skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
So in the last month or so I stumbled across SFIA [1]. This guy has produced 150+ videos about futuristic topics but grounded in science. Everything from how to get into space cheaper to the Fermi Paradox to Black Hole civilizations.

Anyway, one thing I like about it is the optimism. This guy is genuinely optimistic about the future. And he has pretty good reason. Like this planet can realistically be home to trillions of people with not much more tech than we have right now.

But a recurring topic is the subject of fusion and how much of a game-changer it will be if we can do it in any kind of economic fashion. Now I'd previously somewhat dismissed this because of the naive view that it is free energy. Well the fuel might essentially be free (even that depends on what the fuel is; deuterium is common enough to essentially be free, Helium-3 not so much) but the plant itself costs money, has a power output, requires maintenance and we still need power lines and the like.

But he points out some of the reasons why this is a complete game changer and why certain problems simply cease to be. One of these is the greenhouse gas problem. Why? Because as soon as you have energy cheaper than hydrocarbons you simply use your power to make hydrocarbons from the CO2 in the atmosphere. This is pretty simple chemistry and we can do that now. There's just no point because we'd be powering the process largely with hydrocarbons (solar and wind notwithstanding).

I should also point out that I remain somewhat skeptical about nuclear fusion being economic because of the neutron problem (in that neutrons quickly destroy the container). This works fine for stars, not so well for superconducting magnets.

But (as Isaac Arthur points out) you don't even need fusion for some of these rosier outcomes. You just need cheaper than what we have now and there's good reason to think that solar may get us there, particularly if we can mass produce solar collectors in low Earth orbit (these produce about seven times the power of Earth bound collectors). And there's actually pretty good reasons to be optimistic about that.

The human condition is one of exaggeration, unfortunately. Namely that both fear and optimism tend to be overstated. You see this in markets all the time.

The counterargument against radical changes to combat climate change tends to revolve around the idea that markets will eventually solve that problem (for those that admit there's even a problem at any rate). And it makes me somewhat uncomfortable to admit that this idea probably isn't 100% wrong.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZFipeZtQM5CKUjx6grh54g
I've honestly never seen that. I've always seen options for both. Where do you live where the only theaters show 3D only?
The uncomfortable reality is that 7 billion people can’t all live like Americans (or Europeans). Extracting the resources necessary for everyone to live like Americans would be very bad for the environment. The effective action is to greatly reduce the number of births worldwide. It seems to me all other options are not effective.
> but on a daily basis, pretty much no one uses it.

Maybe not for software but certainly in the hardware world formal verification is common place with mature tools available from multiple vendors.
> the King had absolute or near absolute authority. King John was the ruling class.

In theory, perhaps. But the barons could and did challenge the King with a degree of success. The king did not have a practical monopoly on the use of force. So the description of Magna Carta as an 'agreement among the ruling class' seems reasonable.
No, there doesn't need to be an minimum reasonableness to speech for it to be protected. The ravings of a lunatic are and should be protected. The issue of where to draw the line between speech/persuasion/debate and harassment/threats/shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theatre is an important thorny one, but it is completely separate from the quality or reasonableness of legitimacy of the speech.

I don't know anything about the facts of the case at hand. I am responding to the argument, made above and many place in this thread, that the only sorts of protections on free speech are legal ones, and that in particular they don't apply to legal actions taken individuals or private organizations.
Mostly engineering and product management
I don't understand. You completely omit laws and specific policy suggestions in your criticism. I'd love to see you advance this discussion by adding something to it.

What laws and policies would you suggest? If you don't feel like you can articulate your position well, do you have any books/articles you recommend we read?
Hard to say. I don't think there will be a well-defined turning point. The thing is, the climate changes on long scales, and humans only pay attention to the immediate details, like children analyzing the stock market. The climate will get _gradually_ worse, and people will be forced to migrate north where the environment is more livable. This is obviously what is happening now, and isn't fully sustainable. A little patch of green (Europe) can't feed the world, in slightly over-the-top terms.

However, I will say this. If anyone has ever been in a large storm, or a drought, you'll be shockingly aware at how quickly a small announcement about "sold-out water" or "store stock issues" turns into absolute, utter, pure, _pandemonium_. Once _that_ happens often enough, I think people will begin to admit that we lost _something_, for sure.

To answer your question though, it's generally believed that it will be a gradually-growing sense of despair and dread, and a growing struggle. Migration into the northern hemisphere as it slowly becomes the last livable place on Earth. Ever played musical chairs in the later stages of the game? Yeah.

Honestly, it's remarkably similar to the mechanics behind the French Revolution, but instead of just rich vs poor, it's some kind of crazy triadic chaos-war between rich, poor, and nature, all made more ironic that nukes have a triadic motif.
I've been looking into carbon capture recently because it's going to be vital to slowing down the warming (and buying us another 50 years for the transition).

What surprised me is that I can cover double my two-car-owning European family's carbon footprint via planting trees in the UK at an annual cost of around $400. It'll cost half that to do the same in a developing country.

We need a global carbon tax and we need it now. Heck, even a carbon tax in the EU / US applied to local emissions and, importantly, to imported goods would go a long way to solving the problem.

We can't just sleepwalk into oblivion, can we?
Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gases in the US.

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-...

Not all of that is personal transportation, but a lot of it is. This is not a blip on the graph.

I also agree that large polluters need to change, and that we need state action. I was just pointing out that people who seem to believe climate change is a problem rarely make major lifestyle changes consistent with their stated beliefs.

Saying this is primarily a collective action problem is passing the buck. It's a convenient excuse for doing nothing. Collective action is much harder than personal action. Ultimately, we need both collective and personal action.

> Calling into question the sincerity of people concerned about climate change but also concerned about actually getting to work on time and not stinking and getting fired because their bosses don't care is just some nasty, uncharitable stuff.

You seem to believe that cycling to work is much more challenging than it actually is. You may be surprised, but no cyclist I know has the problems you've mentioned. Those problems can happen, but they are not that common in my experience.

Yes, the US is a car dependent society, but you can choose where to live and choose your job. Like most people choose where to live based on their driving commute, I choose where to live based on my cycling commute. It is not a long commute, and I arrive on time and usually am not sweaty.

Also, cycling was just an example. It doesn't need to be cycling. Work at home, switch from your gas guzzler, etc.
That TR 1900X SKU looks like an Intel killer for its target audience.
In my country we have a word to describe this, it’s called “dannelse”, and I can’t find an English word for it. The closest thing I’ve been able to come up with to describe it is: ”give people a broad, general basis for developing their talents to the maximum and growing into strong, open and multi-faceted individuals who can assume their responsibility in society to the full.”

This sounds like the English term "liberal education."
Route 53 looks like it was designed by the Marquis de Sade. Not only was it designed by a sadist, it looks like it was designed last century.

They’d be better off putting up a text file because then at least the IT guys would already know how to use it. And making changes would be a hell of a lot faster too.
That's actually quite unusual. As of last year, 3D tickets accounted for less than a third of the tickets sold for 3D movies: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/is-golden-ag... (They cite about one-third 3D, but they're counting box gross, and 3D tickets are usually about... +20% price?)

Speaking anecdotally from when I worked in a theater, somewhere around one in five people either can't watch 3D movies (motion sickness or similar) or simply don't benefit (no depth perception). Parties of four or more would almost always go to a 2D showing, because of the likelihood that somebody would veto 3D.
If you're going to quote Randall Munroe, at least include a link ;-) https://xkcd.com/1357/
https://bitbucket.org/mihailp/wireguard-pil/src
Sounds like a job for the courts. I don't think any in this thread is remotely informed about the facts of the case.
Good points. I think even if we could muster collective action it would be required on a global scale. Related to this is that in many cases large emitters of green-house gases are largely divorced from the consequences. Ultimately most people around the world will feel some impact but it's not really a problem in the here and now. For example animal husbandry (cattle and possibly sheep) is apparently responsible for emissions of methane which is in theory has a disproportionately larger impact on raising global temperatures...but we'll have a hard time convincing people to stop eating those meats. Especially in parts of the world that are becoming more affluent, have large growing populations and are rather keen on enjoying their share of steak or leg of lamb
What I meant was that the "bad guys" will have it and they'll exploit it. No regulation will help because they will do it illegally. I want to be able to defend against it, but I won't be able to do it if there will be regulations against using those algorithms.

So I would rather allow anyone to have access to face recognition software, than to allow using it only for illegal use. Because nobody can prevent it from being used illegally.
If you are on verions<52, just know that this update won't be shown on the "About Thunderbird" page that checks for updates.

I was just in the same situation, and simply downloaded the installer from their main webpage [1] (after backing up my data in my profiles folder[2] and closing any running instances of Thunderbird), and it simply worked! I have to say, at least on Windows, the update looks much better, feels quite refreshing! Almost makes me want to actually check all the new emails :)

[1] = https://www.thunderbird.net/en-US/
[2] = https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profiles-where-thunderb...
>> In the group of 100 people, even if 99 people will ban something, 1 person will still use it.

The same thing goes for any crime. Most people will not mug you, but a few will. So what? Should we not make mugging illegal, because there will always be some muggers around? Or do we just forget about policing such behaviour and instead "find ways to defend against it"?

I mean I guess you could argue for the latter approach, but then you need to explain where the buck stops- do we have any laws banning harmful behaviour, or is it every man and woman for themselves? Or something in between?
> It doesn't talk about sockets but for sake of preorderers I hope it's compatible with original threadripper boards.

AMD has already committed to using the same socket until 2020.
> I don't think banning anything provocative is a good strategy anymore. If anything, the triumph of Internet-logic over mainstream logic has involved a wide variety of people being willing to go out of their way to find provocative content.

Which users do you think bring in more ad-revenue?

> In a lot of ways, the broad mainstream seems like and often is bland, feel-good propaganda of its own - a product of both the cold war and media consolidation.

It's risk adverse content that goes out of it's way to avoid forming anything close to an opinion or offending anyone.

I agree with your sentiment that banning any controversial discussion they essentially just move it somewhere else they cannot police, but I don't think those discussions are of much value to them because of the nature of advertising.
A single person in a car is nothing. However all the cars in total are a big deal.

Even a single industrial polluter is nothing. All the cars on the road are worse than the worst single industrial plant.
Letting Data Drive
Why doesn't he get automatically signed up for Medicare and Medigap at 65? It's a simple matter of the IRS notifying the people who administrate Medicare and Medigap as soon as they process his tax return and see that he turned 65 within the last 12 months. Excuse me for not knowing what department that is, not American. Why would he need to sign up?
> The effective action is to greatly reduce the number of births worldwide. It seems to me all other options are not effective.

Good luck with that ;-)
The CLTV is high in fashion - people return to shops they like over and over. If they're in high growth, they're spending a lot in marketing to get new customers acquainted with the brand.
According to the last paragraph, the magnitude of the effect is insignificant.
In my experience drivers tend to keep the speed limit in mind regardless. If the drive is a 45 mph road, straight line, low traffic, and high visibility most drivers will still cap out around 70 mph. This is because depending on how fast you are going, in the small chance you do get pulled over the difference between going 70 and going 90 could be the difference between a warning and winding up with a high fine and multiple points on your license [1].

Even if it is a lottery, if you lose your penalty is determined by the sliding scale of how reckless you were. That is a major factor in how fast drivers feel is reasonable.

With facial recognition, the farther along we go the frequency of its use will increase. However having the equivalent of a sliding scale of punishment could be useful.

Did the police department use facial recognition to try and identify who broke into a store? O.K.

Did the police department use facial recognition to preemptively surveil a high crime rate area and identify and keep track of everyone that goes to that area? Warning.

Did the police department use facial recognition to identify minorities and keep track of their activity across the city? The police department is banned from using facial recognition in the future and if caught again will face punishment on a case by case basis.
Read through a few of them here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InfoWars#Controversies
It's way more complex than that. Firstly:

* MoviePass isn't putting butts in empty seats - look at all their problems, their problem is that they're selling out on blockbusters and weekends. So a lot of the revenue theatres are getting is just displaced. There's really no reason to think that a MoviePass customer is seeing more low demand movies. Think about it this way: A Theatre could drop the prices on their older flicks to get more butts in seats today, but they don't. What's the logical difference between that and doing it for MoviePass?

* Secondly, Theatres don't make their money the way you expect - up to 100% of a blockbuster's ticket sales go to the studio and the theatre is contractually limited in the prices they can charge. So even if the theatres wanted to make a deal, they can't!

* Thirdly, which business on earth wants to let a middle man in? If MoviePass reaches critical mass it can turn around and say 'We're dropping you from our list of supported theatres unless you cut us in 20%' - and you'll have to agree because they aren't your customers anymore, they're MoviePass customers.
I'm sure they've done the math and realized that the incentive doesn't line up. They explicitly stressed in earnings calls that they have no plan whatsoever to share concessions or ticket revenue with third parties like MoviePass. I imagine they expect to crush moviepass with A-List
Curious how you would calculate the value of two such terms occurring together, from the values of single terms given. Is that possible from this list of values?
don't try to overcomplicate matters. if you truly do not know anything about programming the best thing to do is to learn python before learning frameworks and such.
NYC’s housing crisis threatens the city’s future: City builds too little
Deep Learning, once you’ve got enough GPUs you end up bottlenecking on the CPU.
They very likely can, but it would require a massive program of nuclear power plant building. This is unacceptable to environmentalists, who prefer to pretend that people will voluntarily reduce their quality of life.
Not only is it hard to double spend, but if your double spend is found, the liquidation value is likely to plummet from under you in or before the process of attempting to realize the theft.
He is very clearly talking about something broader and more nuanced/complex, a "marketplace of ideas", yet you've twice misinterpreted that as a simplistic appeal to a pedantic interpretation of "free speech as defined by the US Government".

Dismissing any discussion on this topic as simply "you have the right to free speech, but you're not guaranteed a platform" in the age of the internet, with absolutely no consideration whatsoever for larger long term considerations and risks displays that the speaker is not righteously unbiased. Sure, they're undoubtedly more correct than Alex Jones and his ilk, but they're not fully willing to support a marketplace of ideas on principle. If your ideological team is winning, this is a natural tendency, but consider a scenario where your team isn't - then what?

From where I sit, this is a good demonstration of the nature, difficulty, and importance of the problem we're dealing with in our complex societies.
It will be 20 years before we have hard scientific proof. You know full well that this kind of data is slow to gather and study and draw conclusions from it.
I think orbital solar collection is interesting, but I'm not sure why it needs to be used to mine BitCoin: can't we just use the energy to power a microwave beam to collectors on the surface? Not sure what the economics of that is vs. the cost of launching a geostationary satellite though.
War on cancer has been...not completely a fail? Certainly made harder by profiteering, but, y'know.

Also, I find "War on poverty" hilarious. Like a country saying it's "making crime illegal".
After reading the post, and considering the time of export/import the data, I think will be better to denormalize the data (ie:precalculate the result).

I have something like in the near past, but with much heavy calculations. Denormalizing using triggers turn query that take minutes in less 1 second.
Things like this make me feel that climate change is a lost cause.
War is in the past. The war on drugs. The war on whatever. We are not waging war. War doesn't work. War is what has exacerbated the problem. We needn't dwell on the past but maybe learn from it.

I agree that wording is important. Talking about climate changes is important. We need an effort, perhaps greater than the war effort in world war 2 to make the changes necessary because whether we do nothing or make needed changes for the better, change is coming. There is no turning point. The Great Turning is a shift from the Industrial Growth Society to a life-sustaining civilization.
I was particularly impressed by the part about pigeons: familiar examples used to introduce new ideas.
"Different people have different perspectives on how information should be connected, so why do we not allow these range of perspectives to be represented and shared digitally? Why limit ourselves to just one point of view?

...

Why re-create code editors, simulators, spreadsheets, and more in the browser when we already have native programs much better suited to these tasks?"

The title is something I contemplated and began to address long ago, only on a personal level.

With respect to the first question, perhaps this goes to the poor mechanism promoted by Google, to rank the www's contents by "popularity".

This mechanism obviously succeeds for purposes of measuring www user opinion and selling advertising (the later not anticipated by the founders in the early years). However it falls short in the non-commercial context, e.g., the academic setting out of which the company grew. Anyone remember "Knol"?

Today Google search (and probably others seeking to emulate its commercial success) intentionally promote a pattern of usage of their cache/database where its users never reach "page 2" of search results. The company has built their ad sales business on the idea that one perspective ("the top search result") should not only prevail but also that, optimally, other results need not even be considered. It should be obvious that in a non-commercial research context, this is not optimal.

If the www is 100% commercial then of course this is not an issue. But "the www" is difficult to define. All httpd's on any accessible network? All httpd's listening on accessible addresses with corresponding ICANN-registered domainnames? All pages crawled by a commercial bot, deposited in a commercial www cache and made accessible to the public? And so on. In any event, if users only view the www's supposed contents through the lense of a commercial entity, the perception of what the www actually comprises may be manipulated in a way that suits commercial interests, e.g. the sale of advertising.

As to the second question, when given the choice I do not use a popular web browser. The author mentions the utility of "native programs". I would prefer the term "dedicated programs". Programs that perform essentially one task, or "do one thing". Whether such programs can perform their dedicated tasks better than an omnibus-styled program that performs many, varied tasks is a question for the user to decide. For example, the author answers that native programs are "better suited" than the web browser.

The "web browser" has become a conglomeration of once dedicated programs.

There are such dedicated programs for making TCP connections over which HTTP commands can be sent and www content retrieved. This is a task that web browsers can perform, although some users may prefer a dedicated program. In this way content retrieval can be separated from content consumption, alleviating many of the www annoyances such as user tracking, manipulation and advertising.
this seems to be the crux, everyone is saying how "this model is more sustainable" but as you pointed out, no, it absolutely isn't. without discounts from theaters moviepass can't survive and for the last year theaters have shown they don't need to offer those discounts.
This alone is a great reason to run AMD...
GraphicsFuzz is acquired by Google
Yeah, it’s not a practical solution in terms of implementation. However, if implemented it would work and not require Star Trek levels of innovation. There are simply too many people in the world.
Its not that much, but it's a start:

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/negotiatio...