skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Axiomatized mathematics and logic too complicated, compared to undefined meanings in philosophy?

I agree that those two can be "simplified" to something that people who haven't a PhD in mathematics can talk and write about, but once we go to more advanced stuff things become really, really hard to describe in layman's terms, and as such they are not interesting from a philosophical point of view.

I mean, things like a double integral or an Abelian group are indeed useful from an efficiency point of view, meaning that a technical society like ours needed them in order to build most of the stuff that surrounds us (bridges that don't fall at the first major earthquake, computers, rockets that have taken us to space) but they are completely and utterly useless at answering questions that have bugged us for thousands of years: why is it bad to randomly kill someone? Why is it bad to kill someone even if that potentially means a better economical prospect for me and my family? Why is it bad to kill at all? Why shouldn't we kill ourselves right here and now, thus avoiding future psychic and physical pains like illness or the disappearance of closed ones? These are all fundamental questions related to our very nature to which philosophy has offered some answers which have been satisfactory to some people, in any case, the rate of success has been much higher for philosophy compared to maths or physics when trying to find a satisfactory answer.

> Should we start with axiom of choice perhaps?

What does that say?
Even if this technology can spot fakes, humans can't, that the whole point and danger of such lifelike fakes. People are used to react to images in a certain way, I'm sure a large part of which is hardwired in our brains, we aren't going to start checking cryptographic signatures for everything we see
Broken clock is right twice a day, monkeys and Shakespeare, etc.

Fools get lucky occasionally.
The point is that the alternatives to war are hard but they are always there. The people returning from the first world war wanted them pursued more readily, and had they been pursued more readily in 1914, there would perhaps not have been a war on the same scale or even at all. WW2 was the consequence of the failure to find a rational settlement after WW2.

To say the first world war - or any other - was senseless, is to recognise that there was no existential threat, and there was little real attempt at diplomacy. There were alternatives that didn't involve millions of people being marched to their deaths. At the point at which we acknowledge that, we have to ask why so many died and what for.

Diplomacy is the natural response of normal working people, because historically we're the ones who get mown down by machine guns at the behest of our betters - people who start wars but don't fight in them.

If you feel WW1 was necessary and proportionate in the face of Europe's challenges at the time, I'd be intrigued to hear why. Can you outline the case for war?
San Francisco’s Mayor Opposes Proposition C for the Homeless
Unicode has Egyptian genitalia hieroglyphs
> "As a theory-neutral point of departure, then, free will can be defined as the unique ability of persons to exercise control over their conduct in the manner necessary for moral responsibility"

Exactly... "necessary", not "sufficient".

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

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/necessary-sufficient/
It's not nginx but Caddy had stupid easy SSL automation through LetsEncrypt.
Kepler’s Mysterium Cosmographicum
Wellcome and Gates join bold European open-access plan
Calque
I downvoted you not because you disliked the typography, but because you chose to attack the poster and not the content. You can dislike the typography all you like, but I can't fathom how you read OP's message and got smugness or vanity. What part, exactly, was smug or vain?

You wrote:
"I get that this is a hobby for you. ..."

But then demanded a non hobby level of commitment to the craft.

"..But the arrogance and vanity of software folks who think they can do typographic design (without any training, eye for type, or respect for the real skill and tradition of typography) "

So how does anyone get _in_ to typography, exactly? Is it by having it as a hobby and moving forward or is it only available to people who complete apprenticeships? Who are you to deny anyone their hobby?
You missed the "Nope, see above." part right before your quote.
I'm on the right and the sad news that you must digest is there isn't enough resources for all 7 billion people. That is a fact that will only get worse as we continue to add more. Most will suffer and there really isn't anything a leftist government can do about that other than bring everyone down to the same level of suffering.
Georgia Secretary of State Orders ‘hacking’ Probe of Georgia Democrats
More crazy sorting techniques from a recent reddit thread: https://redd.it/9s9kgn

Highlights:

- GenghisKhanSort: delete all elements except for the first, repopulate the list with successors of the first element
- HitlerSort: Choose an element in the list you think is the best, then loop through the list removing any element that does not match.
- ThanosSort: delete half the array. The arrays may or not be sorted, but it'll help for future sorting
- TrumpSort O(0): the array is always sorted. Anyone who says otherwise is fake news.
It's really not worth engaging in a discussion and answering disingenuous questions from someone who believes and traffics in conspiracy theories, especially those as ridiculous as the ones you believe and parrot.

You replied to an earnest request for proof of your extraordinary, outrageous, and false claims with a derailing question instead of any proof.

So don't expect an answer to your question, because you don't deserve one. You've thoroughly disqualified yourself from participating in a legitimate discussion with adults.

And "I don't actually believe conspiracy theories myself, I just spread them" is an even worse excuse for your dangerous, intellectually dishonest misbehavior.
"I'm pointing out that the effectiveness of these measures seems quite low according to the data"

No ... the data shows that there is actually more equal opportunity, and yet there is gender divergence.

The objective was never to 'equalize choices or outcomes' in fields - it was to provide access and opportunity, which is happening.

It would be really, really hard to argue against the flood of data points indicating women have considerably greater choice, flexibility and support especially in places like Sweden ... and then to have women doing different things, highlights the apparent paradox.
There are some minor issues with the magic link workflow - one of them is security scanning software potentially visiting the link.

So then you need to open the link in the same browser you want to use. But what if you want to log in on a desktop browser and only have your email on your phone?

Maybe have the magic link show a couple letters you need to type into the browser?
Relay is awesome on android. Way better than the official.
> Or, the mobile app experience is better, and the overlay link is a convenience

For whom is it better? Me, the customer, or you, the vendor? I buy furniture from Wayfair's website, and browse on the site quite often. On the mobile site, I'm able to view products, add/remove them from a wishlist, and make a purchase. All from a browser with ad and tracking blockers enabled.

Wayfair still puts a "Download the app!" popup on the site, even though it can see from my repeated visits and purchases that I primarily use the mobile site. I imagine it's because on an app, notifications are opt-out and tracking is continuous.
I love that the author is doing that.
Playing Guitar in MIT Autonomous Vehicle (Driver Activity Recognition)
> The point of all this is that usability is an absolutely essential attribute of the auth discussion. What I often find when I have these discussions is a myopic focus on technical merits.

This problem is ubiquitous to all of tech, pretty much. It's particularly iconic to FOSS grognards like Richard Stallman. Software that respects people's rights is fantastic, and we need more of it, but if you're not making that software usable then you're wasting your time.
Coalton: ML Dialect Embedded in Common Lisp
Those seem like such small differences. It's interesting that they lead to such large outcomes.
Great question! Prior to Millow, I built Screenhero, which was then acquired by Slack (my team and I built Slack voice/video/screen sharing). Working at Slack was a great experience, and I love the company and the product (and use it with all my current projects, I have 14 Slack workspaces in my sidebar!).

Why is this relevant to your question? For two reasons:

1) Financially, we (we're a husband & wife team) have a very long runway. We own 100% of the company, and have no plans to take on venture capital. Our financial situation means we're also under no pressure to monetize, and we are doing what we're doing because we believe in the mission of our company and product. We want to have stronger connections to our friends and family, and we want that for society at large. Of the 10,000 other things we could have chosen to do, we chose this, because we believe it is the most important thing for us to do.

2) Acquisition is neither a goal nor an option for us. We want to stay independent, build what we want to build, with our users being our only North Star. If Facebook did acquire us, we would a) no longer be independent, b) no longer own the destiny of our product, c) be slightly more financially well off, but (c) is not worth (a) and (b) to us. After a certain point, money ceases to add value to one's life — it's in the study we quoted in our "learn more" section! We're building Millow because we believe in the mission, not because we wanted to make $$$ (if we did, I'd have done another SaaS B2B company like Screenhero).

Also, Millow is in many ways the antithesis of Facebook. Facebook believes connecting people is inherently a good thing — and the more connections, the better. We disagree! Too many low-value connections make it harder for us to focus on those that really matter. This fundamental mismatch in vision makes us believe that the only way for us to get the impact we want is to stay independent forever.

Happy to chat more. This is a topic I have strong opinions on :)
> I never figured out what piece of the puzzle I was missing.

You might then be interested in doing some research on the 60s term "vibes". It could be that it was your mother's vibes, more than the house decor, which must have made her socially attractive.

But yea I see what you are saying in essence. It has been part of your "social conditioning" (if we do X we get Y). In (traditional) India, one stellar example of the male social conditioning is that "if I get a good paying job, I'll get a pretty wife".
But that means you can't make valid conclusions relying on natural language alone.

Before mathematicians get to play with abstract concepts, they rigorously define and prove them. Philosophers also want to make conclusions about abstract concepts but they refuse or are unable to pay that price.
https://www.kylegalbraith.com/learn-by-doing/
Is it log-based cdc? The documentation says only 2 dbs are supported that way. We want to replicate customer databases which have schemas outside of our control, with the goal of migrating them to our products. The other vendor schemas might not have your required columns. There are also many flavors of DB2. So very interested but the details are sparse at best.
From a bit of searching, it looks like the individual responding to the disclosure emails is a patent attorney, claiming to specialize in bitcoin patents.

I’d be terrified to have him be my lawyer for anything, given his responses here. Artinfo is clearly dead in the water at this point, and I can’t even tell if he is the actual owner of it, or just a legal representative.

The security issues are terrible, but it’d really suck to have your company torpedoed by your unhinged IP counsel.
We've had "magic" links as the primary sign in method for our site for about a year now. It works well but we very regularly get requests to allow password login. So much so that we'll introduce that eventually.

Seems like both in combo could be a nice solution, but I'm sure we'll just start getting support requests from people whose password doesn't work because they never set one...
One thing I like about passwords is they live in my head. No one can force to me give it up easily. But with a fingerprint or retina scan, anyone can push me up to a sensor and force me to supply the bodypart(s) needed to authenticate.
Scientists are trying to bottle solar energy and turn it into liquid fuel
> When participating in the system of the US, wealth and job security are extremely useful. It may be rational to think “I will have more impact working to the bone and then donating/volunteering, than I would if I worked less and volunteered more”

I think that's the trap: you can't work yourself to the bone then have energy to work more to be active in your community, volunteer, run for office, pester politicians with letters, etc. Those are the kind of activities that I think could avoid the decay and perhaps even lead to some improvement.

I think it's a mistake to view "donating money" as meaningful response to many current social problems. Many of them are caused or propped up by people with more money than you could ever dream of having. Thinking that mere donations can win is like thinking a group insurgents could win in a stand-up direct fight against the US Army. The insurgents have different advantages than the US Army, and if they're smart, they'll use them rather than futilely attempting to reach parity with the US Army's strengths.

There's definitely some minimum amount of donations that will be required to really change things, but at a certain point I think the returns diminish.
I think 200 million million is a British English thing because of the long scale/short scale ambiguity:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales
That most certainly wasn't the case. The source for Plan9 is pretty plainly not hierarchical OOP.

Plus, the failure of Plan 9 was more an early 90s thing.
Sure.

On the latter point - I strongly disagree that people don't have a choice, but I think this is outside of the scope of the comment thread.

It's the sort of thing I wouldn't mind discussing over a pint rather than in front of a screen. :P
Apple T2 Security Chip Removes Linux Support from Some Newer Macs
Depending on the physical security posture of the location where the passwords are stored, that can be a correct statement. I wouldn't argue "usually" simply because most people aren't smart about where they're stored.
"""
One important factor in the cost will be the fuel's efficiency, which currently is quite low. The prototype fuels respond only to the shortest wavelengths of sunlight, including ultraviolet and blue, which account for just 5 percent of the solar energy available. Moth-Poulsen says he's working to extend the fuel's sensitivity to include more of the spectrum.
"""
A 40 character password of real words is usually easier to crack than a random 12 character string, though.
"Science" is just a collection of tools and processes.

"Scientisits" use those processes to attempt to arrive at true conclusions. This can be very difficult.

Over time, "science" (the nebulous institution) can build up enough accrued "truths" that it can make interesting conclusions with a decent degree of confidence. (Note: scientific studies that are reported by clickbait headlines are not what I'm talking about.)

The point is, that you can personally go learn how it all works, follow the studies, and attempt to replicate them, even, to arrive at the same conclusions. Or, if you find issues along the way, you can point them out and contribute to the corpus of "scientific knowledge" by removing an invalid "truth".
I love the HFY genre.
GE is/was into Finace. Seems it didn’t go well
By social ID I mean facebook/twitter/google. I dont use any of those IDs to sign into banking websites. I can use facebook or google to sign into a bunch of other sites, as my authentication.
Working with IoT (i.e. Beacon technology) HTML5 and even React Native, nothing beats native code responsiveness. The need for "White label" apps may start going away, but emerging technologies that rely on efficiency and speed should be utilizing mobile app native environment.
Are you serious? That's almost the basis for our (U.S., Western) form of government.

"Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler (or to the decision of a majority) in exchange for protection of their remaining rights."

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

The only thing you're actually arguing against is applying it mindlessly regardless of any other concerns, as in, the reduction of violent crime is sufficient in and of itself to be a "better end" -- in actual fact, we've seen separate but equal doesn't work.

As an aside, look at people like Marcus Garvey. As an attempt to resolve the conflict in America between black and white, complete segregation has been seriously proposed; it was not (entirely) stopped or prevented due to ethical/moral arguments. As a slightly silly example, you have a family who has been living in a home for 100 years, but the neighborhood they live in has shifted. Perhaps you use eminent domain to remove them. Now multiply that by thousands -- will they all move peacefully? Where are you getting the money for this? etc. etc.

> Even if there are good effects from legislated prices, that doesn't necessarily mean the government should dictate employment contacts.

Doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't either. I would argue the better solution would be mandatory union participation. Unions would equalize the power imbalance between the individual worker and, say, McDonald's, without the government dictating terms. But I'm guessing you, or people who also support your argument, would balk at that as well.
I fully agree with you

EDIT: I found this link in the references section to a Travis Goodspeed talk (he writes a lot for PoC||GTFO) - it is phenomenal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Zpb34Qf0NY
Equally anecdotal: when I found myself in this position 20 years ago, my response was to move to a lower COL part of the country that still had plenty of tech jobs (Upper Midwest).

I only wish I had done it even sooner!
1) It’s hard to say “no” to this because it’s not clear what you mean. Do you mean to say that I’m painting religion in the guise of religion?

2) here are several definitions: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science
Sync Pro Master Race.
America in shock, 60 people found dead in Ohio :O
Maybe they just have a different definition of "correctly" sorted.
An attempt was made, but right now it's at "(2103)". Nice to know xkcd will still be around in the next century!
In Physics, I was told that pre-prints were only useful if you had no other way to access the canonical version of the paper (in my university, we didn't have access to a bunch of large journals and there's no way I'm paying hundreds of dollars for papers for a summer research project). In my experience, pre-prints often have different information than that actual published version (though I made sure any papers I co-authored would have identical versions in both).

I obviously found this quite concerning, given that I also work in the world of free software and I know how much of a benefit public access has in a field as opaque as software (let alone something as important to human development as science). But it is the reality, because there is still a view that pre-prints are only meant to be a place to stash away your first drafts of a paper and that the actual journal is where the real paper is stored. Luckily the journal I submitted to (MNRAS) didn't care about submitting pre-prints to arXiv (some do).

(Don't get me started on the fact that some journals still require you to pay them for papers written in the early 1900s. The authors are long-dead, and you've made more than enough commission on Feynman's papers on positrons.)
I replied to the parent comment, but here's my response to your particular number.

Thanks to my previous company's acquisition, we are financially set. More money at this point won't mean much to us. Instead, being able to have a positive impact on the world is what really drives us. Hopefully, this is visible from what we've written, and what we've built (there are no growth-hack-y, spam-your-friends "features" in our app). And in the coming months, we'll continue to expand on this vision in our product. We hope you'll use the product so you can see this for yourself.
I have read CTM, the author's book. He did in fact dislike the word "paradigm" and prefered "computation model" instead.

A model is a set of concepts. A concept is an orthogonal language feature, like closures, concurrency, explicit state (which he now calls named state), exceptions, etc.

His approach is not so much that you should select one language that supports a paradigm that seems the most suitable for a given project. Rather, what he advocates is that you should use a language that supports multiple cleanly separated concepts (close to what is called multiparadigm), and then you select the simplest set of concepts for each program component.

This is the principle of least expresiveness, you should choose the simplest model (simple meaning that it is easy to reason about and to get right) that keeps the code natural (meaning there is little code unrelated to the problem at hand, little plumbing).

Each model has an associated set of programming techniques, like accumulators for FP or transactions for stateful concurrency.

It is possible to mix and match components that are written in different models by using impedance matching, which consists of creating an abstraction in the more expressive model that wraps the other component. An example would be a serializer, which allows you to plug a non concurrent component in concurrent program.

Basically, you should use FP as much as you can, but you can't if your program needs, say, visible non-determinism, like a server in a client-server application. But then you can add just one concept, ports, to the declarative concurrent model, and you have a new model that allows a whole constellation of new programming techniques, the concurrent message passing model, Erlang-like. The non-determinism in this model is restricted to the ports, the only place where it's required, the rest of the program can still be functional.

Other situations where FP might get stretched are when modularity or performance are a priority.

This book helped me realize the whole FP vs OO debate is sterile, the ideal is to have a language that allows you to use FP in a natural way, and switch to, say, OO, in a natural way in some cases.
My firsthand experience has been that simply ignoring such responses tends to lead to the individual in question behaving in an increasingly unhinged fashion and actively hounding me as if they will not be satisfied until I reply to them in specific.

But perhaps that isn't really an argument for not simply ignoring them. It's just the reason I have tended to not go that route historically.
Steve Pavlina is/was a programmer turned motivational(?) speaker.
Pre-trip report: Fall ISO C++ standards meeting (San Diego)
No, the question is asking whether a similar act would result in a similar outcome; whether there is a crucial difference in how the two perceptibly similar things would interact with law.

Analogously, one could ask what would happen if someone avoided their taxes vs. evaded their taxes. Both could be seen as morally the same act, but the legal consequences are different.