skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It is doing a lot to stem the online dependency on tracking, however, which I think is far more important. DuckDuckGo monetises through as, and I have absolutely no problem with that.
Right, Scheme is used and those uses are reflected in the spec(s). The minimalism of Scheme is what makes it easier to optimize, but that's not why it's alive.

If LISP users want their variant to stay alive as well, they need to follow that model of actually using it and documenting how it's used.

Vengeful LISP zombies gonna downvote, of course, because they're bad people.
Ask HN: Would a retro computing exhibition would be appealing to tourists?
I'm thinking of creating a permanent retro computing exhibition space, aimed at local and international visiting tourists.

Do you think this would be of interest for people to visit?

I know I would find it interesting, but a better question is whether or not retro computing is of interest to the general public.

What do you think?
This generation is, by and large, yes.
I once had an argument about that. A very smart colleague of mine claimed to have specified a very complete natural language tense system in Mercury, sort of hard-coded into the language if I understood him correctly. He claimed that it was way better than what general semanticists had come up with and that the use of logic in semantics is totally superfluous.

My point was that it doesn't matter how good his system is, as long as he doesn't separate declaration from implementation, it will be of almost no use. Nobody will be able to run his Mercury program in 100 years from now. Then again, it's not possible to run my Higher Order Logic with Henkin models and Categorial Grammar out of the box either.

So I'm still not sure who had the better argument. Maybe if researchers could agree on a common programming language, we could indeed dispense with descriptive formalisms?
> Is it more beneficial for yourself to blame others or figure out how to improve your situation?

Part of improving your situation is observing where the unfairness in the system lies and addressing it accordingly.

Legally preferably.
Anyone who can afford a car can afford a bike/ebike or a public transport ticket. Electric cars are not a solution to our problems.
Satoshi Nakamoto (but maybe it's more than one person), Vitalik Buterin, Yann LeCun, Sanjay Ghemawat, Jeff Dean.
Nothing to do with the license.

These systems do things that Linux just can't.

Linux is no RTOS, nor does it have a pure microkernel architecture. It can't do anything where latency guarantees are needed (hard realtime) nor high assurance, nor any actual semblance of security.

I suggest these posts:
https://microkerneldude.wordpress.com/2018/08/23/microkernel...
https://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2016/01/01/0/
The work wasn't interesting.
hi, can I post job free of charge?
From what I've heard in China UV boxes for dishes sterilization are more popular than dishwashers.
I would prefer the government simply require all government fleet purchases be electric starting in 2020 or something. That would actually have a trickle down effect on the rest of the population.
How long is that piece of string?

With how much precision can you measure it?

With how much precision can you describe it?

The answers are pretty similar for humans or turing machines IMO.
Philip Ball has previously written very similar articles on his objections to Many Worlds:

https://aeon.co/essays/is-the-many-worlds-hypothesis-just-a-...

Whilst I share his frustration with how readily it is being taken up and the dogmatic glamour surrounding it, I feel like he consistently misses the primary issues with it.

Copy-pasting a previous comment trying to describe succinctly what I see as the central problem:

> Although there are many versions of MWI, the general claim is that a single axiom (a unitarily evolving wavefunction) is sufficient to explain our observations of the universe. Without getting into what it means to "explain" something, it seems fair to demand that a sufficiently intelligent agent with no prior knowledge of our physics should be able to predict what the theory says about their future observations. However no one would be able to make any experimental predictions based on the above axiom. There's nothing there to suggest that if the agent becomes entangled with a quantum system then they would only experience a single branch of the entanglement. Even if you add that in, there's nothing to suggest which branch the agent will experience (this is roughly the preferred basis problem). Even if you add that in, there's nothing to suggest with what probability the agent will experience that branch.

> You could always add in the above as additional axioms. You could postulate some physical content to the Born-rule, or to something weaker from which to deduce the Born rule. But this would break the illusion that MWI requires fewer axioms. Instead, a great deal of energy has been expended into deducing the Born rule purely from that single axiom. There have been many very clever attempts at this, but none convincing enough to settle the matter.

If you're interested in reading more, Adrian Kent has written some fairly thorough critiques on arxiv:

https://arxiv.org/abs/0905.0624
Maybe it's just me but why do we have to make the web about other people making money? In the 90s there were plenty of websites ran by hobbyists and amateurs and even professionals who did it for the joy of their craft and even today there are loads.

Maybe I am being overly harsh but are we saying that a browser like Brave is required these days?

I don't think the web would be worse-off if all commercial sites disappeared: There will still be enough hobbyists, amateurs and pro's with $10-a-month blogs to provide whatever information I need.

For those that have more in depth content, videos, films and so on we already have subscription models for those and I can pick and choose what I want (I don't subscribe to anything other than Pluralsight tbh).

Why do we have to assume that every site on the web is a commercial entity with staff and overheads and that the web will collapse if we don't allow adverts?

The web worked perfectly well without all this tracking and abuse and by using browsers like Brave we are saying that we are ok with it.
I do agree we have a 'dick from the internet issue here'.
I didn't get it from the article but is there enough airflow to ensure you won't get a CO2 poisoning of you lock yourself inside?
وظائف شركة لافارج للأسمنت مصر
There's a passage in the introduction to one of Joseph Conrad's books, I think it's Lord Jim, where he's puzzled by a reader's reaction to the book: An Italian lady found something "morbid".
Bunnicula, asynchronous messaging with RabbitMQ for Clojure
To be fair, a good amount of the information outlined on government websites is actually pretty dense, complex and requires resources from different branches of the government - it's a difficult task and easy to drown the user in a sea of links and tabs.

Which is exactly why this step by step solution described in the blog post is so useful. It guides you through the various tasks involved in achieving your initial goal, which is outlined in a persistent progress sidebar. Well done in my opinion.
You could build up e.g. Cornwall (through subsidy) with the revenue from the tax.
Did you read the stuff between the parentheses?
Watch out about using downloaded ISOs unless you have a way to verify their hash against a known good copy. The ISO you download could very well have malware.
Instead of buying a donut, why not invest in a bakery instead?
> 99% of people within FAANG are the most friendly people ever

I worked at one the FAANG and I found in my team and some of the neighboring teams the most insecure, unfriendly, back-stabbing, conspiratorial bunch of technically semi-competent losers I ever had the displeasure of working with. Other people were competent, trustworthy, confident in themselves and thus enjoyable.

I also interviewed at other FAANGs and maybe the interviewers were all wonderful people, but I had a mixed experience. Some appeared to be ok, some definitely not. Very different experience from the parent's.
For any of this to have meaning, you need to define what "consciousness" even is. I'm not aware of any definition that is not hopelessly metaphysical.
This is pretty misleading and click-baity! The formulation they use is quite esoteric and not what people usually think of the term to mean. The Church-Turing Thesis really just states that turing completeness is the strongest type of computational class we can expect to build (finite approximations of) in our universe. And this does seem to be true. I hope the "exciting" title of the talk they chose doesn't cause a lot of people to misunderstand this.
> How do you think people become wealthy in the first place? It's almost always connected to providing value to lots of people.

I find that hard to believe, honestly. It seems like the biggest gains are to be made in rent-seeking, milking your customers, monopolising and forming cartels and just outright fraud.
People can already freely choose to buy goods with comparatively longer, clearer, better-honored warranties, which would put upward pressure towards your 10 year goal. Unfortunately, providing that protection is expensive for manufacturers, who understandably pass it on to buyers. It appears that buyers prioritize lower upfront cost rather than better warranties, a trade-off that ought to be theirs to make.
GDPR/tracking bypass: https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=658335490
Okay, "baseless" then. "It's easy [that's the baseless claim], we just haven't gotten around to it [which tends to point to the task not actually being easy]." In my opinion, this is the same class of "easy" that AI researchers have been chasing for half a century now, and the end goal always seems to be juuust out of reach - in other words, seems easy but isn't.
> "Unique_ptr is such a fundamental type that, if one claims to be a c++ programmer, one has to know it and understand how it works."

No.

Those utilities weren't standardized before C++11. People wrote their own implementations before that. People had to understand stack unwinding and scoping, memory, RAII, design patterns that relate to allocation/de-allocation of memory, ownership transfer.

Then came in the people that decided it'd be a great idea to start quizzing others about C++11 concretions.
Blockchain Developement Fellowship
Did you reach out to Maciej to include it on Pinboard as an unofficial extension? I think many users would find it useful (I'm not using Pinboard myself).
“Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years” by Peter Norvig
Controlling violence is one of the primary justifications for government. You're comparing apples and oranges - Violent acts and prohibition of inanimate objects don't fit in the same scope.

Prohibition of alcohol would be a more apt comparison.
That monetization system already exists and you'll know it when you see it referred to as 'cryptojacking' by the MSM. Just like Bitcoin was smeared as a tool for crime webmining will have an equally hard time gaining footing until public consciousness comes to its senses once they realize the most dangerous superstition.
Increase the capacity of the entire grid in only 14 years?

50% is one hell of an increase!
> Is it really that important to manage the money supply directly?

Perhaps this is the main problem with the way these so called cryptocurrencies are marketed. Cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin are not nor they ever were close to be money. At best they are tokens used in currency transactions. In that sense they are used as some drug communities use detergent packages. So, it doesn't really matter if the current supply of tokens isn't managed becau,se although the price of each token may fluctuate, its main use is enabling decentralized transactions across the internet, just like junkies exchange Tide bottles for a dose.
Bike lanes are what cities make them. A lane in Amsterdam is not the same as a lane... pretty much anywhere else I've seen.
Yup. I spent some months working on a product in this space, and the most surprising takeaway I had was that there's a risk that by buying such a product, you're exposing yourself to legal problems - e.g. when a product tells you about some potential security issue, you can no longer claim ignorance. This apparently informs buying decisions, so product makers need to take it into account.
>Sure, VxWorks is safe.

That goes beyond strawman.

Try reading: https://microkerneldude.wordpress.com/2018/08/23/microkernel...

For as long as Linux is a monolithic design, the whole kernel is going to be part of the TCB.

And thus, you should be skeptical of any claims of Linux providing security.
I don't understand why people are so willing to say "it won't work" without actually taking the time to understand it. They literally spend like every one of their talks addressing how they overcome traditional vliw problems.
any references to this display mode? I can't find anything on it on the net.
We use decision tables in Domain Specific Languages that we develop for several sectors. In this paper you can see how we use them in the medical sectors to represent some medical decisions http://voelter.de/data/pub/MPS-in-Safety-1.0.pdf
(see the Appendix for screenshots)
His claimed competency probably grows a bit every few years and on every telling of this legendary story. 10 years from now it was 100k lines over the weekend or whatever. Clean code too!
Interesting. I miss a description of the design decisions ? Like why there is an angle of 45 degrees on one size. An overview of the final outside sizes would also be nice.
One thing to consider is that most of time, brilliant people make complex problems look simpler. which means their solution will look like the problem was simpler in the first place, and so there’s no merit in having a good solution.

That’s one thing that makes them really hard to recognize by non technical people. I would say that to recognize them and admire their work, you have to bang your head against the same problem as they do, and then see how they solve it. But just looking at their work from the outside will probably be very unimpressive.
People used wash their dishes with the ash from the stove. It acts both as an abrasive, and an absorbent.
Even accepting the worst possible picture you can paint of Gandhi's racism, which doesn't seem an accurate view of his whole life, his anti-imperialist views would likely still be a net positive.
As it currently stands, being forced to rely on public transport takes years off people's lives - not in one clear-cut chunk, but in hours stolen here and there.
Things like taking the seats out of the van are "exploits" in the same sense as infosec. They are developed by looking at the existing rules and carefully designing something that meets the letter of the rules but not the spirit.

Often the "hacker" solutions go the other way: come up with a thing, then come up with a convoluted non-obvious justification as to why the existing rules don't apply. This doesn't work nearly as well.

For example, the Bitcoin white paper doesn't mention the Howey test. It's not actually engineered to avoid securities law, it's just presumed that anonymity makes it unenforcable or irrelevant. Some of the more recent coins address that, FileCoin is possibly the best example of a "utility token" pretending not to be a security.
> there's nothing to suggest which branch the agent will experience

isn't this accurate modelling though? as far as we can tell the collapse picks a branch at random. I just don't see how this is a problem of the model.
If we are aiming to increase air quality, then geographic taxes seem fine. And by that I mean hike London's congestion zone charge up x10 for all vehicles with emissions. And expand it back to cover a more sensible portion. And then have every city implement the same thing. And when the lobbying starts against it, how about someone holds their nerve for a change. Yes businesses need deliveries but they don't need to make them with polluting vehicles, that's a choice influenced by cost.

EDIT:
BY incredible coincidence I just received an email from TfL on exactly this!

ULEZ is coming to central London in the same area as the Congestion Charging zone from 8 April 2019. It will operate 24 hours a day, every day of the year.
Vehicles will need to meet the new stricter emission standards, or you will need to pay the daily ULEZ charge. This is in addition to the weekday Congestion Charge.

£12.50 per day for cars, motorcycles and vans (under 3.5 tonnes)
£100.00 per day for heavier vehicles, including lorries (over 3.5 tonnes) and buses/coaches (over 5 tonnes)

From 25 October 2021, the ULEZ will be expanded to include the inner London area bounded by the North and South Circular roads.

Great news!
Aside from emissions, if you drive a car you are making public spaces more dangerous even of you follow the rules perfectly. Our cities and public spaces are extremely hostile to pedestrians especially kids. Its drilled in to everyone that you have to have a constant grip of your child's hand when walking outside because they could be instantly killed for stepping in the wrong spot at the wrong time.

It also takes forever to walk anywhere because pedestrian crossings are programmed to be extremely slow as to not disrupt drivers as well as intersections often requiring 2 crossings to get to the desired location vs just one when driving.
When a Resource Scheduler Is Not Enough for GPUs
Yes, before reading Tegmark I thought that MW was silly because "splitting" the whole universe for every tiny event just seemed crazy. Thinking of the multiverse as more like a probability distribution where everything exists in a kind of overlay seemed to make sense.
I may be having some misunderstanding here, but with a large enough set of random intermediate layers, wouldn't yet expect that some of the connections would accidentally be really good signal carriers, and that by training the last layer, you're basically training it to find the good signal carriers in between all the noise?
Totally different purpose ?
Dramatic slowdown in global growth of internet access
That time spent on public transport can be used to get work done vs sitting in a car doing nothing else. Also having a decent public transport system is much much faster than sitting in traffic for hours. The american audience has probably never experienced a good public transport system so they assume its just slow by design.
I suppose that's a part of the issue: the SDV camp has been overenthusiastic in flying their "Mission Accomplished" banners, and hitting (pun not intended) yet another unexpected problem right afterwards. In other words, we're not at that point yet - in fact, we might not even have the complete toolset to measure this.

The field is in flux - alchemic approaches "what if we try something unrelated" might work for unrelated reasons etc.; practical applications that don't spontaneously combust are still some way out there.
Those people are likely the people who can't afford a new car too "A ban on sales of NEW petrol and diesel cars" is literally written in the article.
I agree Mozilla is a corporation, despite its marketing and brand efforts, everything else is very corporate. It started out as a foundation with corporation-as-necessity, but no longer the case. They are able to distance themselves from ad money through Google, but it's the same. If they could make more profit and growth, they would choose to do so.

A small example has twice been ads in the browser (now using local targeting), and if it was 100% a non-profit foundation goodie-goodie, would probably go with a default search engine like Duck Duck Go, but survival as a corporation prohibits otherwise. And I think that's totally okay, but I don't think we can pretend they aren't a corporation.
I haven't read that much about Woz, but from what I gather he was brilliant, but his code (or hardware) wasn't "clean". He did have great insights leading to performance, but some stuff sounds fairly ridiculous today, like the stuff he did for Apple II's color display: https://www.filfre.net/2011/10/mystery-house-part-1/

Basically: brilliant, but very quirky.
Twilio to Acquire SendGrid, the Leading Email API Platform – DevOps.com
You could, but people would be pissed about being taxed to pay for something they don't have yet (and hence have no way to avoid the tax). While it might be a sensible strategy for raising the money it would be political suicide.
Yes, on IOS.

Love it for casual browsing (I use the anonimity by default) and am happy to be greeted by the "Hey you are a first time visitor of our site, please accept the cookies" every single time I visit a site (yes, I close the browser after browsing).

I like the mostly adfree experience.
GitHub launches Suggested Changes to make it easier to collaborate within PRs
As was proved recently, there are quantum algorithms that can not: https://www.quantamagazine.org/finally-a-problem-that-only-q...
You can see the Java AbstractInterfaceFactory creeping if you do Symfony development (which anyway is an impressive framework and very well run project).

Sometimes it feels Php devs have an inferiority complex and want to use as many design patterns as possible to feel like a real engineer. Two years ago suddenly everyone wants to add DDD or hexagonal design on top of the framework. Bye bye KISS, hello boilerplate everywhere.
This is only true if you ignore the fact that there's no explanation, in detail, of how quantum splitting generates an entire universe - never mind why it happens for observed events only, and not for unobserved quantum events. (Is that how it works, or not?)

The photon bounced off a beam splitter - did that generate a new universe? How about if the photon moved one Planck distance through spacetime? The photon hit a detector? Okay - a universe. Yes? Or do you only get a new universe when the result is observed? By someone who's awake? And not on drugs, so they might be hallucinating?

The argument seems to be based on "Obviously it just does, because how else do you explain this weird math, QED, isn't our explanation great?" - which I personally don't find very convincing.
I had a colleague of mine complain to management that their hiring process looked for Ferraris but once someone joined the company they would bolt on a plow to that Ferrari and expected it to deliver acres of plowed fields.
>> black activists such as Adam Clayton Powell, Sr., and Benjamin Mays were enthralled by the phenomenon of an Indian leading people of color in the campaign against British colonialism in India.

Is the writer calling Indians "people of color"
Electric cars seems like such an obvious answer for so many issues, but still outside of US it is pretty much impossible to find a reliable and affordable options.
BrowserStack Testing via CircleCI
Nah. Electron does not prioritize chromium version updates over everything else. They generally do so at their own pace, instead focusing more on other features and bug fixing.

It works fine for their intended userbase. For a browser that might be an issue due to exploits and vulnerabilities.
I think your "correct" bozo sort example from earlier shows that there is a finite number of states (all of the permutations of the input array), just an unbounded number of state transitions.

I think for something like this, you could do asymptotic analysis of the expected run-time. Assuming all elements are distinct, there are n! permutations, so each would have a 1/n! chance of being selected each iteration. (But it's rather late, and this is a poor medium for discussing math, and someone has probably already done this, so I'm not going to go any further.)
Apple brings EU data privacy features to US, tightens app and web privacy rules