skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I worry that the us is going to have some kind of Pearl Harbor type event that our military is not going to be capable of defending against.

A lot of people assume that our forces are invulnerable but a large part of the peace we've been able to project has been because it's rewarding to work with us and risky to work against us. The current political situation seems to be reversing that calculus and the consequences could be dire.
Hey now. It's also useful for buying drugs.
That was Axelrod's tournament iirc
That and HTML email that doesn't have a text/plain alternative. Even the braindead conversion contain some nuggets of information.
Tensions have been as high (possibly higher) before, and the current president is irrelevant (yes I am serious. On foreign/military matters, it's pretty much established he says what the generals tell him to say and that's that. Nobody that matters cares what his latest Twitter tirades are). So the context to get would be: who are the top generals? Answer: same guys as before.
That's really not correct.

http://gcaptain.com/cold_water/
Discrete calculus? I think you mean univariate.
The nosh package
The closest we have ever come to having a nuclear strike on US soil was when the soviets were convinced we were about to build such a shield. MAD falls apart when someone builds an effective shield... I don't think we actually want to build such a shield for this reason.
Radar counter-battery fire isn't new. A workable artillery interceptor would be, and it would be a nice thing to have! But the urgent calls for counter-battery fire with which that video ends don't inspire confidence in the system.

The best effectiveness figures I've seen cited for C-RAM range from 60 to 70 percent. Leaving aside that these are Raytheon's figures and thus extremely untrustworthy - and leaving aside, too, that Phalanx guns eat through their magazines in an awful hurry, and require much manual effort and time to reload - that still leaves three or four out of every ten shells hitting whatever they're aimed at. If they're aimed at Seoul, that's not really solving the problem.
Q: How does one actually determine intel ME is present in a CPU... I've got an old P8600, I can find no definitive list of CPUs or ways to test for it. Some articles say all intel CPUs since 2006, others say only the newer "core" brand.
I realize you were joking but "get of my lawn" is normally something that the rich say to the poor. In this situation it's the opposite. Also, I'm young enough to be in the "next generation" and, at least in my case, the GP is wrong. The previous generation assumes they can get lost in the noise. They imagine all our data flowing into a human machine for processing. They don't understand the power of machine learning and fail to grasp the degree to which this data will increasingly determine outcomes in their individual lives.
What's your phone number?
It most certainly is evolution. Among other things it shows a change in how "would have" is analyzed by speakers (into "would of"). They wouldn't actually be writing "would of" if it wasn't coherent with their analysis of the parts. (I feel like I shouldn't need to say that the analysis is of course subconscious, but now I did anyway.)

Re-analyses like this aren't exactly uncommon. Here are a few other examples with "would have/of": http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001291.h...
Got it - thanks. Any plans to add this as an integrated feature so we don't have to set up a separate WAF?
Could you send me something reflecting why you think credit scores are based on the neighborhood in which you reside?
Have heard good things about Sendy https://sendy.co

Self-hosted AFAIR
https://spacecityweather.com/ - "Hype-free forecasts for greater Houston with Eric Berger and Matt Lanza"
.15% I think it is? Or is that a different fee class
I'd like to add that most (all?) of those conditions have been met for years. My presumption is Mr. Kim has run out of money for Scotch. Someone will send him some aid. He will settle down.
I think the question is, can we retaliate against only the regime (i.e. without massive civilian population loss) before they take out Seoul? I'm mostly basing my analysis on the ability for NK to cause more damage in the time it takes for SK/Japan/US to mount a "humane" response. Of course, if there is a way, in response to an attack from NK, to take out their ability to do further damage, that is the best option.

If Seoul is their first attack, it's game over for NK. But if it's Japan or the US, they still have that ace up their sleeve unless we're prepared to destroy a LOT of NK VERY quickly.
British trade in the 1700-1800s was a big deal too. Didn't mean people made money from the bubble company.

Few revolutiinary technologies generate sizeable returns overall. Railroads and airplanes are a classic example of technologies that changed the world and produced poor-to-negative returns.
Ballistic missile defense works to an extent but isn't reliable. You have to have an interceptor positioned in the right place and coverage is currently very sparse. The detection time window is very short. And even under ideal circumstances the interceptors often miss; it may take several shots to reliably hit a single missile.
sounds like US Army in 1975.
Yep. It hasn't gotten to the point that they've had to resort to actually destroying a city yet, or even demonstrating that they can. Just hinting that they might be able to has thus far been enough to keep the aid flowing.
Is the degradation of US public schools really due to extensive testing?
> I'm simply intrigued how this bit has managed to elude so many developers and hackers over the years.

Lots of hackers already knew that for many years - I would rather call it "common knowledge". But they had no idea what one could do to change anything about this. Just like "AMD PSP"/"AMD Secure Processor" - it is common knowledge that it exists, but we have no idea what it really does or how one can disable/disarm it.

Or baseband processors - you can be pretty sure that there exist backdoors. I always tell people that they should throw away their mobile phones and love to say that they are bugging devices with integrated telephony functions - in this order; and this is true even if we do not assume any evil backdoors - for those reasons I don't own one. But people don't care.

Or have you never considered why Intel pushed Wifi so much (Intel Centrino)? Doesn't Wifi (or "accidental" bugs in the chip firmware for it) look like a backdoor that can also be used over an air gap? If you need a further point on this: https://puri.sm/posts/hard-not-soft-kill-switches/ Why does the PCISIG M.2 NGFF standard require that a pin has to be pulled high do disable Wifi and Bluetooth? I always tell people that they should avoid Wifi and use ethernet instead. Also to no avail.
Exactly, but how many of those were good decisions?

Altera-- Not actually a bad decision, but it seems to have done nothing but bolstered Xilinx's position.

MobileEye-- A great way to burn ~$15 billion. The fact that Intel felt that it had to purchase that company with really no defensible advantage other than its maps highlights the huge challenges facing Intel if they're unable to cultivate an internal SDC team.

Movidius-- Legitimately I have no idea why they paid so much for a glorified DSP. But then again, so are most "Deep Learning Processors" right now.
Going back, rereading what OP said. It wholly depends on the nature of the contract. (Which we don't have here.)

Please don't attribute anything untoward to me. Reputation is EVERYTHING in this industry. I would NOT suggest someone do something fraudulent, ever.

When you hire $PLUMBING_COMPANY to come fix a leak at your house, you don't care WHO does the work. You want your problem FIXED. YESTERDAY.

So... is it fraud if they send someone who is less experienced than the owner if it's his name over the door, if your problem still gets resolved? No, not at all.

So not knowing OP's details of the contract with $CUSTOMER, you can't assume either way.
I wasn't within the region that would have totality. What I got mostly was this (partial was somewhere around 60-70 percent):

Me: Walks outside (currently not cloudy).
Brain: "Tut tut, looks like rai-WAIT WHY ARE THERE HARD SHADOWS?"

This happens to me whenever I wear sunglasses (my brain does not like them), but the weirdest feeling was not being able to feel glasses on my face because this time there weren't any!
> Organizations are afraid of individuals deciding things, and individuals are eager to push their decisions onto a "process" or "policy"

But! but we're in IT and the Agile Manifesto is the exact reaction to that! We have a living proof that "another way" is possible. Hire champions and trust them on the task, it makes them more enterprising and crafters and makes them deliver systematic higher quality. Remember how IBM's IT used to be: Pathetic chain of specification-driven documents that "decision-makers" couldn't possibly read.

Let's just say for the moment that the rest of the industries haven't found an "Agile metgodology" that befits them. Let's hope it's just a matter of time before government-sized organizations have an epiphany about how to apply Agile to death-risking processes.
When dev bootcamps are closing, codeninjas franchising
Actually that's not true. Now that we have Phantheck, all QuickCheck tests (which are a very pleasant superclass of unit tests) can just be lifted to the type level with TH magic. This makes them dramatically more useful. This is because you cannot traditionally write a function that requires that its arguments pass some test, but you can write a function that requires they have a certain type. But now you can require arbitrary QuickCheck-able properties via types.

Note that you can still capture any property you want via non-metaprogramming types (though you may require a trusted kernel to keep things performant) but that can be trickier to work with than a test for people who are much more accustomed to tests than types.

Also note that writing a function that should work, but won't typecheck can also reveal a flaw in the model (or in what you thought the model should be, or in what kind of operations you thought should work)
They're orthogonal? Coroutines as built here are just sugar around building the state machines you necessarily build by hand if you're using something like epoll. They can also be used to model state machines in general, so long as there's a well defined progression of states in one direction.

You would use these coroutines with tokio or mio, which are event driven frameworks that use epoll at their core on Linux.
That's because human checkpoints are intentionally wired into the workflow of a modern airliner. If those checkpoints were automated, the plane could indeed fly and land on its own. And I suspect the safety margins are not far from what is needed to automate the rest of the flight.

The space shuttle's only system that absolutely required human intervention was the landing gears, and that was to ensure that humans were always necessarily in the loop. That doesn't mean that the shuttle wasn't _MOSTLY_ automated.
"When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
>>remote monitoring and control

> There are opensource ways to do out of band management without it.

I'd be surprised if there is a cost-effective open source alternative to this requirement: Remotely access and control a computer under any circumstance where it has power and a physical network connection. Solutions like AMT work even if there is no functioning processor or memory, because ME provides its own processor and memory. The open source alternative would need the same hardware.

At best, it would mean the corporate IT department designing, buying, installing, integrating, and supporting additional hardware, for tens of thousands of computers. That's very hard to justify when the computers come with hardware already installed, integrated with everything else, and supported by the vendor.

If someone could put FOSS on ME (or competing proprietary solutions), I'd be all for it. I suspect it would be very difficult, as we can't even figure out how to disable ME.
They aren't really REPLs.

>Your argument is the equivalent of saying notepad isn't a text editor because you can't edit multiple lines at once or highlight syntax.

No it's the equivalent of saying that not even programme that can possibly, technically edit a text file is a text editor.

Python's shell thing is not a REPL.
Just write the blog post and enjoy your victory. Be as clear as possible and explain your process.

I had fun finding how to know quickly if a rectangle and a bezier curve intersect or not (back in 2005 I believe), it's a nice feeling to have.
Interesting.

The situation I described happened over a year ago, so I imagine they were using location data then.
Trying to wrap my head around this...as someone coming from .NET land, maybe someone can explain it in terms I understand? In F#, the default method of asynchronous programming is the async computation expression. That is, there is a type Async<'T> which represents a computation that can be executed to return a result of type 'T. The computation itself is "lazy" in the sense that it isn't hot at the time of creation, and can be executed multiple times to produce a result. This is in contrast to the C# way of doing things, in which a function has a return type of Task<'T> which is (under normal circumstances) kicked off at time of creation and can only be run a single time. Is this proposal advocating for the more F#-y way of doing things, or the more C#-y way of doing things?
They sell flow to KCG/Citadel/etc like most all (every?) retail broker.
Totally. In the audio you can hear in the junior guys voice that he has no respect for his superior officer but is also terrified of him. The officer doesn't have a feel for how his ship handles and doesn't seem to fully understand the COLREGS either.
Read the benchmarks. Then judge for yourself for your specific workload.
> This is where it bothers me. Startups start out by taking a share of the enterprise companies lunch by doing things that enterprise companies can't because of the structures they built.

It's a tradeoff. I don't think it's realistic to, outside of consulting or similar model stuff, build a company that can continue to run at peak efficiency even as the world changes. Internal small exploratory teams and a willingness to cannibalize yourself can help a lot here, but may hit a wall at some point (e.g.: what can Apple build next for future massive growth?).

It's something like: Startup starts small enough to exploit how the world has changed since the big companies built their processes, and start undercutting those companies. Then they have to grow their delivery capacity to build out the rest of the features to capture the rest of the market, but this means more devs, more management, more sales, etc. That makes those of us in the "but it's less efficient" camp uncomfortable, but it's also explicitly what we're being paid for: figure out a way to grow this opportunity to be something really big. At some point it's unlikely that it can be your baby anymore.

Then the world changes enough, and somebody else does the same thing to that startup. Satellite/cable TV is an example: from very innovative at the time, to the dinosaurs lumbering around today.

The biggest thing I've seen correlated to good management is caring (if not about the people under them, at least sufficiently about the product so that they will do what's necessary to empower the people under them to get things done right). Hard to identify in a day of interviewing, though.
> I worry that the us is going to have some kind of Pearl Harbor type event that our military is not going to be capable of defending against.

That's going to be when $4 billion aircraft carriers are sunk by $250,000 sea-skimmer anti-ship missiles launched by the dozens.
Don’t Volvo and Mercedes do obstacle avoidance? Or is that still in research? I think I remember seeing videos.
This is rather an argument against DMCA or an argument why researchers working in this area should consider leaving the USA.
I'm surprised we haven't seen the mIRC's of email yet (or maybe there have but that just didn't work?). mIRC was a popular client for IRC on Windows. It extended IRC with features such as color and formatting in your messages, which was beyond the protocol. A feature like that worked just fine because the color codes were mostly invisible to those who weren't using a client that supported them. In this way, mIRC and other clients could move the protocol forward via graceful degradation without having to wait for a new IRC specification update.

I can imagine the same thing being done to email, where modern features could be built on top of email, which just gracefully degrade if those features aren't available in the client (e.g. something similar to inline source maps, which can decorate parts of the email for clients that support it, but are otherwise out of view for clients that don't). If the feature is useful enough, other clients will adopt them, pushing the protocol forward.
The US and Soviets usually notified each other in advance of ballistic missile tests in order to prevent unpleasant misunderstandings.
Great new marketing phrase tho: MINIX Inside!
Help I'm all sweaty
I think you mean Athena :P

This seems to be basically similar to Spark, which lets you perform full SQL queries on Kafka streams.
Trump has said, his own words, that threats are sufficient to provoke retaliation, not merely an attack. Whether this is sincere is still an open question. But is insincerity useful? Because what Kim is successfully doing if there's no response is proving Trump's insincerity. And if an attack is provoked, he's proving Trump's bad judgment. Either way, it's bad for everyone.
My thoughts exactly. Seems super inefficient.
Why not take the Heroku model of sleeping dynos?

Spinning up a new process to handle each request is probably costly.
To some extent I agree, but there are fads and fashions.

I'd say the massive growth in popularity of, not just BASE, but other extreme sports, is down to publicity (in various forms) and accessibility. There's now so much content online that if, say, you've ever been skiing it's pretty hard to avoid seeing some BASE jumping footage, and then you get to thinking, "that looks pretty cool," and then some of those people decide to try it.

My take on BASE jumping is that it is kind of cool and exciting but not something you should take up if you have any kind of aspirations or ambitions in any other area of your life because the risk profile is simply too extreme.

You can ski your whole life and unless you're constantly doing hardcore back-country, probably, the worst thing that might happen to you is a broken leg. Even that's too much for some people.

Contrast that with BASE jumping, where if you do it for long enough it seems like the chances of dying for any other reason drop almost to zero.

But people see how cool it is and don't necessarily assess the risk.

And then there's the fact that to achieve any kind of success/celebrity, even enough to just about eke out a living, you have to keep pushing to ever more extreme feats. Filming that is part and parcel of ekeing out that living. And of course, as a side-effect, it increases interest in the sport and gets more people into it.
At this point I'd settle for them all just supporting the exact same elements and properties in the exact same ways.

The type of element is less important than there being consistency and documentation.
North Korea fires missile over Japan
I believe the idea is that the entire curriculum is then centered around teaching the test, versus what kids actually need. As to whether that's the primary issue, no idea.
Pop Culture Pulsar: Origin Story of Joy Division’s Unknown Pleasures Album Cover
Either

a) the token is redeemable, and in that case why buy securities you don't intended to use (speculation is the only reason)
b) or the company folds before delivering and the token is worthless, so by selling it you are just pushing the loss to a greater fool

Either way, this is objectively worse than Kickstarter.
High priorities being family, house repairs, house maintenance, and work. Nothing extraordinary, and I guess one could argue house upkeep is chosen.

I also have some personal programming projects I've been working on where I decided to value getting them out quickly vs learning a new language, and those are, all together, half done.

I've also been debating learning modern C++ to open potentially open some doors to a slightly different career than web programming (railway signalling, probably a pipedream at this point, but).

So, all in all, I love what rust represents, but it doesn't bring value right now. Once those personal projects wrap up my goal is to have a round of rust and C++ ones to do.
Whether or not it "works" it has the overwhelming benefit of being an incremental approach. Incremental (evolutionary) change tends to work while revolutionary is more tricky. e.g. video phones were demonstrated in the 1960s but are still not really widely used. Also no need for Star Trek - level AI, which is a significant advantage.
That's already happened. Virtually. See the millennium challenge.

So what it happens there'll be very clear documentation that they were aware of the vulnerabilities, but ignored them.
The FAA, NTSB, and airlines have made air travel incredibly safe over the years by operating the way you described.
One of the things I realised I loved about _My Neighbour Totoro_ is exactly this; it cuts against the normal kids' movie fare by providing a fairly simple slice of life (albeit with the supernatural). It really stands out compared to the structure of most kids' movies.
Worked on my first HTML email template, was a real blast to the past... Tables for layout and inline CSS on every leaf node is recommended...
For you maybe. Redundancy in my case comes at a price: kids are about $300k+ a pop nowadays between ages 0 and 18, assuming upper middle class lifestyle. More if you pay for college. That being the case, I'd be willing to pay double the price for a car that verifiably makes it darn near impossible for the driver to kill himself.
I've spent a lot of time working with EEG and pulling my hair out over garbage SNR, finnicky setups, and artifacts galore.

I don't understand why so many folks try to go the route of using EEG as mouse/keyboard/generic HID for the masses, when (ignoring para/quadraplegics) most humans have no problem with computer input. There are tons of applications where the EEG can be used for what it's (sorta) good at: attentional and mood states, which, in the time of distraction firehose, seems like it would have a use case. But no, we have to make yet another pick-up-a-virtual-object interface.

(not to imply X-aplegics are not worthy of tech. it's just that as mentioned above, eye tracking is WAY more robust)
Are you talking about Iran or Mossad?
In California. It still exists in Florida.
You don't understand how it works. Every time the US homeland has been attacked the government has responded with overwhelming violence. The same principle applies regardless of who happens to be president at the time. Regardless of the consequences we can't appear weak.
Ah.

It might be. Didn't think about it that way.
That name is already taken by the San Carlos airport near Oracle: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Carlos_Airport_(Californ...
Apple Mail is no peach either.

In a dream world Microsoft & Apple could partner together on this and create a better set of standards...
e-mail seems to be dying fast. I have several friends (all under 30) who are only reachable via facebook or SMS; e-mail is an afterthought.