skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm pretty busy so I can only do a cursory search. I cannot find the source I originally read this on, however I will try to find it when I am at home.

Here's what I could find via a preliminary Google search on my phone:

From drugabuse.gov [0]:

> In the aforementioned study, abstinence from methamphetamine resulted in less excess microglial activation over time, and abusers who had remained methamphetamine-free for 2 years exhibited microglial activation levels similar to the study’s control subjects. Another neuroimaging study showed neuronal recovery in some brain regions following prolonged abstinence (14 but not 6 months). This recovery was associated with improved performance on motor and verbal memory tests. But function in other brain regions did not recover even after 14 months of abstinence, indicating that some methamphetamine induced changes are very long lasting.

Here's a graphic they included [1].

This is another source [2]:

> Stopping drug use doesn’t immediately return the brain to normal. Some drugs have toxic effects that can kill neurons—and most of these cells will not be replaced. And while changes to connections between neurons in the brain may not be permanent, some last for months. Some research suggests the changes may even last for years.

I cannot find the studies these articles cite, but I'll try to find them later.

This is related, but is not specific to stimulant or methamphetamine use:

Delta-FosB, an enzyme that is critical to achieve an addiction state in the brain, has a half-life of ~208hr [3]. Multiply that by the standard 7 half-lives to estimate significant elimination, and that alone yields a maximum of 60 days until it is cleared. This enzyme is key in drug and behavioural addictions.

This paper [4] speculates about changes in the brain that last longer than the time it takes to eliminate elevated Delta-FosB levels in the brain.

[0] https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/meth...

[1] https://d14rmgtrwzf5a.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/met...

[2] http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/addiction/brainchange...

[3] http://www.jneurosci.org/content/jneuro/17/13/4933.full.pdf

[4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC58680/#__sec5ti...
One of my favourite reviewers. He can be a bit hokey at times, but he truly understands and appreciates cars.
> Name pricing plans to sell them to the right users

And make sure the names make sense to them, not you. One thing I hated about buying from Dell was I had to decide if I was a small business, medium business, consumer, etc. Who do I know? And does my choice give me a worse price?
It isn't obvious that is a case. Some companies make bad short-term decisions. But many take a longer-term view. Who would hire the construction company again that made the bad bridge? Or consider food and drug regulation. Countries with more lax requirements for proof of drug efficacy and large-scale trails don't have worse health outcomes. In fact, the countries with stricter policy regimes are often slower to have receive life-saving drugs. Does the suppression of a drug with adverse effects that only shows up in a wider population or after more prolonged exposure have a stronger benefit than that the suppression of drugs without such downsides? Often countries optimize in the wrong direction here. Many licensing laws fall in this category too. Do barbers and hair stylists need a license? Probably not to ensure safety and we have plenty of comparable jurisdictions with and without such rules to prove it. People don't just start doing bad things in the absence of rules.
Solid upvote and the map analogy is great. I think this is a very important point. We often think of a 'program' as a flat blog of text, but we really should have tools to explore various projections of both static and dynamic constructs that form the program. We should be able to view the high level system view of the running program, and query various interconnections.
Does anyone have any science to hack this up?
disagree. having buttons and knobs just because it's the norm and auto manufacturers don't want to risk changing annoys the crap out of me.

remove every single tactile element. have convenient touch interface. have usable voice control. that's the future. that's also an exaggeration, but i'd like the pendulum to swing there and see where it stabilizes.

Edit: what is it with people not reading the message before commenting on it? that's also an exaggeration, but i'd like the pendulum to swing there and see where it stabilizes. that's also an exaggeration, but i'd like the pendulum to swing there and see where it stabilizes. that's also an exaggeration, but i'd like the pendulum to swing there and see where it stabilizes. that's also an exaggeration, but i'd like the pendulum to swing there and see where it stabilizes. that's also an exaggeration, but i'd like the pendulum to swing there and see where it stabilizes.
>So? Some could argue it's a very productive approach.

Some could. And others look at it and think "Python" or "JS" speed app. Oh. And harder to refactor/detect errors.
Japan has nothing to worry about. The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security Between the United States and Japan, signed after WWII, basically means that Japan AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA are responsible to ensure the national security of Japan (It's actually mutual with the understanding that the Japanese constitution forbids deploying armed forces abroad). In other words, if china is actually aggressive towards Japan in any way, the full force of the United States armed forces will stand with them. As one of China's main trading partners, China doesn't want to pick a fight with the united states any more than we want to pick a fight with China. Similarly, South Korea has little to fear from China (even if they're propping up North Korea to do it), since the US has a similar relationship there. Nepal and Taiwan are screwed. India... its hard to imagine things going worse for India to be honest. Lets focus on getting most of their people clean, proper toilets before we start worrying about the influence of communist dictatorships, eh?
Rather because the CPU is soldered.
Arg. Had a moderately long, not quite Randall Munroe worthy explanation written up but it got lost by accident. Sorry. :(

In a nutshell, that'll never happen. You'd have to be the unluckiest astronaut to ever live. These particles reach Earth at a rate less than 1 per century per square kilometer. So you'd have to hang out in space for like a hundred million years...

The original particle never reaches the ground. It gets annihilated in a collision some tens of kilometers up in the atmosphere.

If you were hit, I'm not sure the cascade would do significant damage before it exited your body on the other side.
VIA are still going? I have horrible memories of dealing with their kit 20 years ago when I did digital signage, as well as Geode chips which were even worse...
This is exactly what I was coming to HN to query about. Without some agreement with the US federal government, I don't believe they would have any mechanism of enforcement that would affect your business in the U.S. I imagine they could do something like block your site from EU ip addresses but nothing like coming after you or your company for damages.
Sounds like you want freight shipping? E. g. these kinds of services: http://www.fedex.com/us/freight/portal/?

(Not endorsing Fedex, just an example. Lots of other companies do this too.)

You could also consider hiring a moving company.
ESRB to add 'In-Game Purchase' label to games featuring loot boxes
When you have a great king, it's among the best forms of government. The problem is that that great king's successor is probably not also great, and under a bad ruler, it's among the worst forms of government, and that bad king can last for your entire lifetime.

It's never spectacularly efficient, but the US' form of democracy is meant to be much lower variance. I think it's a good tradeoff.
I noticed myself "making a panorama" the other day by just waving my camera around and taking a series of pictures and just assuming Google photos would choose to stitch them together (and it dutifully did without needing to be told). It's nice not having to explicitly choose what you want done up front and be able to trust it to recognize the most logical processing to do like that.

I'm sure it will also gain more ability to cull - I mean it already picks out things that looks like documents (e.g. from using the camera instead of a scanner), and offers to archive them for you. I'm sure they'll add more categorization as they gain sufficient confidence.
Indeed if anyone ever earned the right to make a new language - they did. They were the first to make js really fast and they pulled every trick in the book (from their extensive VM writing experience). But they were ultimately blocked by things like the ability of js objects to change shape. I sympathise with their frustration and from an engineering point of view they did the right thing. They solved the root cause of the problem which was the language.
Embedded is subjective and in the eye of the beholder.

Mini-ITX are basically full desktop boards. They usually have a PCIe x16 and two DIMM slots. My current desktop/workstation is one of these (from 2013) (with a socketed Xeon CPU).
What should the rest of the world do?
Making it official should get rid of it ;).
Someday, when the computer glitches or is slow to boot up, and you'd really like the AC to turn on, please update your comment above.
Good job. Js is cancer. As a Swift developer I would never use it, but Dart actually looks nice.

Have fast is Dart 2? I heard here that it enforces static typing, I assume for performance reasons.
That's how it should be. Sadly the EU is taking a very different approach of trying to set laws for the whole world based on very unclear (and definitely unprecedented) requirements. It's true that they will have no jurisdiction over the pizza guy - just until he comes to the EU or to an allied country. Another comment talks about how it's very likely that GDPR will be a requirement of trade deals.
I was thinking this also, seems like the perfect thing.
This is when you fight the IRS in bankruptcy court -- it's your only shot.
Perhaps because it's just another boring Java-clone language controlled by a large corporation, with no redeeming features?
It’s on Tesla’s roadmap. They already manage EV aggregate charging in parts of Scandinavia.
It's immediately visible AMD have no serious plans in the 65-100W package TDP territory if it gave the Vega to Intel instead of launching such a chip itself.

Who wants to guess this monster hybrid will only be available in Hades Canyon and some Apple machine and nowhere else?
> "Data centers are ridiculously efficient. The latest generation of data centers from the big cloud providers have PUE in 1.07 territory, which would've seemed like pie-in-the-sky ludicrousness even 10 years ago. Every CPU cycle that's done in a data center instead of on someone's client machine or on-prem server is a decrease in power consumption."

Those PUE statistics are self reported and aren't very accurate. I've seen them done and they are more marketing/PR fluff than actual conditions of energy conversion efficiency. Nobody in the actual field treats them as being accurate.
I wonder if it'd be easy to steal one of these cars? Drop a black-cloth Faraday-cage net over the top of the car as it is driving by... It'll lose sight and radio communication, so will naturally stop and be at your mercy! I'm not a car thief, so I'm not sure what I'd do after, but it was just a thought...
> Needless to say, I don't have an account there.

You'd be surprised.
Sometimes these are related to acid reflux. In my case I eliminated them by switching to a diet (earlier, medicine) to treat acid reflux. Quite a relief.
Why your programmers fantasize about a big rewrite
Typically you want to keep nuclear plants running at full power all the time, as most of the costs are fixed or sunk, independent of the electricity output. Most countries use nuclear power just to generate a small fraction of their electricity, so can do this without issue.

However over 90% of France’s generating capacity is from nuclear power, so during low demand times there is a lot of excess. They do actually shutdown some reactors during weekends, but it’s better if they can sell the electricity cheaply to their neighbours, who can then avoid running some of their gas or coal plants - so it’s a
win-win for everyone.
It was directly inline at the top of my feed
> A few years ago, after someone somewhere claimed, like you, that Usenet is still healthy, I had a look back at the group to see what it was like: still dominated by those same crackpots.

Usenet's not really a single entity. I used it fairly heavily from about 1997-2005; most of the groups I read then are now either tumbleweed or overrun by spam. But a couple of them are still running along happily (if a little smaller than they were). So I think 'still healthy' is pretty contextually dependent.
Aye. There's a nicely formatted (non official, hosted by a consulting company) at:

https://gdpr-info.eu/

I also suggest reading a report that's helped inform the text of the GDPR:

"Privacy and Data Protection by Design":

https://www.enisa.europa.eu/publications/privacy-and-data-pr...
Is anyone else not enthused about the single screen for all instrumentation? I was talking to friends about it this weekend, and as someone that works in technology I have quite a bit of distrust in the idea of one screen for all your essential driving information, including fuel capacity, speed, warning indicators, etc sharing space with the entertainment and navigation system when operating something as fundamentally dangerous as an automobile (even if we often forget how dangerous it is).

* I don't want to be at the whim of some designer's ideas as to whether when I switch navigation screens my fuel gauge and current speed should shrink or move to a separate area for better design flow. I want them at the same location no matter what.

* I don't want the added complexity of the entire entertainment and navigation system working against the stability of the system. I don't want poor quality of some random widget crashing my only information display.

* After the Jeep hacking a few years ago where there wasn't enough separation between the internet connected devices and features essential to operation of the vehicle, many commenters here were saying anything without an air-gap between the internet and CAN-bus is a security problem.[1] That may or may not be extreme, but putting everything together like this means I really want to know what steps they've taken to segregate and secure high-importance data channels in the car. I really hope the answer isn't "we have software that is responsible for firewalling access." When it comes to something like this, I really want some physical and/or hardware level separation.

1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9921557
> The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security Between the United States and Japan, signed after WWII, basically means that Japan AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA are responsible to ensure the national security of Japan

China has long-range nukes. Behind every treat is political resolve. Would America risk lighting its cities on fire to defend a country across the ocean? (I hope so. But I'm not sure.)
I think you have raised false equivalencies here
I'm now imagining trying to drive a car with a touch screen steering wheel and touch screen pedals.
Gerbil v0.12 is out
Really? Because stable singular hierarchies is exactly how we evolved to have civilization.
We did the same thing for some device driver code and also use a tool called "Boundschecker", back in the 90s. I just checked and it still exists!
> The problem is you are required to prove that you follow the rules

Yes, because the "just don't do creepy shit" approach to privacy didn't go so well. If the carrot doesn't work, the stick comes out.
Thanks for the suggestion, I will factor those in.
What data have you found regarding superiority of the Tesla Model 3 battery pack vs the Bolt.

From my research, the Leaf is far behind, but the Bolt and Model 3 seem very similar almost to the point where I'd guess driving style and heater usage would make up the difference.
Responsive Components: a modern approach to CSS element/container queries
I still hate giving up my screen to onscreen keyboard and would love a clamshell keyboard for my android phone...

They also said SD card are going away, that hasnt worked out so well. Neither has the headphone jack for audiophiles.
Don't know why you're downvoted, you're 100% correct. It's really easy to call for a revolution when it's not your country thrown in to turmoil.
Looks pretty cool.

Simple question I have is, are you hitting wikipedia api live? or you have dump of the wikipedia and running through it?

If running through dump do you update it regularly or how?

Thanks in advance.
Uh, really? So then you either have no plans to try to make Fuchsia OS a major commercial success? Or, do you plan to offer multiple first-class-citizen ways to write native apps on Fuschia, not just Flutter/Dart? Because if the idea is to make Fuschia the next Android and Flutter the official native app platform, then sorry but your comment is a little wilfully naive.
Snapshot of Current Trends in Visualization
Isn't a public key a potentially identifiable piece of info that becomes personal information if anyone (like an exchange) stores it in conjunction with other personal information? I don't see how it is any different than an IP address.
Couldn't disagree more, but I guess there will be that division between people. Cars are not the phones and at least until I'm driving my car myself, I will always prefer buttons or other tactile UI instead of touchscreen.
And voice control, well if you are non English speaker, good luck with that :)
Software development needs some sort of Iron Ring (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Ring) to remind us to be humble.
The modern challenges for doctorsand parents?
Knobs are safer, a flat screen by definition requires your eyes to be on it to use since there is no tactile component. And if your eyes aren't on the road...
The answer is very much "practicality issue". Haskell's more advanced type level features (including GADTs and type families) are very much suited for this, but they're also the sort of thing that gives Haskell a reputation for being complicated. If your just using Haskell's core features the way the parent post does, Haskell is a very simple, very elegant language.

But better yet, it certainly does have the big guns which you can pull out.

-- Just like before, we define `Class` and `Weapon`:
data Class = Warrior | Wizard
data Weapon = Sword | Staff | Dagger

-- The one really annoying thing is that
-- at the moment you have to use a little bit
-- of annoying boilerplate to define singletons
-- (not related to the OOP concept of singletons, by
-- the way), or use the `singletons` library. In the
-- future, with DependentHaskell, this won't be necessary:
data SWeapon (w :: Weapon) where
SSword :: SWeapon 'Sword
SStaff :: SWeapon 'Staff
SDagger :: SWeapon 'Dagger

-- Now we can define `Player`:
data Player (c :: Class) where
WizardPlayer :: AllowedToWield 'Wizard w ~ 'True => SWeapon w -> Player 'Wizard
WarriorPlayer :: AllowedToWield 'Warrior w ~ 'True => SWeapon w -> Player 'Warrior

This last part shouldn't be to difficult to understand, if you ignore the SWeapon boilerplate: Player is parameterized over the player's class, with different constructors for warriors and wizards. Each constructor has a parameter for the weapon the player is wielding, which is constrained by the type family (read: type-level function) named AllowedToWield.

AllowedToWield isn't that complicated either, it's just a (type-level) function that takes a Class and a Weapon and returns a `Bool` using pattern matching:

type family AllowedToWield (c :: Class) (w :: Weapon) :: Bool where
AllowedToWield 'Wizard 'Sword = 'False
AllowedToWield 'Wizard 'Dagger = 'True
AllowedToWield 'Wizard 'Staff = 'True
AllowedToWield 'Warrior 'Sword = 'True
AllowedToWield 'Wizard 'Dagger = 'True
AllowedToWield 'Wizard 'Staff = 'False

And there it is. What do you gain from all this? Something which it is very had to get in certain other languages: compile-time type checking that there is no code that will allow a wizard to equip a sword, or a warrior to equip a staff.

Once again, I want to make it clear that you absolutely don't need to do this, even in Haskell. You're absolutely allowed to write the simple code like in the parent post. But in my opinion, this is an extremely powerful and useful tool that Haskell lets you take much further than many other languages.

So long story short, the answer to your question is that it is indeed a "practicality issue", although I don't think that my code is that impracticable. It certainly is absolutely not a Haskell limitation: in fact if anything, Haskell makes it a bit too tempting to go in the other direction, and go way overboard with embedding this kind of thing in the type system.
> developed by intel

and Apple...[1]

Usually whatever Apple touches becomes very proprietary...

1.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_(interface)
> And it's dangerous: If a presidential candidate say "Elect me and we'll take Taiwan back by force", the most likely outcome is that he'll get a shit ton of votes for that stance.

Sure, a revolution that ends in democracy would be extremely dangerous right now (the aftermath of Arab Spring comes to mind).

But if Xi's CCP keeps repeating that the Chinese should feel deeply humiliated by the West, and that conquering Taiwan (and the South China Sea, etc...) is the only way out, then the situation will become increasingly dangerous no matter the form of government.

It's fine if Chinese culture values stability, the problem is that ignoring politics leads to anything but.
so, not the same thing
> They'll just ban possession of the ground terminals like they ban firearms, drugs, "subversive" literature, etc.

They probably already have. I think their customs forms have a checkbox to declare radios and telecommunications equipment, sort of like the US has for agricultural products. My guess is you'll get extra scrutiny, at a minimum, if you check the box.
The "you didn't build that" debate is an excellent example of why the role of so-called "public goods" should be minimized at all costs. Normally, when someone else has a good or service you'd like to use, you negotiate a price and—assuming you reach a mutually agreeable accommodation—pay them for the privilege at the time of use. That's the end of it; the books remain balanced. Contrast this with the "you didn't build that" argument, which amounts to "we think you once may have benefitted from something we did without consulting you, so you owe us a share of your profits from now until the end of time". As a moral argument (i.e. saying that an individual should contribute back voluntarily) this claim is tenuous at best; as a justification for simply taking a share of the profits (i.e. taxation) it falls completely flat.
We've Been Thinking About Dropbox All Wrong
If fewer people are killed in auto accidents, it’s a win even if the type of error is different. Dead people is dead people.

Well, I think the GP was sketching a scenario where fewer people might be killed until one day when a lot of people are killed by a bug/hack/zero-day that suddenly generates huge crashes.