Riva Litman referred The Intercept to a blog post written when the Wall Street Journal raised similar questions a year ago. In that post, Google said the meetings covered a host of topics, including patent reform, STEM education, internet censorship, cloud computing, trade and investment, and smart contact lenses. The company also claimed to have counted similar numbers of visits to the White House by Microsoft and Comcast — but it did not explain its methodology for parsing the data.

You've let the initial description of the visits already influence your assessment of what they were about. Were some traditional lobbying as expected from large corporations with interests? Undoubtedly. But that doesn't mean every visit was, especially for a company that has been very open about investing into research in forefront technologies, the type of thing the White House might want to keep abreast of, or about increasing certain types of educational outcomes, which is also a subject often addressed by the White House. Also note, in the referenced article their numbers they appear to be including state dinners and white hours tours in their numbers, as they had to distinguish why their chart doesn't actually show the same number they quote in some instances.

> I'm nearly certain that is why the poster said "depending on your definition of bribery". He/she was (in my interpretation) intending to discuss that grey area.

Then they should have discussed that grey area more specifically rather than case allusions.

> Shutting down that discussion by throwing the dictionary at him/her is both rude and unhelpful.

The only way it shuts down the conversation is if they didn't have anything valid (such as a larger discussion about corporate influence in politics) to respond with. Given the actual response I got from the author, I don't feel particularly sorry that I came down a little harder than I usually do. At this point I can only assume that if they had more interesting, sourced, or nuanced points they would have brought them forth at that time. Instead we get more conflation of Eric Schmidt and Google, and the appeal "You think Google wasn't trying to influence the Obama white house during those 427 visits?", to which I think I've adequately explained my thinking here.

There are many useful conversations to be had about Google's influence on the government, and the referenced article actually does a good job of bringing them up, and providing a measured interpretation of what they mean, and why the pure numbers are not a smoking gun without context. That it's used in this way doesn't do it justice, nor does it do justice to those of us that might see numbers referenced from it without context in this way, which was to make an allusion such as "lots of visits equals bribery".
This includes a visualization of a "cube" that doesn't have parallel planes. I'm not sure how much I can trust that lol
Ethics committees are there to protect both the institution and the subjects of the study. One of those protections is avoiding misleading the subjects, unless absolutely necessary and beneficial. How many times have you seen people here on HN bitch about Company X's misleading marketing? It's exactly the same with human studies - people feel used and abused when they find out they were lied to. Similarly, jancsika below points out that the author is working on a patient population with literal paranoid people in it; they're not likely to respond well if they find out a questionnaire was for a different purpose than stated.

Sticking to a common set of rules and only deviating when there's very good reason is one way to help protect subjects. What's the 'outcome' here? A doctor wants to do a study. Why is that more important than the rights of the subjects? Yes, everyone who does a study thinks it's going to cure cancer and solve the national debt. They'll promise the moon in order to get their way. These processes are put in place to protect people against poorly-planned studies. And there's no way to know ahead of time that a study is 'trivial' - if you're working on humans, you need to be vetted. "But we already do this to patients anyway" is besides the point; if you let doctors bypass vetting because of that argument, you'd see all sorts of horrific stuff happening. Ethics committees didn't come about because bureaucracy invented them for the sake of it, they came about because people were being unknowingly tested on by medicos who promised that the study was 'beneficial for the common good'.

And what you find distressing is not what other people find distressing. Search for mncharity's comment elsewhere on this page, where people are distressed simply by being asked about viruses. Yeah, sure, that's not typical, but the counterpoint is: is the research beneficial enough to warrant causing distress to people who would otherwise have been left alone?

In short, this 'needless bureaucracy' is there to protect both the institutions and innocent people from researchers going 'rogue'.
To make at least a dent in Houston's problems, it would have to be able to move 10 trillion gallons in a few days. But, hey, let's give it all year, just to make it easier. That's 27 billion gallons a day, just over a billion gallons an hour, 19 million gallons a minute, or 317,000 gallons a second. That's... improbable. That's 508,000 cubic feet per second.

Assuming a velocity of 1000 miles per hour, or 1467 feet per second (also improbable), you'd need a cross section of 346 square feet. That's a pipe that is 21 feet in diameter, which is not completely impossible. Or four pipes that are each 10.5 feet in diameter. That's doable. The 1000 miles per hour pumping speed is a bit of an obstacle, though...