skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
3. In the very near future, it will be used to identify homeless individuals, and harass them. I don't believe they will ever try to help them in most counties. (I just have a feeling?)

4. It will be used to collect fees/fines in a more efficient, immediate fashion.

5. It will be used by tax authorities.

6. It will be used by the INS.

7. It will be used by stores to prevent theft. (Yea--great, but you have a misdemeanor shop lifting conviction in high school that prevents you from entering a department store in the future?)

8. It will be used to collect fees/fines in an immediate fashion. Fees, and fines that are just increasing yearly.

9. It will be used to prevent people with DUI's from entering bars. Yea--hooray, but there's so many dubious DUI's issued for Revenue/fines--oops safety?

10. It will be used by banks to detect SMURF's/suspicious money. (Cops will be able to show up at banks, and take the "dirty" money before you get to the counter? I still in shock asset confiscation is still copacetic. I am literally in fear of carrying a few grand in cash--crazy?)

11. Certain Bible Belt states will use facial data in divorce proceedings. In Missouri, if you can prove with pictures your spouse was in the company of other women; the judge is pretty much on your side. Not all states are No Fault, like CA.

This is not the society I want to live in. My only hope is they will treat the wealthy, and the rest of us equally, but we all know the wealthy will have the money to fight the system, while the rest of us will just be harassed.
This kind of "on purpose" behavior is making me very upset. I keep thinking that there should be some kind of mechanism for the perpetrators to have a feel of their own medicine.

Like every time a vehicle in front of me releasing thick black smoke from tailpipe, I feel like it must be required by law for them to channel some of the smoke to go inside their own vehicle, so they know, "Oh, apparently it doesn't smell nice and it can kill me, I should send my car to workshop so I don't hurt others."

Smokers already feel this. In many buildings, when they want to smoke, they must go to some room with other smokers. Although, I still don't understand why they still keep smoking. At least, they can only hurt themselves.
I tattooed a set of checkboxes on my hand 2 years ago to help me get shit done
You're mostly right. As I said to some other answer below, I think law enforcement is crucial to limit evil people doing evil. But well-intentioned people can do evil too, just because they didn't know any better. Engineers who made Therac-25 probably didn't wanna kill bunch of people, but they did. (Also read Hannah Arendt on how she talks about most Nazi officers thought 'they were just doing their jobs') Understanding that your job may have such implications is why ethics classes are very important. This shouldn't be optional, engineers should have the ability to be able to think about the implications of being an engineer.
Actually yes, despite your tone. It's significantly easier to control emissions and implement emission control systems at the production side because economies of scale means that for the same cost of making $number of cars cleaner you can make 1 power plant significantly cleaner using far more expensive technologies and still be more cost efficient.
Does all that happen often?
I said compare insider trading. I'm aware that it doesn't involve insider information; the point is that some information advantages can be unfair. We want the market to reward real research, and not front-running.
Race does not exist... therefore there won't be a genetic difference in average outcomes between different people groups. It is useful to think of variation from person-to-person but it is impossible to make comparisons between ethnic groups/races because no substantive differences exist among the various human populations. Probably the study results you reference are a result of different environments...
> I'm aware that I'm trying to build a platform that proves arbitrary theorems.

OK, well, that was far from clear. Here's your original question:

> the question that fascinates me is - what is the property of a program that makes it undecidable? I've been playing around with the idea of trying to make a program that determines halts/doesn't halt/don't know, given some representation of a program. I'm running into some interesting implications when I incorporate dependent typing, but it feels like there must be something theoretical that's already out there.

You're right, there is "something theoretical that's already out there", and that "something theoretical" is Turing-equivalence (and a vast literature on automated theorem proving).

> My original question was around what theoretical approach best matches that goal - whether it's an axiomatic system based on Peano arithmetic, or a natural deductive system, or something based on type theory. From a non-academic perspective these fields all seem very similar and there seems to be a lot of crossover so I didn't know what best suited the problem I'm trying to solve.

You're right. All of those fields are very similar. In fact, they are equivalent because they are all Turing-complete. It is really hard to avoid Turing-completeness, and even there all of the possible options are well understood.

The bottom line is that you (AFAICT) are at the very beginning of an extremely well-worn path. Actually, not just one path, but many, many paths, all of which lead to the same place: undecidability (and meta-undecidability and meta-meta-undecidability...) No on has found a breakthrough in these woods, and there are good reasons to believe there is none to be found (though of course that can't be proved because undecidability!) The best you can hope for is to make reasonable engineering tradeoffs that work for some domain of interest. But at the end of the day, you're just doing math, and math is hard. Nowadays it's really, really hard because all the low-lying fruit was picked a long, long time ago.

But if you're really serious about this, the first step is to get a stack of textbooks on computability theory and automated theorem proving and read them.
Invoice Ninja has released an open source mobile app built with Flutter
The Midlife Crisis of Venture Capital
No, he's saying that if he raises an objection, then his boss will fire him and find someone less competent to do the job. Then after he's fired for standing up for the good of society, society will tell him to starve to death because he doesn't have a job. Finally, his replacement will do a significantly worse job and the result will be greater damage to society.
(Very) Basic Eliptic Curve Cryptography
In short, it does, and Google is currently fighting a $7.4 billion EU fine for these shenanigans:

"In their Statement of Objections, the European Commission accused Google of the breach of EU antitrust rules in three ways:

- by requiring mobile manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Google Chrome browser and requiring them to set Google Search as default search service on their devices, as a condition to license certain Google proprietary apps;

- by preventing manufacturers from selling smart mobile devices running on competing operating systems based on the Android open source code;

- by giving financial incentives to manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-install Google Search on their devices."
That's... literally what the author said.

If your solution is not simple, it will not be correct or fast.

Correctness may be the end-goal. But correctness is absolute. So it is a bad performance indicator to set as the goal. Yes, we can track bugs. But the absence of open bugs is no guarantee for correctness.

I can never say "We are 5% more correct than last week. Keep up the good work!"

Simplicity is a much better goal for the day-to-day work. Because it can be tracked, measured and evaluated for every individual change.
BSNES trades off performance for emulation accuracy. Other emulators trade off emulation accuracy for performance. No widely-used emulator that I know of has any care for simplicity at all (all of them are chock full of one-off special cases to benefit specific games). This has little to do with the screed in the OP, especially given how little the OP appears to value performance.
I don't understand what you're trying to argue. Front-running is also an agency problem: it occurs when you hire a broker/dealer to execute orders from you, and, upon receiving your order, the broker trades for their own account off it first. HFTs are proprietary traders.

Front-running doesn't simply mean "someone who races to trade first". If you think about it, that definition doesn't even make sense. Does everyone who owns a Bloomberg terminal front-run everyone who doesn't?
Does anyone know if the graphs and visuals in the post are hand made or are they using some kind of app with a custom theme?
> I don't think that is related. A lot of the Nazi websites are hosted via HostKey in Russia.

In isolation you're right. To expand it: "If you want to host an anti-{russia,putin,trump,jew,white,black,asian,democracy,kim} 'news' website" (as in against all or some of those) then the US would be the place to do it.

IOW: Good luck with anti-Putin in Russia or Nazi in Germany. The US is your best bet. The US didn't raid news papers forcing journalists to drill holes through their hard drives. The UK did.

> I'm a fan of free speech, but am generally against Nazis as a concept. We fought a war over this :)

We didn't fight a war over someone's right to be a Nazi. They really did start it. And the US didn't really join until it was actually attacked, if you're American. They also didn't fight a war about someone's right to be Japanese (or even their right to believe in the divinity of their emperor).

Chamberlain even thought Nazis could be part of the "peace for our time".
This seems interesting, I wonder why it's being downvoted?

I personally don't understand the value landlords contribute to society so I'm curious what a society without them looks like. I expect I can get sarcastic answers about failed Communist states, but I'm hoping someone has spirited examples.
It would definitely be hard to do. And my personal suspicion is that Satoshi is a group of individuals, making such an analysis almost impossible. However there is the possibility that there is some sort of "linguistic fingerprint" capable of uniquely identifying Satoshi, despite what I believe to be their efforts to create a highly specific and unique style of writing for the purposes of evading identification. The way the Unabomber used a certain phrase in the manifesto and a letter to a family member was what got him caught.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_can%27t_have_your_cake_and...

Another interesting analysis would be to compare the structure of code between the early bitcoin code and code written by likely suspects. Perhaps variable naming convention will identify Satoshi.

https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin
Yes, this is using the same system as the Mr Robot marketing gimmick last December. That isn't very worrying to me though, since that platform is basically a generic "do something in the browser" capability, where "do", "something" and "the browser" are fairly loosely defined. Both the Mr Robot promotion and the Pioneer program could be done through other avenues. Shield is the most convenient mechanism currently available for this sort of fine-grained deployment.
Probably because this one is from "the early days of the Internet." James Lileks has been writing at lileks.com since 1997. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lileks#Website
> If an IDE can abstract that memorization away from you, what's the problem?

It's more knowing what's available (do I have to use a 3rd party library for X task), and being able to fill in the parameters (as well as having those parameters ready) before the IDE prompts me for it.

Sure, pulling up the documentation isn't a huge chore in an IDE, but if I'm not prepared to give the third parameter a calculated length, I then have to go back and write more code before I can move forward.

It's also "how do metaclasses work" and "what types am I dealing with" and "how will this type be coerced in this situation" and "is monkey patching appropriate for testing this method".

Ultimately, it's about having sharp tools. My brain is a tool, and the more complete the picture of how a problem fits a programming language is, the more efficient I'll be at coming up with a working solution.
From side project to $7.25M for Unsplash
> That's... literally what the author said.

Excellent, so we both agree with the author that correctness is the ultimate point and that simplicity is just a useful tool for achieving correctness. :)

> Simplicity is a much better goal for the day-to-day work. Because it can be tracked, measured and evaluated for every individual change.

How does one purport to measure simplicity?
I see people getting excited about something new "past REST"... which by that what they mean is RPC.
> ...reinforcing that correctness is more important than simplicity

It's the other way around. Correctness is obviously the goal (and likely performance too, depending on your use case), but the way to achieve it is through simplicity. So simplicity should be prioritized - as it allows you to ensure correctness.
Not to mention that coal plants are way more efficient than ICE engine.
The average efficiency at the wheel of a car is 18%. Coal plants with secondary steam turbines can be as efficient as 50% extracting energy from the same amount of hydrocarbons.
Electric cars can have efficiency of 60% to 90%, so if tomorrow we replace all the gas cars with electric cars powered from coal power plants, we still be better off; then to that all the effort and energy that it takes to get oil from the ground, refine it and then get it to the gas tank of car, whereas in electric car its all power line transmission losses.

Coal is still bad, and there are much better alternatives like solar, wind and nuclear and natural gas; where solar wind and nuclear take no hydrocarbons, natural gas doesn't emit all the nasty things that coal plants do.
The link posted above is an AMP link. Maybe try removing the AMP? It looks like it uses about 2/3 of the browser width that way, much better.

Also, about blank spots: do you mean in between the sections of text? Maybe is an issue with the [goddamn] lazy-load graphics?
Of course, at least many of the mechanical engineers at auto companies most likely do have PEs. It's not just civil engineers. It's mostly any engineer/engineering manager who signs off on drawings, test, etc. for regulators. When I worked on oil rig designs, I started down the path to getting a PE and it would have been expected had I stayed in that business.

That said, I'm sure there would be lots of complaints if software had a similar system given that it would likely come with specific educational and other specific requirements.
I don't actually think you're interested in that list, but there is a whole theory with scholarly support describing how regulations inspire innovation. It's called the "Porter Hypothesis" (the Porter of Porter's Five Forces), and like all theories it has some evidence for and some evidence against.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porter_hypothesis
I've grown more and more disillusioned with VC over time. In my mind, there is a fundamental incentive misalignment between venture capitalists and founders.

As the article mentioned, the VC business model is to look for the 100x return, so they will encourage/force founders to make high-risk/high-reward decisions. However, a smaller exit could be life-changing for a founder.

While VCs have a portfolio of investments such that the big wins offset the losses, as a founder you only have one company and one life. You're not diversified, making the downside risk much higher, especially if you're spending 5+ years of your life working on a company that you're emotionally invested in.

John Mackey, founder of Whole Foods, has a great quote on this: “Venture capitalists are like hitchhikers with credit cards. As long as you take them where they want to go, they’ll pay for the gas. If not, they take over the car and throw you out.”
I think append-only ledgers and specifically BFT distributed ledgers have obvious uses.

The question is whether you can call them blockchains (I'd argue that you can't) and whether the added traits of a blockchain have any additional benefit.
Agreed. "Rolling Coal" should be treated as a violent assault on others, especially cyclists, that I should be able to defend myself against like any other assault.
And it may just work. Big Tech has done itself no favors over the past few years, doing stuff that made it increasingly more disliked. But they thought it was okay because that stuff made them more money, so they must have been doing something right, despite all the criticism.
This system of sockets is unique to Denmark, and it is still used. However, the Schuko system was allowed to be installed, a few years back.

Source: Me, danish electrician.
Just to add to that: Vim has ide-level autocompletion and type-checking for many languages and not just typescript.
This makes me think of the Donald Knuth quote, "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."

More info here: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Donald_Knuth
No, that's just the easiest path to it if your only tool is an unaided human brain.
> I think your definition of "budget cars" and mine are vastly different, Regulations have already priced new car ownership out of the hands of many people.

So buy second hand perhaps?

I bought my car for £5000 second hand (yes, I can afford a new car, but why bother, they depreciate so fast in the first few years it hardly seems worth it) and it's a nice car. It's way more than I could have paid for a perfectly serviceable second hand car. I checked, £700 was the cheapest of the same manufacturer as mine, and it's 5 years newer too.

>>> quite happily sacrifice the health of everyone in the search of profit.

> All yes, the evil for profit corporations...

Wait, so it's OK to pump shit into the atmosphere as long as you make a profit?

Is the bar really so low for communism that believing that we shouldn't be poisoning large amounts of the population gains you membership?

Corporations and companies are optimised for one thing, profit. They do this at the expense of the climate and the health of people. Hell, this is a comment on an article about how a car company cheated emissions tests so they could sell more cars. Emissions that kill people.

Do you really believe that we would have the current emissions levels if there was no regulation?

> Well comrade

Oh please drop this shit. Resorting to name calling just suggests that you don't know what you're talking about or have no real point.

> show me all the innovations that regulations directly have inspired. I would be interested in the that list.

If you lower emissions limits over time car manufacturers will have to innovate to meet those targets, right? I mean, car companies aren't going to do this themselves are they, see cheating on the emissions tests, again.

> I always forget how must support for communism there is here in HN circles...

I'm not a communist.
Nissan has had a lot of issues with their CVT transmissions failing early. The cars are fairly reliable otherwise, but the CVT is a black stain.
This is kind of true, but only from a certain angle.

For one, autonomous vehicles (the ones most people care about anyway - Waymo et al) are not widely using connectivity between vehicles - who wants an autonomous vehicle that will only stop for other compatible vehicles? Instead they are almost entirely reliant on visual sensors etc.

What has changed between 4G and 5G is the device to device protocol (which is not widely used and is completely incompatible with normal mobile signals) has been improved to support vehicles travelling at high speeds. But the thing is, there was already a protocol to enable that kind of communication and 5G does little if anything to improve on it.

Autonomous vehicles are probably never going to rely on network connectivity to work properly - the risk of losing your connectivity is too great.
For a generic 64b platform, use RSQRTSS/RSQRTPS, since it's the only one that will exist. The others are specific to rather new hardware.

My recollection is that it's accurate to 11.5 bits, so after one refinement step you have nearly full precision (an error bound of a couple ULP). Check Intel's docs for more details.
Funnily enough I started working on something similar in Uni as a class project and went embarrassingly far before realizing all the functionality I was building already existed in any of the major calendar apps. There should be a name for software developers thinking a customized software solution will solve their personal problems (time-management in particular)? I suspect it is the reason there are so many todo list apps.
A silicon atom is about 220 picometers across (subject to change depending on how you add, subtract, or squeeze the electrons).
What you are describing is a silly parody of reality. People are spending their lives making these things better, following these values. Politicians struggle to do the best possible. These values are very alive in the US.
Boston makes me sad, too. Look at the giant chunk that was torn out for the Government Center. You can see how windswept and barren it looks from space.
The only reason why I prefer chrome over firefox on android is because of the touch gestures on the address bar. Slide down to browse through the hundreds of tabs I have opened, slide left to switch to next tab, slide right for the previous tab. Also, the tabs are represented as a card stack, and browsing it from last to first tab is done through the same gesture as getting into this view. So if I'm looking at a page and want to switch to the first tab 2 or 3 hundred tabs back, I just have to slide my finger fast 3 to 5 times from the address bar down.

If it weren't because of this, I'd probably move to firefox for the ability to have extensions.
From the author:

What is it: implicit surfaces raymarching using binary search. The shapes get "blown up" according to step size, which fakes the ambient occlusion feel (also necessary for the bisection to work). Color is the number of missed probes minus log(last step size), which had the most bearable artifacts.

- implicit surfaces are surfaces defined as the solution of an equation f(x,y,z)=0

- raymarching is a raytracing technique where you advance step by step along the ray, it is a very common technique for sizecoding. The rest of the description detail the rendering tricks used for shading and coloring.

The "content" does not "use the same byte as code", it is code, in the form of the implicit surface equation.
The word "professional" is overloaded. Perhaps a better term is "government certified professional". Medical doctors and (physical) engineers must meet a prescribed set of minimum standards and take an oath.

Attempts to form a set of software standards to be used in a similar way has proven elusive. Software is too malleable, and languages and "state of the art" architectures come and go like clothing styles (often without merit in my opinion). Physics and the human body don't change very often. Software approaches do.
"It's hard having moral obligations and shit so why even bother with that"
I think maybe you mistakenly assumed that response was in opposition to your comment, I read it as a simplification and restatement of what you said.
So at what point do we stop trusting auto manufacturers to run these calculations and start mandating it be done by third-parties with different incentive structures?
And now you just motivated a CarTel. :)
True that they don't need it to work. But imagine the efficiency and safety rewards if they do have it.

You could do efficient ingress and egress routing if adjacent cars had the means to communicate their destinations, rather than using 100-year-old technology like blinking lights.