skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Either the Brexit example is a simple mistake or you're confused about the mechanics behind it, so I'll elaborate to avoid people thinking it's a sound analogy:

The Brexit referendum was non-binding, so at that point nothing legally relevant had happened yet.

The UK government then decided to honour the will demonstrated by the 37.5% of the population that cast a vote in favour of leaving the EU (51.9% of the result at a 72.2% turnout). Again, this decision didn't mean anything legally relevant but the government announced its commitment, setting expectations.

At that point the UK government could have negotiated with the EU and sought alternative solutions (not that there was much left considering "do this or we'll leave" had been the negotiation strategy for quite a while).

But then on 29 March 2017 the UK government decided to start an "actual withdrawal" by triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty. This set its membership to auto-destruct within two years time and was legally binding.

The problem with Article 50 is that the UK now had a mere two years until all existing treaties it was part of via the EU would simply end and nobody had bothered to prepare for negotiating any replacements yet. As of today there are still hundreds of incredibly complex treaties that haven't been sorted out yet, the most obvious problem being how to deal with Northern Ireland's chaotic land borders without upsetting the DUP (the political party that enabled the Prime Minister to stay in office after her botched early re-election).

However unlike the US and the Postal Treaty, the UK can't simply cancel its withdrawal from the EU. If it wants to revoke its invocation of Article 50, it has to get approval from every single of the EU's (other) 27 member states -- some of which don't particularly care much for the UK for various reasons.

It's like giving your boss the finger and handing in your signed three weeks notice (after using the threat of quitting during salary renegotiations for decades) and then coming back two weeks later asking them if they can please let you stay. Except you don't have one boss but 27 of them and all of them have veto powers and some of them really don't like you.

However Scotland (where a majority voted against leaving in the first place) brought forth a case that will decide whether maybe the UK could still unilaterally revoke its invocation after all. The only problem is that a ruling might take months and may come a little too late.

Even if the court rules in favour of Scotland and the UK pulls off a full 180 at the last minute, the entire ordeal would leave the UK in a worse position by having called its own bluff and shown that leaving is not actually an option they're willing to follow through on.

tl;dr: the biggest difference is that (unless the ECJ rules differently) Brexit "took effect" immediately when Article 50 was invoked, it just includes a 2 year "migration" period during which the membership status remains in effect.
Oh, don't get me started on modifications we needed to do to make undo look reasonable ... :) At first, we thought that undo is the same thing as collaboration but... nope.

The crucial difference is that with undo you have a context (old document state). With collaboration, you don't. So if both users put a character at the same position, in collaboration the order of output doesn't matter (and can't be solved really). In undo it does, because a user remembers what was the order of the letters before they made a change.
Sycamore and linden are the perfect example of this.
> It gets especially worse when there are redirect after redirect to other ad servers

Yes this is very wrong, but not because your tracking loses accuracy.

You realize that this sort of careless trail you send your users along is exactly how people get served malware from ads right? I mean you admit yourself you lose track of where they end up so who knows what they get served or redirected to.
That's a really beautiful article!

Using kinds to keep track of the concrete representation of a reference to a type (rather than the concrete representation of the type itself) is one of the real gems in GHCs design.

However, one problem with it is that a polymorphic type, such as [] of kind "* -> *", or a function like map of type "forall a b. (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]" really only works with boxed types. I always wondered how expensive it would be to monomorphize everything at the level of kinds and have what GHC calls levity polymorphism by default.

Languages like Rust and C++ always monomorphize everything and while this does get slow it is still not the exponential blowup that theory suggests. In fact, there is an ML compiler (MLton) which does the same and it is still not too bad. Doing it at the level of reference representation - which is where the generated code actually needs to change - should be much cheaper and definitely a practical default.

The only real problem I see is that you could in principle write code that does "kind polymorphic" recursion, which couldn't be compiled away. But that sounds seriously crazy and I see no reason to allow it in the first place...
> Google, as far as I know, was never caught in dark ui patterns

Are you serious? Google uses dark patterns all the time.
Say your marketing team loves to update content without you being involved? Great! That is why you should use Contentful CMS. But wait, there is a catch. Contentful API sometimes takes ~800ms. And this is really a hit when you're having fancy SSR implemented to boost the performance of your Node JS app. As the creator of Gmail, Paul Buchheit had said "Every interaction should be faster than 100ms. Why? Because 100ms is the threshold where interactions feel instantaneous".

This is where redis will help you crunch the rendering speed. It's really, really fast! A few ms is all it needs to get your data. By few, I mean less than 100ms

redis-contentful maps your Contentful space's content types and their published records into your Redis server. It also maintains the schema of your Contentful space. All content types are stored in Redis as hashes. Under a particular hash, the record is stored as a key value pair with id being the record's key.

You can sync the data manually by calling the sync method on redis-contentful instance manually or you can add a webhook in Contentful by exposing an endpoint on your server which will internally call sync. In this way, you always have the latest content from Contentful right in your Redis.
How about alternatives that are completely open https://www.kinguardproject.org/ ?
As mentioned in other comments, having all the sources provides the possibility to review/recreate/modify the code to see what is really going on.

Disclaimer, I'm engaged in The Kinguard Project.
Everyone will give you lots of advice and requirements etc, and it's completely impossible to follow even a tiny fraction of it.
> But in Germany, if you are big enough or in government, you can do nearly everything without effects.

While I sadly agree, I would like to point out that this is true of many countries.
This is where the free market system falls apart. It has no opinion on ethics, only profits. Companies are put together to produce, market and sell surveillance tech to schools, corporates, communities, the police and even nation states.

Individual ethics are meaningless beyond signalling against a system. Individual components may have ethical concerns but the system is incentivized to grow and it has.

Imagine walking into a group of sales or engineering folks celebrating a new deal or release at a restaurant and berating them on 'surveillance and ethics'. That shows you the dissonance of your expectation and the disconnect of ethical concerns from businesses. And the impotence of individual ethics in a system.

The only thing that can counter this are explicit laws against this kind of damaging behavior and rule of law. Individuals are not allowed to do whatever gets them profit, they have to operate within ethical constraints, to advocate businesses not operate in an ethical context and to leave everything to markets is advocating lawlessness. And the system does respond in some cases like in drones, 3d printing of guns. Those are not free for all. Surveillance is a failure of regulation.
Not really sure how these things work so this is an honest question:

Why would they be receiving the tones once the connection is made? Isn't it the same as me just whistling at particular frequencies? I didn't think it was sent in a different manner.

Or do you mean it goes through the carrier just like if you spoke your card number over the phone to someone?
tl;dr

This scheme involves a complex juggle of shares between investors and thereby generating multiple tax reductions on effectively the same shares. This juggle included several banks, investors and lawyer to function which operated in a ring across Europe.
Stress Testing React Easy State (with exotic state structures and mutations)
Twitter’s Misguided Barriers for Researchers
There's a lesser form of tone-deafness (perhaps that's not the right word for it) where you can't tell with certainly or consistency the direction or extent of a change in pitch.

You can still hear and appreciate music, but you can't whistle or hum along to a tune.
On-Demand VPN (for a Digital Nomad)
There is a difference between the fallacy of “tone policing”, your argument must be invalid because you are yelling or rude, and this article’s point of your argument may be ineffective or counter productive if you are yelling or rude.

In practice, it’s pretty easy to tell the difference.
React Easy State (https://github.com/solkimicreb/react-easy-state) is a transparent - ES6 Proxy based - state management library for ReactJS. The marketing pitch of the project is this:

> It doesn't matter how you structure or mutate your state stores, any syntactically valid code works.

In this article, I try to prove this with a simple app and increasingly exotic state structures and mutations.
I strongly disagree. Regulation and a free market can definitely coincide, we don't have to be so absolutist in our economic opinion. Similarly, a nation having welfare and universal healthcare doesn't mean they're communist. It's not one-or-the-other.

Europe has a much freer market than the US, and also has much stronger protections on personal privacy, a la GDPR.

> Individuals are not allowed to do whatever gets them profit, they have to operate within ethical constraints, to advocate businesses not operate in an ethical context and to leave everything to markets is advocating lawlessness.

Most Libertarian thought espouses this belief, and they are all-in on capitalism.

Capitalism != immorality

You likely believe this from examining the behavior of US companies. The US market is not very "free" at all - it is heavily regulated, with the government propping up unethical, failing, non-innovative corporations.
This employees from big companies protesting cause news like this to appear here, so it was not a waste

- part of the people read about this

- other developers will get inspired so we can see more developers speaking against this.
The real murderer who manipulates the results of the US election is actually
Huh, have you flown Ryanair? I think they demand a passport from everyone.
I’m not sure if Swiss fine machinery is the best example here. What is it about the nature of Switzerland that makes it a more natural place to create fine machinery then anywhere else?

Similarly, using American corn as an example of how free trade should work is pretty underhanded. There’s a ridiculous amount of subsidies there, and the US doesn’t have any qualms with dumping the resulting product on international markets.
Agreeing here. My SO is a medical practitioner, and some of the stories I hear are just crazy. Folks who can't sleep and come in wanting meds, but after digging into their history you find they are drinking four liters of soda, two extra-large (and extra-sugary) lattes, and a pack of cigarettes every day. And on their phone until 11pm.

The more I hear about healthcare from the inside, the more I realize it's a game of "work on the worst problem, ignore the rest". There's limited time in patient visits, and patients have limited motivation, so you really have to prioritize what to fix. If you tell the patient to fix all the things, the will fix none of them.

Worse, patient education is hard work. Patients don't listen, ignore advice, stop lifestyle changes as soon as it gets hard. So you focus on one or two of the worst offenders; you convince them cigs are going to put them in an early grave and they should cut back to half a pack a day. Maybe drop the soda to two liters a day. The rest of their problems you have to ignore until later. That's often when meds come into play because they can help bridge the gap while you work on their lifestyle issues.

Oh, and all of that happens in 15 minute visits every other month.

There are certainly bad doctors out there over-prescribing all sorts of things, but from what I've seen, it's more a matter of prioritizing what to spend your precious 15 minutes on and going from there. Doctors and other medical professionals are in an impossible situation most of the time.

Edit: for clarity, this is an American healthcare perspective.
I disagree. When the government turns bad, it is potentially an extremely dangerous scenario which pales in comparison to a corporation being unethical. A corporation cannot bomb your house.
To put it more bluntly, the obvious difference is that cats and dogs can lick their private parts. Cows and horses can't perform the same level of personal hygiene while also providing more surface area for insects to invade.

I wonder whether this is not really more about infestations than bites.
Important detail is that playing on a highway is highly correlated with getting hit by a car. Clothing choice is almost not at all correlated to getting raped.
An equivalent word for what? Poland is an EE language and has milion, miliard, bilion, biliard, etc.
"cataloguing these risks is important if we’re going to be serious about having an impact in important but ‘fragile’ fields like reducing extinction risk"

I certainly hope that I'm mistaken, but that sounds awfully a lot like a pro - eugenics bit of propaganda.

Personally, I would suggest that people with a clear intent toward 'love thy neighbor' rather than 'We're the best set of people to fix your problem for you' is best for humanity.
I had a chat about this with one of the sellers on AliBaba.

He claimed that the items are still being shipped from China, and that he is just witing Singapore / Czechoslovakia / any other developing country on the package (he said it is part of the tracking code), and he gets the benefit of the country whose code he used.

He said the main reason they do that is that the laws differ as to what can be shipped from each country, especially vis a vis things that use radio frequencies. By choosing even distant countries they can be caught breaking minimum standards and are not prosecutable.

He said that the down side is that things can never be returned to sender, since the sending address is fictitious.
This last sentiment has been echoed by many sellers.

Have no way to verify, but it is an interesting claim.
I haven't heard [1] because it's just come to my mailbox but it seems you may find some answers to your questions.

[1] Podcast #450: How to Make Time for What Really Matters Every Day

https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/podcast-450-how-to-m...
>Limiting the polices technology and resources is an argument that doesn't make sense to me. Especially coming from open source advocates. Smells of hypocrisy.

You know we have the technology to monitor people location and conversations in real time, we can put those monitoring bracelets on everybody , promise not to use them until a crime is happening and we want to see who was where.

This will solve crimes but it gives a big oppressive tool to the state, is your point that all possible tech should be used if is not too expensive so we reduce crime to 0? This may mean cameras on private properties, mandatory personality checks, social score etc.
Why auction perpetual rights and not lease them?

Depends if the buyer has a means (and incentive) to clean up the spectrum when their license ends.

Some applications like TV and cell phones make cleaning up the spectrum easily possible - you just turn off the broadcast towers.

But if the government leases the spectrum to a company who uses it for consumer products like wireless doorbells and thermostats and burglar alarms and toy drones and two-way radios, those things are going to keep using the spectrum for years after their license expires.
weird. Greek is short, not "other"
> it seems that journalism is more and more responsible for work police should be doing

I think this echoes a lot of sentiment, if perhaps without concrete evidence, across the world.

How can we solve this?
Not my experience, at least flying from PT to ES, CH, DE.
there are plenty of ones even older than that still kicking and in regular use, just check out r/thinkpad, im typing this on a 2012 X1 carbon which shows no signs of dying despite being used heavily every day.

that being said current laptops, thinkpads included are all now using components which output too much heat for the cooling systems, almost every modern i7 laptop has some level of thermal throttling which could well shorten the life of other components but i guess only time will tell on that.

i still dont think its enough to warrant the inevitable increase in price (and likely weight and size to a degree) that using higher end components would incur
> ignore my calm, well-argued and perfectly rational advice

That's quite one-sided...
The thing I hate most is the "We had to do something" statement, justifying the horrible outcomes they created in a vain attempt to do a little good.

No, you didn't have to do anything. Doing nothing is actually sometimes better than doing something stupid.
I love it - as a fan of the crackpot Szukalski, seeing real science making similar conclusions to his, just tickles my pickle.

For those who don't know, Szukalski saw these patterns and similarities in ancient art, decades ago - and from this observation, formulated the theory that there was a common language in the civilisations that sprouted up before 'ancient history' - i.e. a pre-history civilisation, lost in a cataclysm, spread its survivors around the globe - who then coded their common language ("Protong!") into cave art and so on.

I really have to wonder if any of the serious researchers have read the book "Behold! The Protong!" by Szukalski, which recounts his investigation into this topic. It'd be somewhat unique - and terrifying (coz: Zermatism) - to hear that Szukalski was really onto something, all those decades ago ..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanisław_Szukalski

https://www.amazon.com/Behold-Protong-Robert-Williams/dp/086...
FBI takes down Nigerian-based phishing scheme that cost businesses $14M
That's my reasoning as well. A lot of climate change research seems to assume that the only variable is climate, while everything else has to stay the same: in this case cultivated varieties, cultivation techniques, production countries, economic incentives to cultivation, and so on. The world is constantly adapting to changes, often in complex and unexpected ways. I have next to zero faith in the ability of any researcher to correctly predict and rule out the miriad of ways we can adapt to such changes, before a real decrease in supply happens.
no i mean the X1 extreme was originally £1384 for the base model, then a few weeks ago they increased the price to £1859 for no reason at all (in the US, canada and japan its still around £1400)
This technology is the very definition of dual-use. There’s fundamentally no difference between a tool that can do “cat or not cat” and one for “terrorist or not terrorist”. The only difference is that people using for the latter probably don’t understand its failure modes and are taking its output very, very seriously.
The nature of the place in the context of Swiss watches could mean the établissage system.
Had an unpleasant one years ago. Just too much of everything on this page, you get lost so fast. And then the weird pricing, if in EUR and US Dollar. It has many many options, but not really user friendly.
Ask HN: First visit to Bay Area. Where should I go?
I have dreamt of coming to this place for over a decade. Here I am. Staying with a friend for a few days and have time to explore the area. I've been on a road trip from Salt Lake City since 9/9/18, went up through the Rockies and over to the Pacific Northwest, now down to Bay Area.

I'm interested in history, culture, food, yoga, Buddhism, science, technology, design, music.
I've been maintaining an obscure version of BASIC called "SmallBASIC" for a few too many years. It started out as a calculator for the PalmPilot (by another developer). You can build it on a raspberry machine or there's an out of date binary you could try. https://smallbasic.github.io
There's an emulator for EDSAC too, written in .. BCPL:

https://www.dcs.warwick.ac.uk/~edsac/
That's not a good excuse.
They're both correct in that both need to be true for lift to occur. If there is a force upwards on the wing then there needs to be an opposing force, and this necessarily must come from a difference in air pressure between the top and the bottom of the wing. Also, for the force upwards to exist, there must be an acceleration of the air around the wing downwards. It's also true that for a pressure difference between the top and bottom of the wing to exist, the air must accelerate downwards and vice-versa. Similarly, the low-pressure air on the top of the wing must be going faster, and faster air must be lower pressure (it is, however, not true that the air travelling over the top of the wing must take the same time to pass the wing and the air travelling over the bottom. This is in fact usually false).

These are all fairly straightforward consequences of the basic rules which air must follow when flowing. The wing produces lift because the shape of it means that all the consequences of the above are the only ones which follow all the rules, much like a sudoku or crossword. The details of actually solving the full puzzle (in way which tells you how much lift and drag you get) turn out to be fiendishly complex, but the basic reasoning is not too hard to understand, apart from the fact that people get confused by the fact that you can explain it 'simply' in multiple different ways by focusing on only one part of the whole crossword.
While I echo your appraisal, they have a hard time not to come across as biased.

for instance:

- In the article you've linked, I'm sure there were better images of a conservative politician to choose from. Small thing, but not for professional journalists

- In the CumEx-article, what information do I gain, when they state that one of the perpetrator's lawyers is a famous face of the German pro-market party FDP - other than that it's good that they aren't part of the government? BTW this politician is known to be a lawyer for defendants in cases with a lot of press coverage. Is he guilty by association? Is thus his party, the people voting for them?

- Their focussing so much about the new right-wing populist party AfD

And what of course will always make the tinfoil hats spin:

- Being funded (among others) by George Soros
Show HN: Bitcoin Spellbook, an opensource back end server for Bitcoin apps
Now you have a pretty ugly correspondence problem to solve.
It could also be a sweet spot for entering into SaaS before it got too-crowded but after companies warmed up to the fact that they could subscribe to software.
Friends of mine who work at a university suggest this sort of thing happens all the time - researchers wind up keeping old, interesting equipment in their offices to save them from being tossed.
There is absolutely nothing about Facebook that is essential or irreplaceable.