skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It would be easier to spin down the earth, than make that release happening

Even releasing half life 3 may happen before that
If he wants to be a wealthy publisher of Nazi content, that's his choice.
It’s deserved.

If you’re going to let anything on your platform, people are going to post horrible hateful things. And when they do, other people will get justifiably mad about it.

When you’re dumb enough to say that you think that’s a good thing, you’re going to get skewered in the press. Honestly, what could possibly come of saying you think it’s OK to deny the holocaust?

Of course when you later so you miss spoke about that, no one’s really going to believe you. Either you meant it and thus you’re horrible person, or you didn’t mean it and you’re insanely naïve. Facebook‘s been around long enough and in enough scandals that you can’t claim naïveté anymore.

If Facebook had a 100% anything goes policy then as much as people hated this the anti-holocaust stuff would be somewhat understandable. But when there are rules and limits on the platform but they don’t seem to limit anything incredibly horrible, only articles rebutting that stuff... you’ve certainly marked yourself for criticism.

At times it’s hard to imagine a way Facebook could act that would get them in more trouble.
What I wonder is if this would be very useful to someone trying to start a software business that they don't want to turn into a 'startup' in the sense it's generally used here (not trying to become a billion dollar company or even seeking investment at all).

It seems like best advice and strategies for those routes have some overlap, but also a lot of points where good advice for one is bad advice for the other.
Sherry is the reason people like Macallan, but:

* lots of Scotch has no sherry, and, particularly, the smokey peaty Islays tend not to be sherried at all. Sherried Scotch is a distinctive style, mostly centered in Speyside.

* There are better, cheaper sherry bomb whiskies than Macallan; try Aberlour A’bunadh (cheap, excellent) and Glendronach (still substantially cheaper than Macallan, and I think much better).

The big trend in Scotch is towards “no age statement” (NAS) bottlings, because Scotland is not keeping up with resurgent global demand. NAS bottles are younger spirits, but tend to have more interesting casks, which is a bonus if sherried whiskies are what you’re into.

For what it’s worth, my mental model is that ex-bourbon casks add basically no flavors other than the wood; I think of them as “neutrally casked”.
This is totally possible and is very similar to how I have my desktop currently setup. Check out this subreddit[0] and this Arch wiki page [1] for a step by step tutorial.

The tricky thing is for optimal performance you have to give a guest OS exclusive access to a graphics card. This means you need two graphics cards, one for the host (or a Linux vm) and one for Windows. However, many CPUs have integrated graphics that can be controlled by Linux while a discrete graphics card can be given to the Windows guest. Additionally, you need to have some sort of KVM switch as two graphics cards means two (or more) display outputs, but there is another option[2].

In my case, my processor (Ryzen 2700X) does not have integrated graphics and I don't have a spare video card to dedicate to the host system. I solve this with the following setup:

Host (H) - Arch Linux installation running KVM hypervisor

Guest (A) - Primary Linux Install

Guest (B) - Windows Install

On boot I pass kernel arguments[3] to H to instruct it not to touch the graphics card. This gives me a completely headless boot and leaves my screen frozen on whatever the bootloader last had displayed. Once H boots up, it autostarts a VM for A, with the GPU passed in as well as the sound card and a USB controller. From A I can use my Linux install as normal. The interesting part is when I want to switch to Windows, I can ssh into H and kick off a script[4] that will tell A to suspend to disk (aka hibernate), which for all the GPU and other HW cares is the same as powering off, then to start B with all the same devices passed through. I can then do the same process to go back to my Linux guest.

I haven't done this yet but I'm planning to put the swap/hibernate drives for both guests on an NVMe SSD so the suspend/resume should be super fast.

The reason I have my main system as the Linux guest instead of just using the hypervisor is that loading and unloading the drivers for the GPU on the host is kinda wonky and has resulted in kernel panics for me (that I can't debug without a display). Additionally as far as I can tell there's no way to hotswap GPUs with display outputs in X so I'd have to restart all my desktop programs anyways.

If you have an nVidia GPU you also might run into issues installing the drivers[5] inside the VM, and have to change some settings in the hypervisor to get around them.

Let me know if you have any questions, I'm happy to help or provide more information. Ask here or see email in bio.

[0] https://reddit.com/r/vfio

[1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PCI_passthrough_via_OVM...

[2] https://github.com/gnif/LookingGlass

[3] video=efifb:off I don't have a good source on this, different systems may need different args

[4] this script is not yet written, I have been using SSH from my laptop until now, I've only had this set up for like a week

[5] search error code 43, it's also mentioned in [1]
So all you did was sit there, like a TV viewer? Eyes glued to your therapist? And that miraculously changed your life? Was your therapist Benny Hinn?
The former, obviously; but in the modern day, most usage of the latter in preference to the former is, in itself, arguably a bug overall. The modern world is mostly outside the operational parameters of our highly-evolved instincts.
> If two events are mutually dependent on the other to occur then two events are more likely to occur together than either or independently.

But that's not the statement that you're saying is incorrect. In your scenario, if A and B always occur together then P(A) == P(B) == P(A & B), and the original statement that P(A & B) is not greater than either P(A) or P(B) is still true (it's equal).
What Zuck said was:

> The principles that we have on what we remove from the service are: If it’s going to result in real harm, real physical harm, or if you’re attacking individuals, then that content shouldn’t be on the platform.

> There’s a lot of categories of that that we can get into, but then there’s broad debate.

The outraged respondents are correct that there is no debate with holocaust deniers or Sandy Hook deniers. Zuck agrees.

But where there is debate is over what content should or should not be removed. Facebook can't be the authority entrusted with banning all uncertain, incorrect, or unkind speech from their platform, but they also can't be enablers of lynch mobs. There are many categories of speech between those extremes.

The debate is on where you've drawn the line, and he is saying that weak conspiracy theories are not something Facebook wants to take responsibility for quashing.
They have policies against hate speech. They could attempt to enforce those in a sane/meaningful way.

Instead, much like Twitter, they seem to go out of their way to find ways to not use their own policies in the extremely clear cut cases.
I used WordStar. Thank goodness Turbo Pascal used WordStar keybindings for their commands, too!
Pure functions are easier to understand. They're easier to prove correct. They're easier to test, either manually or with unit tests. They're easier to use without surprises.

On the other hand, as someone said here, "Real programs have state". (I searched for that comment, to give credit where due, and couldn't find it.) Especially in my field (embedded systems), programs have to track and remember the state of the external world, and programs do things that change the state of the external world. So "compute best trajectory to the ball" can be a pure function, but "grab the ball" cannot.

In my world, so many of my functions cannot be pure that I don't pay much attention to it. That's my world; it may well not apply to you.

> Are there cases when you would prefer _not_ to write pure functions even when you could, or should you always prefer pure functions? In either case, why?

I will not jump through hoops in order to write pure functions. I will not run through a monad in order to not write to a log file in a function, for example. I don't care about purity for purity; I care about purity to the degree that it helps me, and no further.

> On the other hand, I try to avoid dogma and assess situations on a case by case basis.

I think that's the right approach. Where it helps you, use it. If you run into a situation where it doesn't help you (or gets in the way of something that would help you more), well, you aren't a slave to the high priests of functional programming. Do whatever will work best for your situation.
There's more to a suborbital flight than weightlessness. It is the chance to see that view that may matter the most.
Your choice of amoxicilin is a very bad example.

Antibiotics aren't tightly controlled enough. We need international treaties that prevent this kind of over the counter sale and countries required to track statistics of the prescription of antibiotics. The utter disregard of the commons that is the effectiveness of antibiotics makes me despair.
It tastes sort of like American oak, but not so much like bourbon. To a first approximation, everything not aged in Sherry butts has basically always been aged in ex bourbon casks, and lots of Scotch varieties have never been sherried.
By whose design? Certainly not Microsoft who enabled this pattern and continues to expand on it.

On top of that Portable Firefox came out in 2004.

This non-security through irritation gives IT a bad name.
I'm not quite as bad, but I have a semi-related experience. When I was young, my sleep patterns were like the average person. Sleep about 8 hours a day. If there was no alarm and it was dark enough I could sleep in up to 10ish hours. I felt refreshed in the morning.

As time when on, college happened. I would frequently have to skip sleeping because of work load. It became an habit. I eventually graduated, started working, often would pull really long shifts, etc. A year or two later I got into a situation where I could take a long sabbatical, and because of my bad habits, with nothing really holding me back, I would sleep roughly 1 night out of two. I'd skip altogether one day, then the next I'd sleep 10-12 hours.

And then it was 9-11 hours. Then 8-10, then 7-8...one day out of two. I dunno if I did permanent damage or what, but I was never able to go back to a normal sleep schedule. I've always been a very light sleeper. Everything would wake me up, but then it got worse. Any kind of light, any kind of noise, any kind of stress... it would take me 2+ hours to fall asleep, I'd wake up 4 times a night, if not more.

It got a little better over time, but never "good". To this day, I take forever to fall asleep, wake up a lot, and by 8 am I'm as awake as can be no matter what time I went to bed. And I constantly feel like I need sleep, so I feel like shit.

Talked to doctors, no one can find anything wrong with me. It affects my productivity drastically, which stresses me out, which in turn makes it harder to sleep. At work, I'm a fraction of what I was 10 years ago and only make up for it with experience. If I could have sustained even half of my productivity, I'd be way further in my career...but alas...

I just want to sleep more >.<
Am I understanding this correctly, that the GFW randomly chooses victim IP addresses for DNS resolution of banned hosts?

Why doesn’t everyone just block all traffic from China if true?
The laws clearly state it's not bribery. Just how it's not insider trading if Congress Persons act on information they received in the line of work.
A similar sentiment drove the technocratic elite to a centralized economy in communist china. It may not be beautiful or ideal but it’s fairly effective at coordinating large amounts of people, especially if they are at odds somewhat.
Sherry is definitely underappreciated in the US. One of my favorite aspects of it is how it is poured in Spain. A Venenciador uses a long rod with a thin cup to dip into a cask and pour the sherry into a small glass from high up in the air. This is a regular part of the sampling process in bodegas, but it is also performed at parties, weddings and fancy restaurants. It takes a lot of practice to get good at it, so good Venenciadors can make a living just pouring sherry. Really good Venenciadors can pour accurately over a meter in distance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kcmhtGvsc4
I think there's an issue of terminology.

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_(probability_theory) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_space for what mathematical statistics means by the term "event".

I suspect that what you are calling "events" are actually values of some function defined on the set of (mathematical) events. Such a function is called a random variable. The values of a random variable are a major object of study in statistics - but they are not events.
> Aberlour A’bunadh

Where are you getting cheap Aberlour A'bunadh?? It's my favorite scotch but I cannot find it for less than 2 to 3 times the price of Macallan 12.

Also, Glenmorangie is a delicious sherry scotch. Tastes a lot like Macallan and usually cheaper.

> The big trend in Scotch is towards “no age statement” (NAS) bottlings, because Scotland is not keeping up with resurgent global demand. NAS bottles are younger spirits, but tend to have more interesting casks, which is a bonus if sherried whiskies are what you’re into.

Interestingly, Macallan in the US still has an age statement. This, however, is not the case in other countries. They have names instead (like "Ruby").
Oh, blah dee blah.

This is not the crux of the debate, regarding what Facebook gets wrong about the internet.

The problem isn't the decision criteria, for what's fair or foul within the confines of the company's policies, as reconciled with the general realities civilization confronts.

The truth is that, on some level, Facebook, as a simple matter of being a communication system, as ordinary as any telephone call, provides enough rope for you to hang yourself with. We all know this, and so do they. The idea for those operating the platform, is to build an anticipatory prediction of who might being tying nooses, either for themselves or others, and perhaps do something about the key player's actions.

In order for that principle to work, in some cases, it means letting bad things happen, or perhaps staging the appearance of bad incidents without real consequence.

Meanwhile, The Problem with Facebook, is that it is a hyper-reality, airbrushed according to individual preferences. As such a hosting platform for arbitrary input, of nearly unbounded scope. Without reliable turing tests, based on real externalities, there's no way to discern bot garbage and provocateurs from the expressions of true believers. If Facebook were to reveal its secrets for discerning and differentiating between intentionally deceptive content and de novo factual information, it would effectively default on the very same cat-and-mouse game of discovering the noose tyers.

So this congressional hot seat and court of public opinion is simply a dog and pony show. Facebook will continue as usual, until a generation ages out, rendering it the new AOL, and fizzling into irrelevance.

At some point new technologies will grab the limelight, distract us all, and we'll pretty much forget about all the fuss of Trump and Facebook, just like we've mostly forgotten about Reagan and MTV.
Actually, he was saying blatant lies are not going to be removed from Facebook. His reason, that you can't tell "intent" is rather bizarre, in my opinion.

Instead of removing blatantly false posts, their plan is to exercise control over their news-feed distribution -- choosing how often these posts are being seen. The assumption is they'll do the right thing, and not distribute posts they know are blatantly false, such as denials of the Sandy Hook shooting.

However, that is a choice they can make. They could, in fact, choose to optimize distribution of false information based on their political needs. Who's to say they haven't done this already?
Does it have capabilities beyond sed, or just shorter syntax?
This is precisely what Account-based-Marketing is supposed to be. It's too bad there is so much concept creep in the marketing world, its tough to know whats what.
You still need the Android SDK to use Flutter on Android
Well I guess it's an american platform, so it'll work along american's definition of free speech.

I personally prefer having my twitter for example set to Germany. They have a sane approach there and it doesn't stifle debate; unless you're a neo nazi, in which case, I couldn't care less.
Tiny Snake Preserved in Amber Is Unprecedented Find
This is one of those things that sounds surprising and important at first, but when you think about it a while it seems like it might be obvious.
Here's an idea... why not hire people with actual tech experience to write about tech?
I think they meant to type

(gdb) shell-pipe disas | grep mov
Ask HN: Any advanced react/redux tips you'd like to share?
I don't think we need to look for evidence for or against the existence of Monday...
The reasoning they are using isn't pure logic or math. You need more than logic and math to reason about people emotionally.

There's mutually established dependencies in relationships. One depends on the other but both minds think.

This is ridiculous reasoning to turn this crap into a math or logical expression to begin with. The fact that we have to argue out of common sense about emotions with logic and math is ridiculous enough and sucks because guess what! We know we reasoned ourselves into it.

People affect one another. Sometimes people understand each other mutually at the same time. It's not out of the space of probability for empathy to happen at the same moment in time and be dependent on the fact that both people are working towards it together.
Supposing a manufacturer wanted to use Android on it's phones, they could pay a sum of money for the right to do that in proportion to the number of phones the software were installed on. This fee would cover Google's costs and need for profit. You could call it a license fee, perhaps.
> the reason VSCode is as good as it is now is because it's has had increasing parts of it being re-written in C or C++

Is that true? I've heard that said before but I've also heard that's not true. I haven't been able to find anything indicating any parts of it are written in C/C++ either. The GitHub repo for VScode doesn't have any C in it; infact it doesn't have much but JS/TS:

https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode
>> I imagine the behind the scene discussions are full of "what if" type bike shedding

I'm pretty sure that all the behind the scene discussions are focused solely on how they can monetize specific segments of the platform with zero regard for the nature of the content
Thank you so much for responding! This is very helpful.
Voting Machine Vendor Admits Backdoors Installed on Voting Systems
Segregation was legal and called "separate but equal." Unjust and incorrect laws have existed.
I'm waiting for the day Alphabet removes Android from Google's umbrella and is expected to contribute to the bottom line. I wonder what they'll do to make that happen... You can either licence Android for a fee or a percentage of the cost of your device. If you would like to use GMS we can also include that for an additional cost.
Correct, will be awarded after course is completed.
No, it sees the content type in the headers that are at the start of the response. Presumably if that header isn't correct it'll stop downloading any further data.
Nike Says Its $250 Running Shoes Will Make You Run Much Faster
How to Make Your Wifi Router as Secure as Possible
Gez
fezds
We basically bought 5 Italian Officer blankets off Ebay (They are roughly the size of a queen bed), and then a bunch of wool batting from a website that sells pre-made wool mattresses, but also just bulk wool.

I think I looked into it recently and we spent something like $700 on materials.

But then you just put down the first blanket, lay down a layer of the batting (I don't remember for sure, but I think it maybe came in queen size bats already from where we bought it), and then repeat.

We stitched around the outsize with yarn using a baseball-style stitch to keep everything sort of fixed in place.

Here's a picture: https://files.slack.com/files-pri/T03KPRY1A-FBT1180P5/wool_b...
This post is wrong on soooo many levels, mentioning all of them would explode this comment, but just to proof one of them: JSON does NOT "requires curly braces around the entire documen". In fact, you can enclose a document with [ and ] as well, which is why you need curly brackets to write configuration files. This has nothing to do with a JSON "require"ment.
SQLBoiler: a language-first ORM for Golang
Several threads here mention the problem with sample size of one. That's true that it makes it very hard. But there's some interesting extra information we can also extract from this one sample: Life on earth either 1) developed naturally from physics or 2) arrived here from another place. If #1, it means life will develop in other places in the universe - and can do to the extent of transmitting electromagnetic waves. If #2, it already exists/existed elsewhere and was clever enough to send itself elsewhere and evolve to send electromagnetic waves.

From all the life that has evolved on earth, from bacteria to trees (to clever octopus) to humans, a very small percentage of that life evolved to create a signal that is detectable far away (humans/radio waves).

I don't really know how to factor this into the paradox, but based on the above, it seems so possible to me that life widely exists but it is simply a miniscule % that has evolved in such a way to use electromagnetic energy in a way that is detectable by us today.
I'm trying to direct this conversation away from using logic and math to reason about interpersonal relationships. It's garbage. Math talks about math. Logic talks about logic. This article conflates it with how people think about one another.

They are calling an event that occurs twice a singular event. My mind, your mind, the same statement, understood and accepted twice, possibly at different points in time (which is obvious given the fact that I have to literally hit send on this message) but you may be thinking the same thoughts as I at the same time, mutually dependent because we are all idiots that think it's fine to use logic and math to describe all minds.

It's not an RV when it comes to thoughts you choose to think! The RV is the thoughts you don't want to think.
Python post-Guido
Very difficult:

Technical debt and systems that are older than today's first-year students in computer science relying on broken implementations. It is work-arounds all the way down.
In a sense, yes. I currently have a Moto G 1st generation that I acquired approximately 4 years back. I intended to keep it for at least a year or 2 more, but through the steady accumulation of such 100 mb losses, I have ~ 500 mb storage left on an 8 gb phone.

Now, with a reasonable OS that should be enough. However, Android insists that it does not have enough storage for app updates, and keeps bugging me with a notification for this. I fail to understand how this is possible given that the app size itself is less than a 100 mb in many cases. Almost every week I am forced to clear the cache in order to perform updates. I believe this has something to do with the swap file - but am not sure.

As a consumer, I feel artificially pushed onto a useless upgrade train. The only reason I am merely annoyed and not infuriated is because I have finally found a legitimate reason (for my needs) to upgrade - a better camera.
Yes, very much so.