skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Concrete, non-ambiguous terms:

Anything your Storyteller says will generate Paradox does, anything that person says will not generate Paradox does not.
Rapid acceleration isn't all that important. In daily driving nobody floors it as if they're in a drag race simply because there is other traffic to contend with and guys in cars with flashing lights that will make your life miserable if they see you doing the same to others.

Most acceleration in traffic is quite gentle, better for occupants (kids, grandma, spouse) and it makes your car more predictable to other drivers.
You know how there's the runners high? Well free form dancing, ecstatic dance, dance church, festival dancing, you get really high. It's like meditation, insights come unbidden, you get unbounded outlook. It's a great way to sort yourself out, feel really great about being alive, and rediscover your inner spirituality. Honestly, for $10-$15/dance you'll get really high, if you let yourself go and get into the flow state. Try going to the morning ones, don't eat & drink only water, do some stretching at the beginning. Yes the whole thing seems super silly from the outside, a bunch of hippie folks gyrating to music, but man oh man it's profound if you get into the vibe(and if the vibes are high quality, like so called dance churches can be, and you know cause everyone else there are fellow psychonauts riding the bodies internal DMT highway). The great thing about the brain getting high w/o drugs? It's probably fabulously healthy for it. Think about it, super powerful brain drugs come out in a show of force and give you uplifted profound feelings. That sure seems like just the ticket to health, comparable to taking the mental garbage out.
But there is a vast difference between getting something under control and getting rid of it.
>Can you really prove that feeling? because that's far from my experience and far from logical too..

Cyclomatic complexity went up many times. Going over a simple for loop in under 100 kilocycles for client side page generation was considered ok back 10 years ago. Even then, browsers had no problem with that.

Compare that with 20 plus layers of deep merges, with closure tricks, with prototype swapping on the fly in a transpiled observer pattern style input event handler - things like that you have in relatively simple SPAs today
Sure, we talk about plastic in the oceans and CO2 and electricity usage at a general level. But I think the commenter you are replying to is basically right that there isn't a sustained cultural conversation targeting the wastefulness of very particular forms of applied electricity usage.

And I don't think a one-off article changes that since you can find one-off articles about practically anything. It seems weirdly specific to talk about bitcoin's energy cost this way when we don't single out, say, Clash of Clans or facebook posts about the Ice Bucket challenge and lament their specific energy costs. And I think the reason for the difference has to do with the idiosyncratic culture surrounding bitcoin rather than bitcoin being a unique harm in terms of electricity usage.
Check your premises-- your transaction cost is inaccurate.
Boxing with Bad Eyesight
Note: Ethereum adds another 30% and is rapidly rising.[1]

[1] https://digiconomist.net/ethereum-energy-consumption
That shows the primary failings of putting all trust in an efficient market. The "makes sense" breaking point in an efficient market is when it stops making financial sense for the miners. It relies on rational miners who don't don't succumb to the sunk cost fallacy after investing large sums upfront in mining rigs. While it also ignores the negative externalities involved in increasing global electricity usage like climate change.
Warnings over shock dementia revelations from ancestry DNA tests
The fairer comparison would be Bitcoin vs Visa the corporation, which includes buildings, people, air-con, employee traveling for work, to begin with.

Still, let's hope Bitcoin moves away from wasting energy soon.
Thanks, great stuff, like the story of the email that couldn't be sent farther than 500 miles.
That's to make it. What about trucking it around, accounting for it, securing it, etc.?
Dylan was a slimmed-down Common Lisp. I thought it was a pretty good idea at the time but when they dumbed down the syntax (removed the parentheses) I lost interest. It's ironic that full-blown Common Lisp could easily run on iphones today but Apple won't let it.
In Douglas Adams's books the president of the universe is completely powerless because anyone who wants to be president should absolutely not be given any real authority.

The real ruler is a man living in a shack in the middle of nowhere who only cares about his cat and an occasional glass of whiskey.
I upvoted your original comment above even though I don't agree because you're commenting in good faith in my opinion.

Society as a whole has not assumed a concrete definition for consciousness, as there are a lot of people who don't give it a second thought. Among those who do recognize consciousness as such, the word "consciousness" is as close as you can get to being able to indicate the phenomenon. So I can't agree that it's not a helpful concept.

But in fact, the "thing" that is the referent of that term is not a concept at all. It is the pre-conceptual basis or arena for concepts that arise in it. The TV set is not a TV show.

Humans obviously vary in how conscious they are, both from one to another as well as individually over time so it cannot be properly defined circularly as you say above.

All "structures and mechanisms of information flow" are contents of consciousness not components. Awareness has no qualities, no form, no sides nor parts, it does not experience time: it is always "now", and it is always "here". What you are seeing "in varying degrees in nature, in computers, and of course in people" is mind I think. Cf. Gregory Bateson, "Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity" and "Steps to an Ecology of Mind"

Lastly, "Godel Escher Bach" is an excellent book and was instrumental in my own process of coming to grips with consciousness. To wit: I think the closest we can come to modelling or describing consciousness mathematically is as a strange loop involving the entire Universe though-out all time.
This is much more basic than academic level, for which you could maybe start with the original Satoshi Nakamoto Bitcoin white paper? - but this video is a fantastic introduction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_160oMzblY8
A Most American Terrorist: The Making of Dylann Roof
I repeat, you got it very wrong.

Transaction number is not correlated with mining energy expenditure.

Mining is used to secure the ledger in a way that the same amount of energy is needed to alter it.

The block hash begins with a number of zeros.

Try for yourself how many tries it takes to find a string that hashes to a hash beginning with 3 zeros.

Bitcoin block hashes begin with 13 or 14 zeros IIRC. This means that you need to try trillions of combinations again if you want to alter a block. And then you must keep finding other hashes with enough zeros fast enough to outcompete the whole network.

But the cost of hashing is the same, with 1, 10 or 1000 transactions in a block. And the block time is on average fixed at 10 minutes.

You don't hash transactions directly, you hash a block header that keeps only the merkle root hash of the transactions. The merkle root is fixed size.
>They are not only a bit of alienated by having to work with frameworks, but they're expected to be as productive with these frameworks as they were hacking together jquery scripts and snippets, but are still the 1-man or 2-man developers within a wider business.

So so so true... but I can give a correction to the size of the team. I personally witnessed 10 to 45 man teams doing things as simple as a web app with a sole function being "login, enter account number to send money to, enter amount of money to send, and press the button"

While 45 is a bit of exaggeration on my side, as it counts team's own accountants, HRs, and 20 something PMs, "change manager" types, and other obscure managers of managers
So, did anyone look at the time slip?

Slip #1: The Tesla showed 11.468 and the Lamborghini showed 11.307 on race one;

Slip #2: Tesla hit 11.418 while the Lamborghini shows 11.281.

A the bottom, the "Left 1st .2764" indicates the Lamborghini driver had over a quarter second slower response time.

Basically the Tesla beat the Lamborghini because the driver was slower. The second time slip shows the Lamborghini only 0.05 seconds slower response time and beating the Tesla in elapsed time.

I don't see how this is a win or am I missing something?
While it's a lot of power being used, it's pretty much all automated, versus any other currency that takes a lot of manual labor. Bitcoints biggest flaw in my mind is that there is no trust built in. After each transaction it should be possible to give a rating, so that each wallet/account has a reputation, it could work like "Pagerank". Trust is essential to Bitcoin and Bitcoin markets usually has either public trust, or rating and escrow added on.
Well, I think that compared to other fields, it's quite hard to get on board - there is so much tooling that it's really hard to catch up. There is node, npm/yarn, webpack, gulp, scss/sass. If you're back-end dev coding in ruby, you just pick rails and you're done if you're python webdeveloper, you pick django, and so on.
With front-end? After hours of fighting with Babel and Webpack, you can pick Angular, React or Vue. And it's hard to know witch one to choose if you're some beginner who just want to code efficiently.
I don't agree with the comparison to "making" coins or cash.

Coins and cash actually get consumed as they degrade and/or get lost or destroyed. You need to replenish the supply.

But you can circulate bitcoin forever.

You need to compare transactions.

How do I send you cash? You can give me an address to meet you at. We both drive our cars or take public transit there and consume some amount of energy and time to meet up. Then I give you cash.

Or you could just tell me a bitcoin address to send to.
EU GDPR: "Valid consent must be explicit for data collected and the purposes data is used for."
Also reddit.com/r/SelfHosted and reddit.com/r/HomeLab
That's incorrect. All that matters is you can't game the system by taking shortcuts or deciding what the problem will be beforehand; the work cannot be even partially computable without knowing the previous block.
Congress passes bill allowing warrantless searches
Or, you might as well start paying for the apps you use (like more than $1) :)

The vast majority of FREE 3rd party apps have tracking SDK, that is an important distinction.
I mean really, what did you expect, the developers of those apps giving them for free in exchange for nothing?
(the fact that they hide this is another discussion)
Yesterday, I uninstalled AccuWeather. This morning, I happily connected a game to Facebook to play with friends. Then I read this article. I'm such a hypocrite.
Think about the energy expended to take that gold out of earth. And to make the chemicals for extractions....
Raise the price. $5/mo minimum.
@libertymcateer - the scope is still broader than what you're focusing on: first of all, it's not just software patents (I know you mention this, but it's worth emphasising) and secondly it could be a company you have a share in sueing a company Facebook has a share in, about ANY patent infringement. That act alone is enough to revoke your company's licence to use React.
This is all a bunch of sentimental bullshit. I don't know why people pursue this doomed line of reasoning. The problem is that you can't distinguish free will from not free will in any meaningful way.

A much more fruitful challenge to the aliveness of computers is to ask a singulatarian to show us any deep neural net that can fold proteins in constant time like physical reality can instead of exponential time like a computer algorithm can. Then I will believe that computers are alive and mind uploading is possible.
The mention of the Waffle House Index reminds me of the Big Mac Index used to compare currencies. The idea is that a Big Mac, being something of commodity made from common ingredients, should cost the same everywhere in the world. If it is significantly more expensive or cheaper in another currency, than that currency must be over or under valued.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_Index
At least until/if Ligtning networks is proved to work.
We considered many things, but in the end, nothing is perfect.
No: it leaves no goat unblown. Particularly for people new to it.

Back in the day anyone could hack together a bit of JS for their website and get something up and running, even if it was a bit Heath Robinson. You actually still can do this but you wouldn't necessarily come away with that impression from reading about front-end development. Cynically, it sometimes feels like front-end developers are overcompensating for years of JS derision from "real" programmers with the plethora of tools and technologies you "need" to know.

If people want to use this, well, they're welcome. I can even see some benefit to a very lightweight UI/framework, especially if you don't have to worry about any version of Internet Explorer below 11, because the browser APIs these days are pretty comprehensive, and tend to behave reasonably consistently. Likewise CSS. [1]

Still, I can't get in any way excited about yet another library/framework. Go ahead and use it if you like but don't be trying to evangelise me about it.

([1] As an aside: I will say that IE11 is still something of a problem child in terms of not supporting some things I use, or not supporting them well - flexbox is an obvious example. Conversely, "scumbag" Chrome can be a problem child simply because it lets you get away with doing things that you shouldn't be allowed to do at all. E.g., `element.style = 'display: none'` instead of `element.style.display = 'none'`, meaning that when you come to test your code in other browsers... it breaks.)
That’s because of endorphine release at a certain point when engaging in activities like dancing or running.

Endorphins (endo-, produced by the body, -phine, morphine) have identical effects to these of morphine — they just don’t eventually cause withdrawal effects.

We have a nice list about the subjective effects here: https://psychonautwiki.org/wiki/Morphine#Subjective_effects :)
Yeah, I hadn't really considered how simple economics essentially forces this to grow to exactly the point where the externalities are unsupportable based on the benefit provided.
Matlab R2016b Crack and Activation Key Full Version Free
1.x has ultra solid support from business software industry. It will for long remain "the COBOL of the web"
Don't count on them ever working - it may be mathematically impossible and at the very least it's a much bigger technical challenge than PoW.
Accurate figures exist. In 2016 world gold production was 3,100 metric tons, worth US$128 billion. Above ground gold stock is something over 180,000 metric tons.

New mining increases gold stock 1-2% per year, but very dependent on market conditions.

Gold has double the volatility of equities with less total return than U.S. treasuries. It doesn't really belong in most people's portfolios.
Check out Tendermint and the Cosmos Network.
I wouldn't describe modern front-end web dev that way at all.

Here's how I describe it: https://medium.com/front-end-hacking/how-it-feels-to-learn-j...
Whenever I read stories like this, I get really depressed because they remind me of how many species humans have caused to go extinct, how many more they have driven to the brink of extinction, and about the dire predictions of the collapse of biodiversity.

Even setting aside the arguably much greater ethical and moral issues with such extinctions, think of all the species that could have yielded remarkable and useful secrets to us after proper research -- if they still existed. Sometimes I wonder if by such wanton destruction is sealing its own doom.

Perhaps a cure to a some future cataclysmic disease outbreak might have lain in a formerly living organism that can no longer help us because we killed it off. Or maybe some revolutionary new material could have been inspired by an extinct species, had we only been able to study it.
Sure but I mean - What was the secret sauce that drove us to have PARC and Bell? What motivations were there then that have gone away now? Can we get them back?
BECI is flawed, I wrote a critic of it some months ago: http://blog.zorinaq.com/serious-faults-in-beci

This motivated me to research and publish a more precise energy comsumption estimate, and I have been published in Bitcoin Magazine: http://blog.zorinaq.com/bitcoin-electricity-consumption https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/op-ed-bitcoin-miners-co...

I always like to remind people that Bitcoin miners consume about the same amount of energy as Christmas decorative lights in the US. Kinda puts things in perspective...
I found this tutorial a little more approachable: http://rise4fun.com/Fast/tutorial/guide

Fast! is a Microsoft Research language for tree transforms, the cool part is the "deforestation" where a sequence of functions can be transformed in to a single function.

What makes this cool is it isn't "runtime" composition; the generated C# code does the transformation in a single pass. For example a sequence of maps and filters would only loop over the list once.
Rebuilding the entire toolchain of your language sounds like a colossal waste of time when you just wanted to avoid a few hours per year of developer downtime.
Another example: we ask whether animals are 'conscious' or not, or we declare ex cathedra that certain animals are conscious, all the while without being able to explain what consciousness is, or what qualia are, or how these work.

If we could then we'd know if the question made sense.

I like David Deutsch's criterion for assessing claims about these issues: if you can't program it, you haven't understood it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J21QuHrIqXg
Bitcoin can't move away from wasting energy - the entire design is based on that aspect.
A transaction here is a block. A block averages 2000 or so transfers, so that $20 becomes $0.01 for any individual transfer in the block.

Electricity price in the US is also irrelevant. As the article shows just over 0% of blocks are mined in the US, or a rounding error. Bitcoin mining chases cheap electricity.
Check TLS and letsencrypt expiry per IP address – no sign-up needed (42s video)
Hash costs are a large fraction of overall costs, but not 100%. Network bandwidth is not free. The more transactions the more beefy the full nodes must be, worse every node pays the full costs or lose out on some transaction fees.

But, it gets worse simply maintaining value takes hashing power to avoid a bad actor double spending and destroying faith in the system. Thus, even as a value store you need to pay for large scale hashing.
"You know those guitars that are like, double guitars?"

[APPROVED]
Breaking up the Container Monolith
Never heard of this behavior before but you appear to be right - https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1666807/email-validation.... TIL
You have a very distorted view of how it works.

The number of transactions is entirely unrelated to the number of people mining. There could be an increase in transactions while the number of miners falls, or vice a versa. This is why the hash difficulty adjusts, to ensure that the new block rate (and therefore the transaction rate) stays the the same regardless of the number of miners.

If the number of miners dropped, energy use would drop, but transaction throughput would remain exactly the same.

Also, transaction size (in value) is entirely unrelated to transaction size (in kilobytes) which is what effects the number of transactions that can happen. Most transactions that just transfer some bitcoin from one assess to another are exactly the same number of kilobytes
irrespective of how many bitcoin are being transferred.
The purpose of PoW is to reduce the number of forks and also making double spending attacks very expensive. Why can't the computing power of the entire network be used to just verify the integrity of all transactions and skip the nonce finding part? This would immensely increase network throughput. The reason is because Bitcoin's PoW implementation can't provide the same level of consensus and security with a higher number of transactions. Newer PoS systems might.
> The desire and the ability to explain things, and not thinking per se, is (I guess) what distinguishes humans from animals.

But how do you know that animals have no desire or ability to explain things to each other, at least amongst their own species? We may not be able to read it, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, we already know that a parent can 'teach' its offspring that something is dangerous, for example among elephants this is even fairly easily observable.
yeganesh (http://dmwit.com/yeganesh/) is a tool that works with dmenu to produce the "most used" functionality. It works really well for what I need.
There's Gridcoin, which, if I understand correctly, is essentially the "coinification" of BOINC:

http://www.gridcoin.us/

It would be great if it ever became profitable to mine this.
Also the courts that enforce the contracts visa makes, the FBI that chases people who commit fraud, the police and jails who enforce the decisions of the court, etc etc.

Blockchains can operate without all of those.
'Fully Diverse Paths' is something we take great pains to verify with our WAN provider, for exactly that reason.

Because it is said that if you are heading into the woods and worried you might get lost, take a length of fiber with you. If you get lost, simply bury the fiber in the ground. In five minutes a man in hi-viz with a backhoe will come along and dig it up.
Yes, we're going to lock ourselves in that building any day now, just as soon as the Operating System people come out.
Mysterious Amazon Animal Seen Alive for First Time in 80 Years
Maybe you'll have better luck with ReasonML syntax?
But there is no known function that has these properties and is useful in real world.
Then you might as well stop using your smartphone and all 3rd party apps on it.

...Is probably the right answer.

Unfortunately, if you want a phone that actually works these days, you're basically stuck with iOS or Android devices, and all the junk that implies.

If I could buy a modern dumbphone that just works as a phone, with decent components so it has good reception and reliability, and ignore the whole smartphone fiasco altogether, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
"Uncharted territory" as in "like every other time a convicted person has been pardoned"

The pardon of Arpaio (which can, by definition, only be for one conviction per pardon) is not dissimilar to any other executive pardon issued in the last ~230 years: there are good aspects, bad aspects, and neutral aspects.
DM;SV

Didn't matter; Still vested.
2nd. There's also Lava (and variations). Lava predates both CLaSH and Chisel.
Probably a better example from the opposite end of the spectrum would be the design changes between the F/A-18C/D and the F/A-18E/F. The initial plans were to stretch the C/D model to add fuel and improve the abysmal range, but this increased weight which required larger wings which required all sorts of major design changes. In the end, the E/F ended up with only 40% parts commonality, and was now a medium weigh fighter like the F-15, rather than the cheap light fighter like the F-16 it began life as. Engineers I know who worked on the E/F design have told me it would arguably have been cheaper to design a new plane from scratch, but the Navy was so afraid of another failed project that they were only able to sell it to the Navy as an "upgrade" of a plane design they already had. Dubious in an engineering sense, but absolute genius in marketing.
Some animal form of ML? Like… learning?