skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Thanks, I'm not interested in your lecture about Hindu nationalism. You have no idea about what's going on in India. As you say the change in history is coming from historians and critical journos. I agree with you and it's all the more better in that case! You are totally sold off on your media and what your politicians feed you. Of course they have told you the narrative that Western civilization is the best and you judge everything from point of view of what happened in world war 2. But history of Hindus is thousands of years older than a war which they don't care about. Maybe you made some effort to learn that Eastern civilizations were good as well. But you never cared to gain the right perspective because you revel in your civilizational glory or maybe you just don't care. But Indians and Hindus do care. Indians don't just care for their societal traditions, they also care for their philosophical tradition, which was obviously most supreme. You won't understand as Westerners have barely any tradition to look back to. All you folks want is to go back to 1950s or something, which is nothing but hilarious. Indians have millenniums of tradition behind them, which is something.
I'd assume that it's a timezone issue. The author probably didn't check to see if the labels on the x-axis matched his own timezone and just pointed out where he knew the drop happened, instead of where it actually happened (on his graph).
The PLT is mostly a necessary evil of two requirements: lazy-loaded symbols and W^X memory. The former is necessary to reduce binary load times, and the latter is necessary for security (RWX segments in memory are ripe for abuse in the event of a vulnerability). A JIT trades off very differently: slow startup ("warm up" period) and often creates RWX segments, but gains speed advantages as seen here.

Of course, the GOT referred to by the PLT is itself is a bit of a security vulnerability, because it's usually a writable chunk of memory with a ton of frequently-called function pointers; corrupting it gives you relatively easy control over program flow. The new mitigation is "full RelRO", which resolves all GOT entries during binary load, then marks the GOT segment read-only. This gains in security, but trades off binary load time, and it is still going to be slower at runtime than the JIT. Full RelRO is usually off by default because of this added overhead.

Modifying the code segment to include direct function references (either during binary load or later, during runtime) is also not a great approach because it means being unable to share the code segment between processes, which would increase memory pressure. We could do what Windows does, which is to have static randomization (randomization of binary addresses is performed once per boot, not once per process), enabling code to be "statically relocated" lazily per boot, but this carries its own complexities, and opens you up to different security vulnerabilities.

There's no magic bullet here, unfortunately. There are just tradeoffs everywhere in many directions - between runtime speed, startup time, security and memory usage.
That sounds good, thank you
Real Madrid Selalu Menang Di Final Era Liga Champions
You have the choice not to use the major tech companies.

Sure, but it is increasingly the case that by doing so you are excluded from normal daily activities, because in some cases these technologies are now how our society communicates.

For example, you can no longer park legally in many UK streets or public car parks without using a smartphone app, which means working with Apple or Google (Android) technology for the device, and working with a mobile network operator for the data connection. In theory, you can usually call or text from a feature phone instead, which means you only have to deal with the mobile network, but typically those facilities are among the worst user experience you will ever encounter, and taking upwards of 15 minutes to make a simple payment is not unusual, if you can even pay successfully at all. You no longer have any option to pay quickly, reliably and anonymously in cash the way we used to.
Like Google surveys that doesn't suck because it only pays in Google Play credit.
I can't speak for him but in my case I know that advice is good because it's an accurate summary of what I was taught in a Red Cross certification course. I can't prove that to you so your epistemological objection still stands, but if you're actually curious you can download the American Red Cross lifeguard manual here: https://www.redcross.org/take-a-class/lifeguarding/lifeguard...

Reading that manual is not a substitute for actual lifeguard training, but I expect you'll find it supports the general points made above.

Specifically pages 161 and 198 confirm the advice "If they get hold of you, DIVE so they let go." In my personal opinion that's the most important advice in that comment since failing to free oneself from a drowning victim is the cause of many multiple-drownings. The Red Cross goes into specifics on how exactly you do it, and when you're receiving training you practice doing it with the other students or instructors, but that short summary is an accurate summary.
One of my favourite anecdotes about the 2003 blackout is this exchange[1]:

Other Operator: “Hey, do you think you could help out the 345 voltage a little?”

Eastlake 5 Operator: “Buddy, I am — yeah, I’ll push it to my max max. You’re only going to get a little bit.”

Other Operator: “That’s okay, that’s all I can ask.”

Eastlake Unit 5 tripped on overload shortly after this, removing reactive power capability from the system and further destabilizing it.

Human error and lack of situational awareness (Midwest ISO's state estimator, a software program that is supposed to continually evaluate power system conditions and alert operators when they are in or near a region of instability, was offline) played a big role.

[1] https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Professionalism/Northeast_Blac...
From Our Own Correspondent is excellent. I'm not sure if it's geo-blocked or not.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p002vsng
You Don't Have a Right to Believe Whatever You Want To
That's incorrect. You're thinking of a low pass filter, for which the Red supports a variety of filters that you can switch. What the parent most likely is seeing is bad nearest-neighbor downscaling (e.g bad selection of downscaling algorithm).
Reconyx. Top of the line. Assembled and supported in the U.S.
>Best way to learn how to swim as an adult?

Um... seriously? You take swimming lessons.
That's a rather bad analogy, considering that slavery is an initiation of force against an individual, giving them no choice, over a physical good (their own body). Information is a non-rival good, someone's possession of it doesn't diminish your possession of it, unlike say, a slave master possessing you on a plantation.

Philosophically, some of these regulations run afoul negative rights. When you interact with other people, or any entity, they will retain a memory of it. A lot of this data collection used to exist, but was informal, on pen and paper, or simply retained by the mind of the local establishments as their customers were locals. Saying that you own information that is by nature joint information like an entangled particle, and that another party must erase it, may be a pragmatic and utilitarian policy to deal with the increasing probability of bad actors (State or otherwise) misusing information, but the philosophy behind it rubs me the wrong way.

Let's say a run a video arcade, and I keep track of which games everyone plays when they come in through the door. Though I hold no PII on the people, through some mechanism I can assign them a unique ID and recognize them on return (e.g. token card). Why should this joint information: what entities playing my arcade cabinets, be exclusively owned by you, especially if I'm not even providing the games for free?

I'm asking this as a philosophical question, what's the moral justification that one side of a two sided exchange retains exclusivity to information? (and by exclusivity, I mean your right to ask me to delete it)
A shocking article
An FPGA-based In-line Accelerator for Memcached (2013) [pdf]
>If you're an employer and you cant find employees, the answer is virtually always to increase total compensation.

Most cases I would guess this is true until you hit the point that the pay is enough to live comfortably. Then it changes.

My partner was recently approached for a position offering compensation more than 200% of their current for the same work. However,the hiring process is exposing red flags hinting at a toxic working environment: On-fighting, lack of planning, unreasonable expectations. I'm guessing this is the reason the pay they offer is so much higher than it 'should' be.

That position may remain unfilled for quite some time. Working conditions are such a major aspect of any job, and while folks will put up with a bad working environment if the pay is right, that only works up to the point of being comfortably paid. Once you reach that level most folks start to care more about what their work day feels like. Toxic work cultures are very hard to fix, too.
In the UK the judge can legally prevent press coverage of a trial until after it is finished. It's not a new thing. That appears to be what happened here, and the reporter was already on a suspended sentence for a previous violation of the ban. Do you have evidence to the contrary? I don't think I like this kind of ban, but it appears to be a long standing govt right in the UK.
OK but why wouldn't you cut out the user as a middleman, and just market to the user directly? If I knew you were a fan of Nike, I could just sell that to Nike directly instead of asking you to in a roundabout fashion.

As many people have observed, the current digital economy really already facilitates you monetizing your data, by allowing you to have access to innumerable resources for free. Those resources don't cost zero to operate, but you pay for them with your data.
To be fair, ownning an iPad Pro, I can say first hand that the handwriting recognition possible with the stylus is actually quite remarkable and a great improvement from the old palm-pilot days.
But this was ordinary contempt of court for not reporting about an ongoing trial until it was complete. It's a long standing govt right in the UK. Was there anything unusual about this case?
Bright Cobra Center
> The link goes to the text version of npr.org main page, not the article.

For me the link @rhn_mk1 posted goes directly to a text version of the article on sharks.
"War zone" really gives people the wrong idea. South Tucson has some very nice neighborhoods, including one of the best schools in the state. There is a fair bit of air traffic due to a nearby air force base[1] but this is not something most of the residents are generally concerned with.

The checkpoints are legitimately annoying, though. Most people simply identify themselves and pass through peacefully--the Supreme Court has already decided that you must identify yourself. If you want your right to remain silent, you have to actually say that, oddly enough. Granted, it's clear that he wanted to be arrested for civil disobedience, just mentioning that for anyone who prefers to go on their way.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Monthan_Air_Forc...
Facebook Confirms a New Influencer Search Engine Is in Testing. Are You Ready?
> would make users well aware of the consequences of opting out.

People don't even read the ToS (term of service). I'm pessimistic that they would even do this.
This is why a POW based cryptocurrency can never handle a significant amount of money.

Suppose you're Coinbase. The way you protect yourself is on large transactions, waiting for more confirmations. This increases the amount an attacker must spend to do a 51% attack. If you wait long enough, it's not worth it. But wait! The attacker can use multiple accounts and multiple exchanges, so now Coinbase has to look at the total volume of newish transactions on the blockchain in order to know when it is guaranteed to be safe.

The upshot of this is that a POW blockchain cannot securely transact more money per hour than the 51% attack number. That's also approximately the amount of money miners spend per hour.

Total world payment volumes are on the order of a quadrillion dollars per year. Unfortunately world GDP is only $80 trillion. Even if we reoriented our entire economy to do nothing but mining, we could only protect about 10% of all of the transactions.
> quicksort=: (($:@(<#[), (=#[), $:@(>#[)) ({~ ?@#)) ^: (1<#)

Please, no. Glyphs / characters are not a scarce or constrained resource in software development. The major resource constraint is developer time spent writing, reading and debugging code. APL (and its descendants) are specifically designed to make these challenges far more difficult than they need to be.
How important is code sharing between processes for a regular Linux desktop or server distros? Could JIT compiled applications be a sensible default in the future?
What makes Tokina and Sigma lenses worse? Serious question.
I also am trying to use Emacs since everyone says that is so good. Recently i found spacemacs.org . It makes things much easier
This is the core conflict. Do we judge people on their competence, or do we judge them by the degree to which they are oppressed?
No Canada?
I am sympathetic somewhat I suppose, but they seriously downplay the issues with blockchains, including the Ethereum "hack" (which IMO was the system working as designed although not intended). The various cryptocoins are not decentralized, in fact, we have had a couple of articles posted here lately about 51% attacks on a number of coins, so how are they the decentralized future as the article puts it?
That's surprising. It doesn't seem like a big distance. I guess that's more a sign of lack of fitness.
> Obvs those are skewed and unscientific, but something along those lines will be better than what we have today.

Why? Surely what you'll actually get is one political faction dominating [parts of] the site and doing their utmost to downvote anything that contradicts their worldview to oblivion and (to a somewhat lesser extent) upvote probably false stuff that happens to support it. It's very much a winner-takes-all battle, because people that just want to read stuff or fact check aren't going to stick around if it obviously skews alt-right or far-left, and probably not even if it has an allegiance to one relatively moderate political coalition or another. If you want to know what a particular faction thinks are the important news stories of the day it probably has a subreddit anyway. The alternative to winner-takes-all is top-down curation, which is basically what the media does anyway, usually being more open about their partisanship, and I'm not sure write less unfavourable stuff about Elon Musk companies is the best starting point for curation.

And if your site is started with the premise that the media cannot be trusted, there's a good chance the people that choose to spend most of their time there will be those with even less regard for truth and objectivity. (Case in point: As soon as Elon posted about "who owns the press", his timeline became dominated by people arguing that he meant "the Jews" who certainly had the numbers to drown out any useful observations Elon might actually have wanted make on the subject)
I agree that Haskell is a good comparison. I think matrices and math are too closely focused on in array languages (and dismissals of array languages), though.

For fun I'm writing a "spreadsheet programming language" that borrows a little from array languages, and I think there's useful stuff to take away from them.

They make you focus on the data, and the transformations you want to effect on the data.

They make you think, "where there's one, there's probably many."

The implicit mapping over arrays for most functions and operators is a massive ergonomic win over "a formula for each row" in the spreadsheet model. (Excel "array formulas" but not shit.)

Some of the simple little abstractions are beautiful. Seriously, as someone who didn't know anything about array languages three weeks ago, I say go spend a day reading the first two parts of the J book (http://www.jsoftware.com/help/learning/contents.htm) up to "Rank". It's this humble little operator that makes the whole language sing and fit together masterfully, and I'm heartbroken my language's data model (and programming style) isn't a good fit for it.

Really, though, for me being able to have my (still hypothetical) non-programmer users type

organisations[users.orgId]

instead of

users.map(({ orgId }) => organisations[orgId])

is a no-brainer. Ditto just about any place I might want to use an anonymous function in JS, really:

sort(people, by: people.age)

vs

sort(people, ({ age }) => age)

So simple. Pass an array of things to use as the sort key, not "a function to call on each item-to-sort".

Forget the cryptic syntax, "operator ambivalence" and math/matrix-focus, there's a lot of useful stuff in there that should be better known in language circles.

As for the grandparent's complaint of being "nearly-pure functional", that's the zeitgeist now -- functional transformation of data, with big ugly explicit data-replacement as the mutation story. That's not an impediment to use, it's an encouragement to use responsibly while not being too much of an encumbrance if you want to walk off the beaten track.
Pretty much describes the humor I encountered in high school. Everything was a penis.
The attack itself is legal. Sure you will cause some property damage if you split and roll back an hour worth of transactions. People might try and bring a civil suit against you. That would be interesting.

Of course, if you try to double-spend as part of the attack: it's fraud!
I think you're mistaken on both counts. The first answer is what I call the "commonsense interpretation" and it is incorrect about what python's for/else does.
Those doctors, dentists and lawyers he mentions are drowning in loans - https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-meru-has-1-million-in-stud...
Just curious, how does cheating the books work for a driver?
The Amazon reviews of that book look dodgy in the extreme. 24 five star reviews, one one star review. All the five star reviews follow the same brief format. Ten of them were written on the same day, three days after the book was added to the Kindle store. All but one of those ten reviewers have not reviewed any other books on Amazon.
> two-thirds of which are engineers

Bloomberg, really? "Which?" I presume the author is not a native speaker but their editors should know it should be "whom"
I think you're taking it a bit to the extreme..
>> (Je sui pleine) and all conversation at the table came to a dead halt as this is a very vulgar expression for pregnancy along the lines of "I'm knocked up." Then they realized it was a weird Americanism and moved on.

Wut ? In which century ?
At least when I was a scout (~6 years ago now, Eagle) those were the standards you had to meet to swim in a pool/lake where you couldn't stand. But there was still significant monitoring of swimmers - lifeguards plus a buddy system where every 5-10 minutes you'd have a "buddy check" where you had to join hands with your buddy and hold them up out of the water while they counted the number of pairs.

The requirements for the Swimming Merit Badge aren't all that much better, though.
My experience is that Mexicans do have many words and phrases for sexual references, with a goodly number involving foods. But I haven't experienced, or remember seeing, it using to make a joke of foreigners. That would be more like being mean to someone who can't be expected to understand than being funny among friends..
Not necessarily existing system. Any system where people are truly equal.

Even in communism you will have leaders, and leaders will enjoy some form of higher privilege. So collective ownership of the, in lack of the better word, stuff would still not abolish social privileges, which people renowned in some manner would have.

Likewise, different responsibility instiled in people by any means, will undoubtedly lead to different performance in the work place, which will, in some way or other, separate them from general social or material status.

So, it seems to me, best we could do is some form of society wich has low band of frequency in which people can move in any type of self emerging hierarchy so everyone enjoys nearly the same status.

But how do you deal
with over achievers then? There would inevitably be people who, with their performance, go out of that band.

You might start by separating achievers that contribute or take from society which would then lead to having some form of arbitars which would in turn again enyjoy some type of higher status.

And so on... the only truly equal society is the one where everyone share the same thoughts and goals and do the same things, as any deviation into something new could spell special privileges for that individual.

And i do this only as a thought experiment, cos I am stuck in the loop of if not all people think and do the same thing how can we expect them to be same... So maybe someone has ideas about this. Maybe I am just crazy.
Static linking avoids this overhead right?
> Some are so sure of their world view that they just assume their conventional wisdom is correct about specific subjects that they clearly (to someone who has) have not studied. I know I was back in 04 when a friend mentioned something to me that I thought was absurd, but is now common knowledge for anyone understands F=ma and has checked that specific fact (that I'm deliberately not mentioning). For example, look up the art collection Skippy's brother keeps, or that shop owners (now hidden but thoroughly archived) Instagram account.

This paragraph is almost incomprehensible to me. Is it meant to be read with a lot of background knowledge, or am I just being dumb (or both)?
Can utilizing features ever be fraud?
This sounds absymal. Is this the US? Definitely different in Australia and UK.

Maybe there are more pools here.

I used to swim 1k couple of times a week (no breaks) just to "keep fit" not even competitive. I considered that normal.
I tested this overhead in one of my latest jits. With full PIC and PIE and ASLR (indirect calls via PLT via GOT), I got a 10x overhead over static no PIC, no PIE, all direct near calls.
This was mostly observable on windows, as this was the only secure by default platform then. Linux was 10x faster.
I.e. I got no observable win by replacing the calls with jitted near calls. Nowadays with PIE, PIC and ASLR maybe the jit solution is better again.

One big factor of direct calls vs indirect calls is the CPU i-cache, which preloads the direct call, but not the indirect call.
Guess I better start saving all my poop
We already have these - JIT compilers as the other person commented. You can even get them for C if you want.
The US cares so much about constitutionality (and hard and fast rules generally), and eschews leaving things to peoples’ “reasonable” discretion, because a large subset of the population is completely nuts. One of our au pair’s au pair friend got pulled over by state police and had a gun pulled on her. Coming from Germany she of course freaked out. (Luckily she was a white European young lady instead of a person of color.) Americans not only see nothing wrong with that, but keep voting for the sheriffs who allow their departments to run that way.
"The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you’re inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it."
> A tiny little French teacher of mine did a year of study in Paris.

France