skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> It's an overt listening device for the government.

What do you mean by this? Are we still having a technical discussion? Can you point to the code in GNU Taler which turns on the users' microphone? Obviously I'm being sarcastic here, but you were just complaining about me not discussing the technical argument and now (in the next breath) you're talking about ideological views on government.

But in all seriousness, I imagine you're talking about the auditability aspect of GNU Taler. GNU Taler only allows auditing of people receiving money (which is going to be businesses that currently, according to the laws of basically every country on the planet throughout history, have to pay taxes) and not those sending it (which would be you and me).

Bitcoin (which I assume you are a proponent of) has a more public transaction history and thus in theory a government could construct more worrying audit systems than they can with GNU Taler. You can use GNU Taler with Bitcoin if you like, it works as an eCash system on top of any underlying payment system (like VISA or Bitcoin). Now, Lightning does help with this problem for most transactions but the general problem of money auditing still exists -- but I am not the one arguing that Bitcoin is an "overt listening device for the government".
Hacker stole $1m from Silicon Valley executive via #SIMswap
The pdf is 15 pages, but really only 6 pages of it is actual content. Is it common for there to be 3 full pages of authors on a paper like this? Seems a little bizarre to my untrained eye.
I don't think it's possible to find a fair solution that's purely financially based. On the one hand, the poorest members of society might be unable to feed themselves on even a $50 fine. Unless you propose to bankrupt somebody for a speeding ticket, there's just no way to make any amount of fine sting as much for the richest members of society.
> Great let me know when Linux can run the apps I need for work and I can reliably install it on any hardware and expect it to work without issue.

WINE is pretty decent these days. For what its worth it's even usable for gaming on Macs! (Okay, there only if you stick to older games, but there's no Fallout better than New Vegas anyway)
>the edit was also confirmed and voluntarily implanted in-vitro in willing participants.

Did the future kids consent?
Are you aware that the TAPL book comes with an implementation of System F?

https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/tapl/checkers/fullpoly/
So we have several facts:

- your attention can change an particle's experiment outcome (you choose future)

- we see quantum effects on tiny particles only

- perhaps gravity makes quantum effects for "heavy" objects impossible

Which leads to an idea that actually all objects have quantum effects but someone watches for all objects in the universe and makes choices (chooses future) ahead of us. And apparently we can feel his attention as gravity. But his wathcing power is restriced and he/she/it can't watch every particle in the world.

So to see the quantum world and to say hello to the god we should overload his attention with DDOS attack (perhaps Babylon tower experiment was about this).
It's also completely unrelated to the crime. How would you punish somebody who already doesn't have a driving license?
Datacube – Blockchain Backup and Restore Services
>well, its just unethical based on USA rules against human experimentation. obviously moral and ethical codes can evolve to accommodate advances in science eventually.

Well, if they "evolve to accommodate advances in science" either they weren't that moral or ethical based in the first place, or moral and ethics gave in for what's technologically possible.
>improved memory is absolutely something evolution would select for in primates, especially humans.

What if it makes people more scared, because they can remember past experiences better. This could lead to less procreation and thus inverse selection pressure.

Only because a trait is superficially good it doesn't mean nature would select for it.
As far as I see, you don't really seem to even try to infer types. With fixes to `string_of_*` routines (yeah, some cases are missing) the particular failure is as follows:

ty(TApp ...) = Closure (Arrow (SymbolTy a) (Arrow (SymbolTy _b) (SymbolTy a)))
ty(Int 1) = IntTy
ty(App (TApp ...) (Int 1)) = Failure
"Type mismatch. t0_0: SymbolTy a, t0_1: Arrow (SymbolTy _b) (SymbolTy a), t1: IntTy".

Here `t0_0` is a formal argument type and `t1` is being applied, so even though they are structurally different it should be inferred that `SymbolTy a` equals to `IntTy` (probably by updating the context). But your code doesn't do that.

I strongly recommend to first familize yourself with Hindley-Milner type system (and possibly Algorithm W) which type inference is efficient and easy enough to understand. Even though the decidable type inference in System F is impossible, the basic techniques for (partial) type inference are not too different.
> you’re stuck ferrying around .deb files on thumb drives and such.

This has been the case on any Windows install not from an OEM install medium, which I never used because they're always modified with bloatware! Good luck getting Internet to work without a smartphone acting as cheap wifi bridge.
A Big New Airport Shows China’s Strengths
>>the parents ARE preventing an inherited genetic issue

The parents THINK they ARE preventing an inherited genetic issue. I would not dare mess with "god's creation" /evolution. Too many unknowns once you start mix and matching and there's no going back. We know very little...
Only in the case where is is a life or death situation. The vast majority of self-defense situations involve the threat of simple material loss. Just hand it over, your wallet/phone is not worth your life.

If your life is threatened, you use the necessary force to stop the assailant. That may include the use of deadly force, but that threat of deadly force (brandishing a firearm) should absolutely not be the first cause of action.

A lot of people seem to have worked themselves into a paranoid mindset, where every unpleasant altercation is a life or death situation. That is a very dangerous state of mind, and one that results in completely unnecessary loss of life.
[AtariLynx] Game Battle: Battlezone 2000 vs. Battlewheels
>This is the first article I have read that has made me realize that the future is right here, right now and there is a very high probability that things are now going to change rapidly.

The future? Compared to 1900 we already live in a widely different world, more diff today - 1900 than diff 1900 - 1000 B.C.
Hahah true ! But damn its useful!
Atari CEO interview – How Rollercoaster Tycoon revival saved the company
So why isn't everyone using it then?
I get what you are saying.

Bsaically you are saying that bitcoin is useless because nobody uses bitcoin.

Unfortiunately it's true that it is yet to see big adoption outside of techies, and citizens of basket case economies such as venezuela etc.

It's like if you invented email but nobody was using it yet. People would say email is useless, because nobody uses email.

But the concept of bitcoin is not useless, just as the concept of email is not useless. Day to day usefulness requires adoption it's true.

But even now it is useful as an intermediary currency that can "tunnel through" any kind of regulatory barrier as long as an internet connection exists.
I was planning to use animals actually, but yeah, at that point in time I decided against it, I didn't think I had the necessary skills to humanely handle animals for such an invasive experiment.
> Even if there were some form of telemetry in Linux

At least for Debian, at install time it does ask you if you want to participate in the "popularity contest" apt telemetry. But, on the other hand, it's opt-in with the "no" option preselected.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the following two things are true about bitcoin addresses:

1. Once I know your public key, it’s trivial to prove that an address belongs to you, since an address is nothing more than the hash of a public key.
2. If I don’t know your public key when you receive funds, figuring it out is impossible. But once you spend that money, I now know the public key that received those funds, since only the private key associated with the original address could sign a new transactions.

Those two alone should make recreating the tree of transactions a purely mechanical process, with a much lower cost than what it took to create the original chain. At this point it’s a bit like any other de-anonymizes toon attack, with the benefit of some entities being known and coercable, and some users helpfully posting addresses on their social media accounts.

On the garnishment front: this kind of depends on scope. But the one thing we’ve seen is that all monetary security goes out the window when the attacker can take possession of you. This is why using technical solutions to such scenarios have always struck me as a bit silly.
-And that problem is difficult to solve even in a well-functioning democracy.

When visiting Sweden recently, I was surprised to find a number of bars, coffee shops and the like only accepting digital payments - no cash. While this makes lots of sense from the vendor's perspective - handling cash is expensive and inconvenient - a customer may feel different about it.

These vendors presumably decided that the benefits of not having to handle cash outweighed the risk of alienating a small percentage of their customers (As 'everybody' in Sweden carries debit cards and cell phones with e-payment solutions, few people rely on cash exclusively).

Now imagine what happens if the authorities also held the power to say that you WOULD not accept cash.

That would make anyone assisting someone with a low social score buy items normally not available to them an accessory to subversion of the state (or something similarly eerie-sounding).

Not good. Unless you are The State.
One quasi-workaround for broader questions is to use the Software Engineering SE site. It's not a panacea (and in my opinion shouldn't be necessary), but questions like the OP should theoretically be better-received there.

https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/tagg...
Because those people are already being paid anyway - their full time jobs, whether that’s PhD student, lecturer, professor, or industrial researcher, includes the job of reviewing and editing for publications.

It’s a society. You publish papers which get reviews, and you also work to review other people’s papers. Everyone contributes to make it work.
>Changes in traits, such as IQ, by 5+ standard deviations looks possible.

This looks totally unlikely.

Not to mention generally undesirable (people with IQ over 150 or so often have severe problems in their social life, and a lot of them don't ever even create or discover much, not to mention the insufferable part whose main accomplishment is to be members of MENSA).
Well, Elsevier is maybe for some people the worst of the bunch (cannot speak from experience, though).

Springer, for example, has very relaxed and open copyright transfers. You basically retain the right to have copies on your website, on archives, etc., provided that they contain a link to the 'definitive version' of your paper. Elsevier does that to some extent as well, but Springer _also_ invests money to 'cross-fund' (if that is a word) books in fields that do not attract so many readers and that otherwise could not be published. So in that sense, Springer is giving back to the community and people are appreciating that more.

I agree, however, that there seems to be generic and unspecified hatred against Elsevier; having not reviewed for them or published with them, I do not have a properly-formed opinion here.
Fair enough, I have elaborated my criticism in other comments. The reference to Hemmingway might seem flippant, but my point was that the Iliad is told in a certain genre or style where thoughts and mental states or not directly described, only events and actions. This is a particular style of narrative which is not confined to a specific stage in human development but exist throughout history, and even today is pretty popular ("show, don't tell"). Movies generally follow this form and voice-overs explaining the characters thoughts are the exception rather than the rule.

So to claim that the narrative style of the Iliad shows that the people does not have a concept of mind and did not have self awareness is just not justified. The narrative style certainly does not prove that, but on the other hand it is impossible to disprove that Achilles lacked consciousness. Which puts this theory into the realm of the nonfalsifiable.

This is akin to the crackpot theory that the ancient Greeks were not able to perceive the color blue, because that word does not occur in Homer. This is just an incredibly naive understanding of the connection between mind and language. While Homeric Greek might not have such a word, there is absolutely no evidence that their sensory system was different.

Furthermore, taking the Iliad as face value is highly problematic. While historians generally agree that there probably was a war, there is no evidence that any of the persons actually existed or existed at the time. The characters might be legendary or mythological. Note that basically all of them descends from gods a few generations back. Achilles is literally half-god. We know that Helen was worshiped as a deity in Sparta for example. If she was actually a mythological figure, we don't really need some complicated psychological theory to explain how one mythological being could talk to another!

So I think it is fair to say the theory have a naive approach to literature.

The second part of the criticism is that the theory does not actually explain anything. The bicameral mind is supposed to explain how people at the time interacted with Gods. It was actually just the other half of the brain giving advice. OK, but the theory also claims that the the integration of the mind happens some time between the composition of the Iliad and the Odyssey (because Odysseys clearly do have a concept of mind with first-person narrative and so on). Which means the theory can't explain the gods appearing in the Odyssey.
They are still paying nowhere near the same portion of their income as those of less advantage are paying. Plus their disposable income is still vastly larger, and they're basically untouched by the regressive costs paid by less fortunate people.

The wealthy should pay more, that is why progressive tax systems exist. They reap the largest benefit of society's goods, by a gigantic margin.
Zstandard uses both Huffman and ANS coding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_numeral_systems
I think "lack of consciousness" is not a well-defined concept. Popular forms of anesthesia these days result in what appears to be a more or less conscious patient in one sense, who can respond to some stimuli, but who does not form memories or feel pain. So in retropect, when the procedure is over, it's as if it never happened. But any observer can see they weren't unconscious as in dreamless sleep.

The point being, there are many components to what we call consciousness that seem to be demonstrably separable and it doesn't help to talk as though it's all just one unified whole.
Something neat about the original Gameboy is how its firmware actually works. As a developer, the entire region from $0000-$3FFF is mapped to the cartridge, and the entrypoint is at $0100.

When the CPU boots up, there is a special temporary mapping for $0000-$0100 to the firmware. The firmware largely just validates the ROM header and displays the Nintendo logo. But my favorite part is this: it executes all the way to $0100. There is no jump to $0100 - the last two bytes are an instruction that simply removes the firmware mapping. Now the IP lands on $0100 and everything is mapped as expected.

This simple mechanism made it notoriously difficult to extract the Gameboy BIOS. I recall reading that one way it was eventually extracted was via fault injection: by messing with the clock very precisely, you could get the processor to 'skip' the instruction that unmapped the firmware, thus allowing you to dump it.

Of course, another way you could read the firmware is by "simply" decapping the processor and taking shots of it with a powerful microscope, and then optically extracting the 'bits.' I think this was also done, but as a person with little understanding of the actual details of how a decapping is done it seems like an incredibly expensive, error prone operation.
You are 100% correct. So the lesson is: success is built over multiple generations.

I think you can do this in about 2-3 generations. So if you're not primed for success, you can work hard and kickstart the success of your kids.

Of course, lot's of tragedy occurs here when kids don't live up to parents expectations.
Excellent work!

From the latest data (https://www.karlrupp.net/2018/02/42-years-of-microprocessor-...) you can definitely see that single-threaded performance is still increasing but not at the exponential clip it was. The inflection point for that is around the mid-2000s. It is hard to eyeball because the chart is logarithmic but the rate of increase looks to be sub-exponential for the past decade or so.

MHz and Watts have clearly levelled off.

Number of logical cores looks to be on an exponential path so clearly we need to be tracking multi-threaded performance gains. Unlike your work this only needs to be backdated to the mid-2000s – multi-core ramps up when single-threaded starts ramping down – so it should be far easier.

Pretty much all applications take advantage of multi-threading now, be it multi-processing or multi-threading. Erlang is the only language I know of that has the multi-threaded paradigm baked into its core. Ruby has had Fibers since 2.2 so they are very much a tacked on idea. Perhaps what we need is to retrofit them to C, come up with an abstract machine model and language primitives that fits our multi-core world. We could call it C[].
Also, it’s far more delicious that way.
Medical device rules need 'drastic change' to protect patients
Some neat questions are too broad.

But the too-broad questions aren't usually very interesting. Most of them are just pure crap. If you have enough SO karma, try https://stackoverflow.com/review/close/?filter-closereason=t... — what I see just now is someone who wants help with his java/spring thing and isn't very detailed about it, someone who's "been trying to learn how delegation" works, someone who "would like to know how can i mock diffrent user request behavior pattern" and those aren't unusual. The intellectually interesting questions are unusual in the "too broad" morass.

If people are to moderate SO, the rules have to be simple and quick to apply. Of course people don't have to do that, but I fear that without moderation, the interesting questions would get no answers because they would be completely flooded by questions like those three. So the open-ended, intellectially interesting questions lose either way.
He got the interviews, so he already passed that stage.
the cells were asked to move towards the green consent button, and they did
Or, you know, the purists will be spared untold suffering that those others will have to go through because of "magician's apprentice" style editing...
Deep knowledge in a framework's code is unnecessary if you want to contribute
My side gig, like most sites these days, publishes a privacy policy and terms of service. From the start, I published those documents in a public Git repository - it provides a clear source of what version was in force at the time of any given argument. When you might later be discussing the content of those documents in court, that can be essential.

Of course, it could also work against you, but either way, it's one less thing that's open for discussion.
I think you underestimate the technology we had in 1900 if you think 1900 is less different from 1000 B.C. than it is from today.
Sinus Stress and Dizziness
Should be renamed to 'Tests of General Relativity with GW170817', it sounds like a survey article.
I use https://airwander.com/ when flying overseas, I don't know how well it works for low cost airlines though.

It's a flight search engine that let you filter what connections there are between the cities you want to travel and help you book a single flight that is going to stay there as a stopover. Sometimes it finds some weird flights that doesn't make any sense if you're just trying to reach your destination but if you're just traveling it's quite nice.

Last time I used it I found a overseas flight that stopped in Lisbon but on the way back made a connection in Bologna that was +200 cheaper then the normal flight.
When I was young, I have bought the standard C++ in pdf because it was less than $10. I think it was the maximum I was agreeing to pay for it. Sometimes I find a reference to research articles I would like to read. I have no access to university to get them freely. If article were accessible at a decent price (less than $2), I think I would buy a lot more of them. IMHO, academic publishing would still be profitable if prices were low.
> The mods get points for closing things, I guess. Often they don't understand the question, it seems

FWIW, it's not moderators closing a question (I rarely see that). You "only" need 3000 points to vote to close a question. Users with a gold badge on a tag the question has can single-handendly close a question.

Users get no incentive for closing questions.

Also, those 3000 points also give you the possibility to vote for reopening a question. And there's a queue where users can see questions that are being voted on for reopening.
Yes, it's common for large scale collaboration experiment like this. Papers from ATLAS/CMS have about 15 pages for authors (for example https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.00425.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.02610.pdf).
The problem is that the vast majority of established researchers do not care that the system is broken. Why work against the system once you're at the top? Most of them haven't ever thought about it, and the ones who know usually don't do much, because, hey, that's the way it was always done, they are used to the current journals and conferences being prestigious, and they don't want to bother with the unglamorous work of setting up HotCRP or coordinating reviews. Plus they usually want to push their career further and they know perfectly well that fighting against established venues isn't the right way to do that.

As a young tenured academic I have been systematically refusing to do reviews for non-open-access journals. (I'm certainly not senior enough to create a new journal and be taken seriously.) I hoped that this might give some ideas to my peers but it's seen at best as a weird quirk, at worst as a selfish move (because "the community" needs my help to review papers). Usually the answer is some variation of "yeah the system is not perfect".

The only argument I have seen which motivates researchers to care about open access is when it's mandated by funding agencies (e.g., in Europe, the ERC). Researchers really want to get these grants, so when these agencies talk about open access, they listen very carefully. It both makes me somewhat optimistic and quite cynical that the only way to move towards open-access seems to be via funding agencies (as opposed to researchers caring about the problem). Plus, for many agencies, "open access" here means "gold open access", i.e., continuing to work with the usual publishers, who make the articles available online, but move the "costs" (and huge margin) to the authors, with "article processing charges" of $1000-$2000.
Gai cột sống