skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> And big formations makes the Mosquito vulnerable, because it means that they can't use their speed and elusiveness

Sure they could use their speed. Mosquito economic cruising speed was, depending on altitude, 250-300 knots, compared to 160-190 kn for the heavies. Even if operating alone, Mosquitos couldn't floor it for any significant amount of time, since that would consume fuel too fast (same as any other aircraft). Zipping along at 300 kn made them more or less invulnerable to Luftwaffe night fighters, though not day fighters. But even for the faster day fighters, intercepting a bomber formation going 300 kn at 30k feet is much more difficult and time consuming than a 160 kn formation at 25k feet.

But yes, all bombers were very vulnerable during their bombing runs.

> So a Mosquito isn't as effective as a Lancaster at the "burn down a city" job (much smaller bombload)

Since the Mosquito cost only 1/3 of a Lancaster and usually apparently carried between 1/3 and 1/2 as big bomb load, for the same price it would have been possible to carry about an equal amount of bombs. But yes, this would have required 3 times as many pilots and navigators, which were certainly harder to replace than most crewmen on a heavy. Then again, with a loss rate of 1/10 there wouldn't have been such a big problem with keeping the training pipeline filled with replacements either.

That being said, one reason for the much lower loss rate of the Mosquitos was certainly that the heavies presented much easier and juicier targets. So if BC had built a mostly-Mosquito force, then presumably the loss rate would have increased, though it's hard to see it could have reached such appalling rates as it did for the heavies.

> isn't as effective as a B-17 at the "blast this factory down" with generic crew quality.

I'm not sure I follow this argument. For daylight "precision" bombing, Mosquito would have carried 2/3 the bomb load of a B-17G, so yes, a small advantage for the B-17 there if you consider the navigator/bomber to be the critical resource. But for formation bombing with a leader/pathfinder model, no big difference. And with the better survivability of the Mosquitos compared to the lumbering heavies, skilled crew perhaps wouldn't have been such a bottleneck.
Ask HN: What API Gateway do you use for your GRPC services?
A bit of context. I'm writing GRPC serivces that run on container. I want to implement access rules and security on those services without repeating code in each of them. API gateway seems to be the key component I need. The communication between the gateway and services are not secured (h2c). I try some of well known proxy/API gateway but they fail to communicate in h2c.
So many questions here:
- Does API Gateway is what I need?
- Do you know any API Gateway that supports h2c?
- How will have you implemented security access rules and quotas for GRPC serivces ?
> not a middleman that tries to profit

Brave doesn't profit directly from advertising revenue. BAT is completely separate. The point is, specifically, to remove the incentive for the current trend of stealing your privacy by offering an incentive to directly pay content creators.
LibreOffice: Accountant's Nightmare
5 Things to Consider When You Employ Your First-Time Manager
Hm, wow, so I cut the back seats out of my 2005 ford focus and I basically have the same thing you see here, except the back is completely surrounded by the metal roof and rear window glass and trunk door.

It's big enough for two people to sleep in, 7ft x 5ft. I fit a queen mattress in it no problem!
This looks like a worse version of a teardrop trailer. There are many DIY guides and templates available on how to build a them, like this one: https://www.instructables.com/id/Teardrop-Trailer/
Muon was a fork of electron, which included many patches for features required for a variety of desktop apps. The amount of packages ensures that it takes time to upgrade to new chromium releases (regression testing with the patches).

Since brave is just a browser, it does not need all of those extra patches and features. So it is simpler and easier to just roll with chromium directly.
Why, then, don't we find ourselves in universes where the atom bomb was never invented?
> ‘Adonaj es mi pastor. No mankare de nada’ (The Lord is my shepherd. I shall not want)

Mancare in Italian is to miss/need/be lacking, and although mancar in modern Portuguese is to limp, archaic Portuguese used it in the Italian sense.

> I had to listen carefully to understand, hearing words like fazer (to do) and lavorar (to work) that sounded more like Portuguese and Italian than modern Spanish. I heard sounds like "dj" [dʒ] in the word, djente (people), “z” [z] in the word roza (rose) and “sh” [ʃ] in the word pasharo (bird) that don’t exist at all in modern European Spanish.

Other direct matches and similarities: Fazer - To do (Portuguese), lavorare - to work (Italian), djente - people (Brazilian Portuguese pronunciation of gente), pássaro - bird (Portuguese). Even the z in roza, for rose, is typical of Portuguese pronunciation.

____

Not related to the article but something I always found odd: In Italian, 'morbido' means 'soft' (used to describe food, among other things), while the English 'morbid' is translated as 'macabro'. Italian etymological references say this is due to the softness of diseased muscles, and it somehow just became 'soft'. All of the other Romance languages use the term in its original meaning.
It doesn't. We will not sell data. Right now we are really focused on the best product and we will find a fair and sustainable business model when it's ready.
I've used the mobile version for a while, but switched back to Opera after Google Ads showed up on a web page in a popover, despite having been blocked. It was already Chromium-based. Opera doesn't have the flip-switch menu Brave has to switch off certain features, including Javascript (very helpful for disabling most those annoying cookie and GDPR consent popovers) but their ad blocker is quite effective.
I'm glad that you've called out this hypocrisy and it's unfortunate that you are being downvoted heavily. Probably, the same will happen with this comment too. I'm a Hindu but no fan of Savarkar either and I genuinely believe Gandhi did a lot for India. But this labeling of anyone who was
against Gandhi as "Hindu supremacist" is appalling. Ironically, Savarkar was a self-described atheist.
Ah, slim bezels. As a professional, this is the absolute height of my concerns and I am glad they have addressed this in their 'pro' products.

/s
Myth, science and the fate of the Romanovs
Bet Tips – Over 2.5 Goals – Friday 19th October 2018 – Best Free Betting Tips
I am based in England and so is my company. GOV.CO.UK is an incredible portal: finding info is easy, readig is easy, getting forms is magical, sending forms is seamless. Some parts of the other related portals are older though but being updated too, in order to have a consistent experience throughout.

LOVE IT.
The link for Android leads here: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.brave.brow...

Maybe it was a rendering issue?
Show HN: IntelliBlocks – create smart toys in minutes
I never said anything about writing the dependency. I'm talking about reading and writing code that uses it.

Of course it's easier to read a trivial function than the docs for a trivial function. That's what makes it trivial, it's not abstracting away anything meaningful. And of course I can easily figure out what classNames outputs.

You know what I can't figure out trivially? What inputs it takes. It's a polymorphic function. Me and Bob load up a new codebase, I open a few files and see classNames used a couple of times with an object parameter. I can now be pretty confident what the API of the function is. Bob opens up a couple of different files and sees it used with an array parameter a few times. Now he's pretty confident he's got the hang of it too. We both go off to write new components. I've got a bunch of this everywhere:

{ foo: true, bar: true, baz: true }

And Bob has a bunch of this everywhere:

[foo ? 'bar' : null, baz ? 'boop' : null]

Bam, inconsistent code. Could have easily been solved by reading the docs before using something though. And hey, at least we'll both remember for next time...

...Unless our team imports 100 of these libraries and tries to enforce a consistent use of them across the project.

There's only so much API surface area one dev can keep at the front of their mind while coding. Good devs understand this and minimize it. Bad devs pile in trivial dependencies because they don't understand their cost.

Oh, and how do I know whether flattenArray is recursive or not? What if it is and I only want to flatten one level? Does it take a second integer parameter? Or an options object? Since we're talking about JS, does it flatten Array-like objects? Is that the same API or a different one? It's almost like your example proves my point...
This already happens with many things. Cheaper, non-EU-standard compliant electric goods are sold in Africa.

Cheaper, sulfur-ladden diesel fuel is sold there too.
I didn’t understand what this meant until I dug up more information, especially since I thought Brave was already based on Chromium. Turns out that so far only the browser engine was Chromium based. Now its user interface is also transitioning from an in-house open source framework called Muon [1] to Chromium.

This is what an announcement more than six months ago (from March 2018) [2] says:

> Brave for Windows, macOS, and Linux currently use the Chromium rendering engine, but (unlike Brave for Android) it uses a custom HTML and JavaScript user interface. Technical readers will know that we call the runtime for this user interface Muon, which is a more secure fork of Electron, and which therefore combines Chromium and Node.js to enable applications built using JavaScript and HTML user interfaces and Node modules for the application logic.

After getting rid of Chrome recently (not that I was using it much before), I’ve been using Firefox (my favorite browser), Safari and sometimes Brave.

[1]: https://github.com/brave/muon

[2]: https://brave.com/development-plans-for-upcoming-release/
> Effectively, it is a definition of computation that has so far been accepted because nothing fundamentally different and more powerful than a Turing machine has been exhibited.

Note that there is a commonly accepted extension that is more powerful than a Turing machine: Probabilistic Turing machines. I'm guessing the proof of equivalence generalizes to partial recursive functions and the lambda calculus if you add a 'random oracle'.

An interesting counter-argument is that real random oracles don't exist, and that in reality, we can simulate probabilistic computation using Pseudo Random Number Generators. So:

* True probabilistic computation isn't possible
* And anyway, deterministic computation gets close enough to probabilistic computation through PRNGs

Alternatively, one might argue one could build a 'real' random oracle by reading from a 'true' random source. E.g. Cosmic microwave background, atmospheric noise, quantum fluctuations or a video of lava lamps.
There is a difference between a random source and a random oracle, but with sufficient storage, that can be patched.
I know GDS uses Cloud Foundry a lot (as do the US and Korean governments). How much of gov.uk is deployed on CF?
It occurs to me that you hit on one of Bulgakov's juxtapositions right in your first comment which can be a handy cue when there isn't a footnote -

"vanish one after the other as if by magic"

When the narrator suddenly feigns ignorance, is vague, evokes unclear, possibly supernatural forces at play - he's generally talking about things like the state terror or other entirely humanly-wrought events and matters.

When he talks about the actual supernatural - the devil and his retinue - he has no trouble at all following them around and describing their actions and their consequences precisely.
I think it’s worse than that, I mean, it’s anecdotal but I think their premise is flawed. Because I don’t think enough people are going to enable adds for it to ever be viable option for advertisers.

I mean, their business case evolves around advertisers paying users to watch adds instead of paying Facebook or google. But Facebook only earns a few dollars per user per year, who in their right mind would turn off their adblocker for a few dollars? Probably not people that have an income which is attractive to advertisers...

Then there is the part where they want users to pay for content, but that already exists with superior tech, lower middleman fees and better consumer safety. I know, I know, crypto will get there or whatever, but when is the last time an inferior option ever disrupted anything?

One the other hand, if they didn’t put their premise/vision of a revolutionised web ahead of their users, then they might as well be working on Firefox.
So what is the benefit over just using Chromium?
How Do Proxies Work for Buying Sneakers
I really does depend where you live and how much you make relative to what the repair costs. In UK if I wanted to call an engineer to look at my fridge, it would cost at the very least £100 just for labour, without taking any parts into account. Considering that my huge larder fridge cost a whooping £180 brand new with free delivery, I'd just buy a new one. The company selling it even has to recycle the old one for free, as per EU regulations. It's just not worth repairing at all.

However, considering where I am originally from(Poland), repairman labour won't cost more than 50PLN/hour(£10), so actually, fixing a "cheap" £180/900PLN fridge is completely worth it. It's even more worth it to actually repair it yourself, as the average hourly wage in Poland is about 10-15PLN(£2-3), so even though having it repaired is "cheap" by western standards, doing it yourself still saves you money.
> In this way quantum suicide is not really exploitable, as the vast majority of "your" measure will be in worlds where you find quantum suicide to be unappealing.

Unappealing is subjective, though. Sure, the vast majority of "your" measure will be in worlds where quantum suicide will kill you. But there is no reason you can't think of "I will be dead but some version of me will be alive in another universe" as an appealing scenario.

As a thought experiment, suppose that instead of involving quantum mechanics, you were an emulated mind capable of making an exact copy of yourself in this universe. And, for some reason, someone is willing to give you money in exchange for you copying yourself and then immediately deleting one of the copies at random. In a lot of ways this looks similar to the quantum lottery scenario: "you" will split into two copies, one will end up dead, and the other will end up richer.

One difference is that in the quantum scenario, you're leaving behind a whole universe without you in it, whereas in the emulation scenario, the universe will end up with one copy of you either way. But if you don't care about the universe, only yourself, then that wouldn't matter to you. Another difference is the alternative if you choose not to perform the experiment: two copies of yourself (or a self with twice as large a measure) in the quantum scenario, one in the emulation scenario. But then, as an emulation, you could just decide to copy yourself and not delete one of the copies. Normally, that would be pretty different, since the two copies of you would have to interact with each other, perhaps compete for the same resources, while two quantum copies exist fully independently of each other. But you could imagine sending one of the copies off at lightspeed to some distant place, with no intent to ever communicate with the copy again – heck, you could theoretically send the copy beyond the cosmic event horizon so that it's physically impossible to ever communicate again. There wouldn't be anything wrong with doing that – but if you decided "nah, I don't feel like it; one of me is enough for this universe", you can't say that would be irrational or suicidal. So, in the quantum scenario, why should you prefer having two of you (by not doing the experiment) over having one (by doing it)?
One way of looking at it is to say that peripherals have lighting, and main devices have USB-C. The iPad pro is wholly a laptop replacement, not a temporary substitute.

The iPod was named as a "pod" as it had to dock with the "mothership" to charge and synchronize, and that thinking still seems to be around at Apple.

At least I still find it harder to operate my i-devices without occasionally connecting to itunes, than I find using my Android devices without connecting to a computer.
So as yet, no business model, exploring viability?
The point is that we can represent sqrt(2) symbolically (as I just did there) but it cannot be represented as a binary (or decimal) expansion.

Computers can also work symbolically rather than based on some direct binary representation. I think equality and especially comparison become more difficult to determine, but it remains possible.
Startup Accuses Huawei of Trying to Steal Semiconductor Technology
I can't find the Github-issue atm, but I'm guessing it was motivated by security (there's been a bunch of RCE-exploits in Electron), technical debt, and performance (Muon was an Electron-fork, and Electron is more than just Chromium).
> If I'm quoting something (another reason people often indent their comments) I will normally wrap the whole thing in * so that it is italicised.

Personally I prefer putting a greater than sign in front of each paragraph I am quoting / quoting from.

It’s what we do in e-mail and on most imageboards and in markdown. It’s easy to read and easy to understand that it’s a quote.
One thing that others me about the MWI: Is the so-called "set of all possibilities" a well-defined set?
To actually answer your question, Jonathon Blow has some twitch streams of him debugging some problems: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/321734897

I don't know about 10x engineer (I actually think that whole line of thinking is bullshit), but Blow has shipped a few games.
Right, so free means you are bootstrapped or VC-funded and later on... your users are the product ?

I can understand not wanting to communicate on a business model that isn't ready but could you maybe point out some leads other than the usual ads or data-selling business ?

Or if you don't want to be specific maybe you can point out that you are definitely against selling user data later on even if it means saving the company ?

I was happy to find a "How does Coffee Chat make money?" section but it's content isn't very helpfull if you're a user fearing data collection and adds.
42" is slightly over half my height, hard to imagine this being comfortable
> I'm not afraid of the experts

Eh kills experts and doesnt afraid of anything
They recently published a style guide and it is excellent
https://beta.nhs.uk/service-manual/
>> surely they could tumble at a much slower rate and waste less electricity.

Tumbling uses a fraction of energy heating does. The motor used for rotating the drum will use about 20-30W, while the heating element will be rated at 2000-3000W.

I suppose it could use less heat for longer, but then I'm not sure if it actually works out favourably(as in - if you just use 1000W of heat, is the process 2x as long, or longer? Because if it's longer or the same then it's more efficient to use full 2000W of power for heating).
Yeah, I'm not quite willing to go that far into the madness with the crackpot'edness. But I think Protong is an intriguing idea, and that it is being represented artistically with skill, well .. why not ..

Zermatism? That can be ignored safely, I feel. At least until science catches up. And then I suppose none of us Yeti will be safe.
I’ve used it somewhat occasionally, and to me it seemed like Chrome as far as memory usage and sluggishness with multiple tabs and windows are concerned. But I like the fact that it comes with a built-in ad blocker, and avoids contacting Google (unlike Chrome). This announcement says it should perform better, and that’s something I’d like to try out and see.

If you were frustrated by the recent “signing in” changes and the backtracking of that in Chrome, you should try Firefox and Brave.
Why are people even calling out the wrong fact presenters like Pankaj Mishra.

He has proved himself to be a wrong, factually, ethically person all the time.
A few years ago I wrote a Ruby example if anyone wants to try it: https://github.com/aw/ruby-decision-table
What about insurance brokers? Or travel brokers? They don't have stock. Intermediaries (sort of) inherently create quality control via having a better perspective on the market than any single supplier can, and through pressuring individual suppliers via their own large-scale buying/selling activities.

E.g. if a dropshipper is selling mobile phone covers at scale, and stops using supplier x because the poor quality is affecting the dropshipper's brand, this puts more pressure on the supplier than if individual end-users stopped buying their products. Same applies to all brokers. They glean great power over suppliers in this fashion, while improving the experience for end-users (prime example: Amazon).
The fundamental question is who decides. Ideally the browser is the product, but not the user. For that, the browser needs to solve the question of the flow of money.

Using Firefox makes you the product, because Mozilla monetizes you with selling you to Google. That is not a browser that "puts you first" or promotes the "open culture of the internet".

Giving people the ability to chose whether they want to participate in the monetization makes Brave more of a browser that puts "you first".

Besides that, Mozilla is basically a company, and their non-profit organization is basically a fig leaf. Even if you don't agree with this assumption, the browser is as commercialiced as any other project, as proven by Pocket, Google search partnership and Amazon affiliate links.

The Brave browser also doesn't claim this is "what the internet is about". On the contrary, the default settings in Brave make the Web essentially non-commercial and ad-free.

Finally and philosophically, there is no collective "we" you talk about, only users who are free to chose from a variety of browsers and products.

Other than that, there is definitely some form of irony in the fact that the people on brave.com wear a cap with a corporate logo, but are implied as being free from corporate influence. The message would be more consistent if there were no logo on the cap, and one could argue this implies that Brave is at best a transition towards a better state.
https://people.xiph.org/~jm/
Any of us "born ignorant" and after (hopefully) learn, it's not elitism, IMVHO is realism: masses completely miss IT education (not in school programs) and learn from what they have got; they have got colorful UI from media, local stores etc and that's the only thing they know.

Do not forget the ancient and still actual Internet Manifesto, old IT was open to anyone willing to learn, elitist only with people who are not willing to learn.

Commerce use those people and common ignorance as a way to spread, impose a system nice for making money. In few countries, most anglophone, they manage to tweak the pre-exsisting culture of respect to create a "right to be ignorant" and "prize of ignorance" simply just to win there, in other countries they choose other paths like "comfort" (buy from us and all work without study or setup effort) or "need of expert" etc. It's elitism say "masses can't learn", it is not saying "masses are ignorant" (NOT in an insulting sense), that's simply a truth and since is not what most people describe as a good thing we have to remark and fight it, trying to avoid that problem make things worse and we have plenty of real life proof.