skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Thanks for jumping in here on your own time. The following question is not meant to be hostile, it is merely curiosity. Isn’t this supposed to be the kind of thing that monitoring and diagnostics software should find automatically? Serious question, not meant to embarrass you.
We have branched into two different discussions it seems.

Does having a turing machine that will eventually output a number x suffice for having the number x.

And does that specific turing machine suffice for having a random number in range [0, 1].

As for the second, I have misgivvings about it but there's certainly an argument that that machine does work. The argument against that I currently find most convincing (that you don't have a classical representation that you can make two isolated copies of) is outlined here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18424725

The first discussion is more nuanced. The meaning of knowing/having a number is not something I claim to have an exact answer to (and indeed since it's an english term it probably doesn't have an exact meaning). It's clear however that having a turing machine that eventually outputs the value is not the same as knowing the value.

What operations is really the most fundamental question, I'd argue that it's clear that if you know x you can at least tell me what the n^th digit of x is. An arbitrary turing machine fails this, an arbitrary turing machine fails being able to tell me what the first digit is, let alone the n^th one.

I'm not going to take the stance that being able to compute its digits quickly is sufficient for having a real number, but I also won't argue against it. Personally I'd like to ask for equality testing too. I'm willing to yield that since I'm pretty sure that man-and-laptop will disagree and argue that being able to test for closeness is good enough, and he has a point even if I'm not convinced.

As for your the other questions you put to me, they aren't relevant for the turing machine part but:

Quickly, means in at most polynomial time. It might actually mean something stricter, but polynomial time seems to be a pretty clear upper bound on the amount of computation time you can need to find something while still being able to claim to know it. (See the paper I linked above)

We can certainly have a rational number with a non finite decimal expansion, you just need more creative forms of representing the numbers than listing digits. For instance the common method of putting a bar on top of the repeated ones, or alternatively quote notation is rather cool: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_notation
There's no such concept in the Constitution of the United States
That company isn't going to hire him full time. It will cost a lot more. What this does is just take his biggest client away from him. They will just find another relatively inexpensive contractor.

So if these 'protections' are going to work out then they need to account for the financial situation of the employers some how and also prevent them from dropping misclassified employees when they become properly classified.
touche. But I do believe there are upper limits on desired efficiency in some cases. I'm not a fan of eliminating jobs in all cases. In agriculture I'm not a fan of consolidation and I see the endgame as a few huge companies owning most of the farmland in the US (most of the land) and all those jobs going away. So I guess I'm not against efficiency so much as consolidation of power and ownership. Perhaps one day we'll all have our own robotic gardener, but I doubt it.
You've provided no evidence for your claims at all, only one post-comment-edit and a repetition of your ad-hominems against the publication. It's bad because it's bad, it's a fraud because it's a fraud, and when asked to clarify what's fraudulent about it, we're told there are "gradients."
This looks to be a typical problem with staffing body shops, especially those that bench their consultants without pay while having them wait for next gig. IRS and labor agencies look down on that sort of thing. There are similar more vague shops too MBOPartners (Randstad) and others, that have similar issues. Since they control all billing and contracts, they are basically this shady body shop that really needs to have its ass examined thoroughly and periodically by government.

Advice to consultants - avoid these places and sign your own contracts direct with customers, and invoice your customers yourself.
Haha! Maybe it’s bug free and complete?
But what do these things mean?

> commercially reasonable

> substantial economic or material technical burden

Is one engineer working on an old service to keep it alive commercially reasonable or a substantial burden? I don't know. Do you?

In practice this policy lets them shut off anything they want any time they want. Again it's their playground they can do what they want unless they signed a contract saying they'd do something else for you so I don't have a problem with it.
S3 is really the one of the few services on aws that can do that unfortunately. It has no concept of zone/region, it's truly global. To me it seems like a serious design flaw, as everything else in aws is striped by region, but not sure why exactly it was built like that.

edit:

nvm s3 has regions, it's the bucket names that are global.
Mike and Ike don’t mention for example homodynes afaik.
Is this practical for anything at this point?
I believe this is a fair question. I’d really like to understand what Google thinks about this.
It's ok I guess but still lets them turn it off if, in their judgement, its an economic burden i.e. costing them money.

If they ever do deprecate something people have built on though they're gonna get absolutely crucified. That's probably better protection than any terms of service.
That image your linked is unbelievable, never seen anything like it. Thanks for sharing.
I used to enjoy the medical TV series House with Hugh Laurie. The producers had as his dictum, "Everybody Lies" and his role as diagnostician was to work out who was lying, usually leading to a cure. A good manager is a good diagnostician for his or her organisation, able to take conflicting imperfect information and tease out the lies (or incorrect information)

A good leader is able to create a safe space where most people will release their defensive positions and many of the most intractable lies will fall apart.

But we all do lie, most often to ourselves, and not always with evil intent

But I fear the attitude that says "we expect you not to lie (withhold information, fail
to speak out) because to do so will hurt the organisation, and you should have the best interests of the organisation / team at heart

Humans don't work like that.
> What on Earth are the benefits to implanting RFID chips into an employee to begin with that cannot be achieved via traditional means like badges or smart cards?

No fan of the technology per-se, but presumably they can't be lost or stolen.
> 4. IT'S ALREADY IMPLEMENTED IN EVERY MAJOR BROWSER!

Google is not interested in what is implemented in every major browser. Google is interested in making sure that Chrome is the only browser of any significance on the internet and it behaves in a way that Google wants it to behave ( such as forcefully signing into Google services ).

That's why we got HTTP/2 ( which seems to be viewed as a flop at Google ) which is why we are getting HTTP/3.

Follow. The. Money.
Just heard a very relevant Podcast called Cultish that digs into the thinking, teaching, strategies, and consequences behind a lot of these cults. The latest episode explores Jim Jones and Jamestown.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/cultish/id1440854210
It's the same tired old conservative talking points with the edges filed down. It's futile. People believe what they want to believe. When they're ready to question it, they can see all that's been written over the last couple decades about conservative media. I am not re-treading it for the nth time just because someone repackaged the same stuff for a new generation.

I've been down this road. It goes nowhere at best, and turns into demon threads (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BZtAavpsy9WtMYgEL/demon-thre...) in the average case.
They said it wasn't likely a toxin, or at least there were no toxins that screening picked up on. But could some other fungus/mold or other pathogen infect the people there or could they accumulate a toxin that wasn't screened for? Just how clean did they get and keep that place at?
What joke? How is your comment making any point or being funny?
I wonder if the Communists just got bad timing. I am not saying Capitalism isn't better - but maybe they could have made it if they'd had robotics.
We currently use react-dnd at my company. Overall, I think the documentation could use improvement but it can get you pretty far.

However, one thing I will say is we haven't fully finished handling multi-drag-and-drop and I think it will be challenging. That isn't really a use case that is mentioned in the documentation whereas react-beautiful-dnd has documentation specifically about that use case.

I haven't really had a chance to try react-beautiful-dnd though but I think it's worth trying out if you have no dnd prior in your application.
Is this the laser signal my Valentine One is picking up at more and more intersections?
It's not about a little bit of convenience. It's about being able to pay rent. You have to go where the business is.

The majority of the freelance jobs out there are on Upwork and cannot or will not afford benefits or competitive US rates.
> If you don't know this and don't remove these tags, you find that they will set off the exit/entry scanner at various stores unrelated to where the item was originally purchased.

Literally never happened to me, which makes me question the validity of both "a lot of the clothing you buy has RFID in tags sewn into the item" and "if you don't ... remove these tags, you find that they will set off the exit/entry scanner at various stores"
In Chrome 71: Signed HTTP Exchanges
> members of the IDW

Oh, it's a membership now? Where do you sign up?

> It's a shame because while we really do need something that goes outside of the crazy mono-culture that tries to destroy all dissent, based on what I've seen Quillette, it runs the real risk of doing more harm than good for the cause.

You draw that conclusion from the perception that Claire exaggerated something, that she commissioned an article from multiple sources and... the fact that an unspecified number of people had "run-ins" with her?

That's mono-think, dude.
Hamateur Hour: Slow Scan Television
Some people install Xorg on their servers because they need to render stuff (e.g. using OpenGL or Vulkan).
> But what here makes QUIC think that those other requests have any hope where the first didn't? To me, this approach seems like you're just spamming the link with packets and hoping for the best; those packets could just end up dropped like the other ones were. What makes QUIC think this approach will have any benefit? (It could, perhaps, if the link is just going to drop one packet and we can get right back to sending. I'm not sure that still conveys any benefit over TCP.

There are a lot of ways to lose just a single packet. One way is a router is overloaded and so it throws some packets away. Another is some brief interference on a wireless connection.

I think the phrase "spamming the link" is incorrect. QUIC does flow control to determine how much data to send. Once it's decided that the link can take a certain amount of data, it will send it. So, say it sends packets 1, 2 and 3. But, let's say that packet one is lost but 2 and 3 get through. With QUIC, the receiver can potentially do something with packets 2 and 3 with TCP, the receiver couldn't. Regardless, QUIC will respond to the packet loss by updating its flow control information - I haven't read anything that suggestions that QUIC responds by "spamming the link".

> This whole thing makes me think there are two problems here: there's the actual network connection between two endpoints, and what its state is, how lossy it is, its PMTU, how much data we should allow in-flight between those two endpoints, etc. But then there is also logical streams, such as HTTP request/response pairs. It almost seems like to me any data about the link, such as PMTU/lossiness/window, should be shared between all TCP connections, and the individual logical streams should be otherwise cheap/easy to make.

You've basically described what QUIC is in this paragraph
Admittedly, I overreacted and I will edit my previous post. The gist of my complaint is that digital vs continuous variables is a false distinction. One is just a system on top of which to implement the other. The useful computation you get out of the quantum oscillator, comes when you implement your digital logic on top of it.
This is a mid-level (not too simple, not too complex) introduction about the basics that I found useful http://book.mixu.net/distsys/
But the point is that 'black' is not really all that meaningful because it encompasses potentially dozens of very disparate quite genetically distinct populations and lineages -- I mean what's CRC prevalence like among continental Africans? Maybe it's possible that CRC is more prevalent among African-Americans because of some higher occurrence in the west African populations where most slaves came from. Or maybe it developed in North America. But to talk about it in terms of race implies that black skin and African origin is the most important binding element -- when in fact what we are talking about is a specific African-American population.
Yes, I actually meant VSCode, hn doesn't let you edit comments after a while and I wasn't completely aware of the differences between Visual Studio and VSCode. I checked and I'm actually using VSCode (in ubuntu).
There are fertile areas that don’t lend themselves to current technologies because they’re too hilly. So you could perhaps increase efficiency in those places without impacting efficiency in plains areas that are combine heaven.
Ask HN: Has anyone transitioned into a DevOps/SRE role as a developer?
Why did you decide to do so? And how has your experience been?
https://nodejs.org/api/debugger.html
I don't find it conservative. Definitely anti-PC though. More centrist or perhaps slightly libertarian.

On Lehmann's personal politics, she says:

“I would identify with the left if they were a little more old-school in their advocacy for workers,”

“Sometimes there are misrepresentations, and people assume that my politics is far more right-wing than it actually is,” she says. “I think because I’m Australian, and I take so many things for granted like universal health care, access to abortion, and we don’t have guns everywhere.”
What's the math/logic to get to 12 people?
> To me that looks like a reasonable deprecation policy.

It might be, until they jack up the prices 15X with limited notice (looking at you, Google maps [1]). No deprecation needed, just force users off the platform unless they're willing to pay a massive premium.

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=google+maps+price+increase
Was certainly not UI only
> It's ok I guess but still lets them turn it off if, in their judgement, its an economic burden i.e. costing them money.

If a service Google runs is losing money, what reason would they have to not shut it down?
SAP to buy Qualtrics for $8B
> One is just a system on top of which to implement the other.

We fundamentally disagree on this point. A continuous variable computer is more powerful than a digital one. I know error correction is tricky but I’m still convinced that the analog computer is superior.
This podcast is fantastic! I've listened to every episode. I wish there were more similar podcasts or other forms of media that chronicle the history of the internet and related tech.
Doesn't “people and interactions over processes and tools” seem a little bit like fox news trying to sell itself as "fair and balanced" or those multi-level marketing campaigns like "it works!"

The core premise seems like it's pushing a human-centric idea really hard only because it actually removes the humanity from it.

Getting hounded every day to try to justify your existence in a company does not sound human-centric to me.
I think you're ascribing an unreasonable amount of bad faith here, and, to rephrase what I had here before, you're approaching this from an engineering perspective, not a legal one. And that's not how those things work.

To be clear, that policy is a contract. And those things would be decided by a jury. And if my understanding is correct, the reasonable person standard applies. So you can answer this yourself, do you think a reasonable person would believe that your interpretation is valid?

If not, why mention it?
> But I can use this to download things that are not open source.

Ok, let's widen our view of open source then. Pythonista lets you download Python code and then it interprets it, and iSH lets you download compiled x86 code and then interprets that. So it's still open source, see!

> I can use this to download SOCKS proxies (that despite not being VPNs I believe are still banned in the Chinese App Store, though I might be wrong about that: they are definitely illegal in China)

I'm not following you. How would iSH be able to actually apply these proxies system-wide unless it's a VPN app, which as far as I'm aware it's not? All it can do is possibly download VPN profiles, but I can do that in Safari too. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding how SOCKS works, but I don't see how this could change anything except traffic you're sending in-app at the most.

> I mean, this is literally "an emulator", which is a core example of a thing that Apple wants to not exist.

You're going to have to provide evidence for that–Apple used to do this by citing 2.5.2 in their App Store Review Guidelines, which explicitly forbid this kind of thing, but as I mentioned there is now an exception poked in it for "educational use". Has any "educational" (i.e. non-piracy) emulator recently been rejected by Apple, and if so, under what grounds?

> at the end of the day, this is the thing Apple was trying to stop

Again, I disagree that Apple would try to stop this, at least under the current set of rules that they have. The fact that it made it through TestFlight review is pretty telling, I think.
This is very surprising. They were prepping to go public for a couple years, even stacking their c-suite with ex-microsoft executives.

(I left Qualtrics a year ago.)
My ability to focus returned after taking a multivitamin and fixing nutrient deficiencies.

You could look into NutrEval, a comprehensive hormone panel, a thyroid panel, and maybe even genetic testing. Or, as you're trying to regain rather than gain, just start taking a multivitamin, D & K, and chelated/TRAACS magnesium supplement.
Minor modifications to your genome miss the mark. We didn't master metallurgy to gently carve our names into tree bark. We plow entire forests.

Arms races exist regardless of your preference for narrative. The Chinese have zero concerns for forging chimera for any purpose they choose. That's the reality right now. Meanwhile, the Western response is to empower moral supremacists who all believe we're one random CRISPR event from an accidental Holocaust. It's neurotic paranoia rooted exclusively in cultural instability and it's for children.

Neanderthals aren't human for the same reason celery isn't human. Just because we may have a shared genetic branch (sharing in genomic expression is a ton more complicated than linear composition comparison) does not grant the entire mass of biology with human rights. Fighting for the human rights of non-humans is misguided bourgeoisie neurosis at best when you consider the entirety of human suffering that exists within a 500 foot radius of whereever you may be. Your desperate conflation to associate Neanderthals with, wow, the mentally disabled precisely proves my point.

Some science on the matter, which I suspect will have little influence on the subject (Never doubt the ability of moral supremacists to anthropomorphize): https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/no-human-dna-found-in-nea...

Stuck backing the Catholic horse, eh? How many Neanderthals have been baptized and why has the Church clearly denied the noble Neanderthal such divine access to God's love? Perhaps a retcon is in order and we can throw in the Austropithicine for good measure. This, of course, presupposes an agreement that there were "humans" before Adam or that homosapien evolution is valid. Genesis is going to take a hit here, one way or another...

My question still remains: Precisely how many neurons count as sentience, or are we Overton Window dancing to see if we can start with a "all neurons are sacred" policy?
Satasidham Temple Nepal
This is not quite right. If you're a holocaust denier, then one in fifty people will intellectually engage with your arguments, and the other 49 will just call you a holocaust denier, and shun you from polite society.*

I don't see anything wrong with that. Someone has to read it and respond to it, but I'm fine with being one of the 49.

* For the sake of illustration, I omit the fact that 1 or 2 of the 50 might promote your work.

P.S. This may read like I'm comparing Quillete to holocaust denial. This is not my intent.
Many of these tractors runs proprietary software John Deere which makes them hard to self service.

...and what's stopping the same from happening to farming robots? In fact I'd say it's even easier, since there's no existing notion that they have to be easily serviceable, unlike tractors.
React's backward-compatibility for client code is fantastic.
I have been saying stuff like this for a few years.

I think it is obvious that P2P distributed platforms will be leveraged to replace the monopoly company platforms. Things like cryptocurrency payments, Ethereum smart contracts, IPFS, Swarm framework, dat, WebRTC, etc.
Because they sell themselves as being far more reliable than internal IT. If they weren't selling on uptime, people probably wouldn't be quite so critical of downtime.
Show HN: Flitter: A speedrunning / split timer for the terminal
If a hosting service is down and nobody uses it, is there really any disruption?
The pie 'tin' was probably aluminum - maybe sheet steel, if it was one of the robust types.

Aluminum and acids usually react fast, with evolution of hydrogen. I used to use that reaction to top off balloons (already partially inflated with air) with hydrogen. Tie off the balloon, touch a match - a satisfying kaboom!, with no shrapnel.

My Mom was appalled. My Dad asked for do-overs.
So Upwork actually recognized that this company is completely screwing him and he is mad at Upwork. Great.

If the company is hiring him for so many jobs that he is basically a full time employee there they are the arseholes not Upwork. That marketing firm get their shit together, hire him and pay him the money (and the extras) he deserves.
Thanks for this comment. It initially piqued my interest because I confused de Soto with the Spanish conquistador of the same name, quickly cleared that up though! It was cool to realise he was key in the economic reforms of Peru, my family had to move because of the Shining Path, so it's close to home.

So I've quickly read his Wikipedia entry (and have the book to read later). It seems like the critiques of his approach, resulting him being lumped in the 'neoliberal' bucket, is that he pushes property rights as practically the only requirement for developing countries to successfully reform their economies to the benefit of all. Whereas your phrasing as "successful private markets depend heavily on a network of accepted public services" (which I agree with more) would seem to encompass more than only legal and justice frameworks towards property rights.

Anyway, I'll read the book and think more about it. Thanks again.
Does selling $2 million a year or more qualify as regularly?
I'd say it looks anemic even if you're a middle class, middle aged white male. It's weaker if you're young, or black, or brown, or female. It's damn near dead if you're a young black male or appear vaguely Arabic.