skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Another interesting story in undergrad I had a thesis supervisor who was working in cosmology, but had a 20 year career in high energy particle physics (5 as a grad student, 10 as a research scientist and 5 as a pre-tenured faculty member). Basically the moment he got tenure he switched from experimental particle to observational cosmology because as he said "I saw the writing on the wall that after the higgs there was no clear direction for high energy and no clear direction for even finding a way out of the aimlessness." I thought it was kind of crazy that he had a multi-year plan for leaving particle, but I guessed it worked out for him he is now reasonably successful and is a leader in both DESI and LSST. I ended up leaving physics entirely.
I've been reading "The Dancing Wu Li Masters", starting the book with the full knowledge that it's form the early 70s and likely out of date. But it turns out it's not as out of date as I thought. As a total outsider to the scientific community, I would expect that what happened to Newton's laws would have happened to these earlier discoveries in the realm of quantum mechanics. But a lot of them still ring "true" today. Similarly with Einstein's general theory of relativity, as the article states, it it still holds strong. Fascinating stuff.
I guarantee you that those kids eat fattening things besides juice daily too.
That's why they reminded me of the series immediately. :) One of my favorites.
What's embarrassing, is Nvidia's inability to provide upstream driver themselves, or to allow nouveau which already exists, use all their hardware features[1]. Linux kernel has quality rules, and if Nvidia can't follow them, it's their problem. It should not be in the interest of Linux maintainers to accept any junk upstream.

1. https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/linux-graphics-x-org-d...
Why would it be a national security concern?
That's called "politician's fallacy" - "something needs to be done! This is something, therefore this needs to be done!".

Obvious comment on it is that "something" must improve the situation after being done, merely doing something that doesn't work because current situation doesn't work is not likely to make it work.

And if you're implying I have to right to criticize stupid proposals from politicians before I myself am elected into political office and make a full-formed policy proposal that solves all the problems - sorry, it's not how this thing works.
Could possibly use some sort of active control system of counter masses, like water in a lattice of piping.
What if i dont need a prothesis replacement arm, but i want and additional third or fourth arm wearable in the form of a “backpack with arms”

How can i get one, and how expensive (medically and financially) will my additional sets of arms be?
You're right, that was another error case in the article that I missed the first time.

In LMDB's case you'd need to be pretty unlucky for that bug to bite; all the writes are done at once during txn_commit so you have to issue sync() during the couple milliseconds that might take, before the fsync() at the end of the writes. Also, it has to be a single-sector failure, otherwise a write after the sync will still fail and be caught.

E.g.

LMDB other
write
write
write sync
write
fsync

If the device is totally hosed, all of those writes' destination pages would error out. In that case, the failure can only be missed if you're unlucky enough for the sync to start immediately after the last write and before the fsync. The window is on the order of nanoseconds.

If only a single page is bad, and the majority of the writes are ok, then you still have to be unlucky enough for the sync to run after the bad write; if it runs before the bad write then fsync will still see the error.
I'm interested in this: https://datproject.org
What's your point? They might become evil in the future so we should treat them like they're evil now?
There are several third party Bluetooth transmitters that fit the Libre or you can use an old Sony smartwatch.
I used the latter for a few months but it was much better when I switched to the Dexcom G5.
The G5 is just a small BT transmitter and the G6 is even smaller. The insertion is a bit nicer on the Libre but not a big deal.

If you use xDrip and stretch the life of the sensors and transmitters then the Dexcom isn't much more expensive than the Libre (at least for me, in the UK).

Scott is using the G6 now I think, and most T1s I read online recommend Dexcom.
It’s not just choices made by Nvidia, though, it’s equally due to choices made by Linux.

Linux is trying to force its unique “all drivers are open source and in our tree” view of the world on everyone. Linux could stop doing this and start guaranteeing stable interfaces.

If stable interfaces are available and Nvidia doesn’t use them, then it might be reasonable to call them “a bad actor.”
That's a nice thought, but in reality lots of poorly coded sites out there do UA sniffing instead of feature detection. So lots of sites break (including many Google sites) if they think you don't have Chromium feature sets.
Swift is a nice language but its reliance on reference counting means you have to work a lot harder to avoid retain cycles than you do in a garbage collected language.

That might have been the right choice for Apple’s uses of Swift where GC pauses affect the user experience but for most other use cases it’s too much of a cognitive burden IMO.
Sweden says it built a Russian fighter jet killer – and stealth is irrelevant
That's the sort of talk companies with market share of Microsoft or ecosystem of Apple can afford.

I am a Linux desktop user myself but:

a) The AMD drivers were unusable crap for a very long time, things have improved only thanks to the open source driver (that ATI/AMD did not write, they only contributed specs). Basically 3D and OpenGL in Linux was for years synonymous with "buy Nvidia, it works".

b) I don't understand this "holier than thou" attitudes when Linux desktop isn't even a blip on the radar and pretty much contributes zero to the bottom line of these companies. However, it tends to have the most vocal, noisy and abusive users ...

Instead of being glad that Nvidia actually supports Linux (and FreeBSD and few other free OSes) for ~20 years now (before ATI even had a Linux driver at all!), we heap abuse on them because their drivers aren't to our taste? Would it be better if they cut their losses and stop providing this support? Especially for stuff that doesn't have any alternatives, such as CUDA? And no, Intel integrated graphics really isn't an option for high performance graphics and ATI's open source drivers are quite a bit slower. Of course, if all you need is requiring accelerated desktop so that you can have nice transparency/compositing and accelerated video playing, then you won't see this.

I don't get where did you get the idea about the "lowest common denominator quality driver" from Nvidia. Sure there are bugs and issues (e.g. with suspend) but in my experience the Nvidia graphic drivers were the least troublesome when it came to application support, OpenGL spec + extension support and various bugs. And I have been using 3D drivers in Linux essentially from the very beginning, when the top end hardware meant a 3DFX card or later a Riva TNT. My diploma thesis ran on a 3DFX back in the day ...

That said, it doesn't mean we shouldn't complain when something doesn't work but let's not forget the size of the market. A dose of reality helps - jumping up and down and yelling really really loud to look important doesn't make one so.
How Much Money Top Chess Players Earn in Prizes
I just did the same thing! Glad to know I’m not alone.
Maybe what John is getting at is while a Principal can do that for a while, at some point their tech chops will get out of date and rusty, both in terms of industry knowledge and the company’s internal stack and best practices. At that point they may lose the respect of more junior engineers, which is a poor sign for company culture.

A senior IC that codes can stay relevant longer. The act of coding forces you to keep up.
Twitter on Firefox android keeps giving me an error saying I have been rate limited and other Firefox users have reported the same. With how horrible twitter is I assume this is a problem on their side.
I get something similar in CA. I can look online and see that I voted.

That’s public info and should be audited.

The part that remains secret is who/what I voted for.

Edit:clarity
This is perhaps the most important feature of Linux, and far from a problem. Nvidia needs to get over itself and put its driver in the upstream tree. AMD did it and it's been a huge success. Linux's unstable internal API and GPL'd nature has been a huge driving force behind the availablity of open source drivers. Hell, many distros with stable driver APIs like *BSD have Linux to thank for many of the drivers they have, because without Linux there never would have been open source drivers or specs in the first place.

None of the distros are going to get behind your fork because all agree with Linux on this matter, rightfully so. Nvidia can fuck off with their proprietary crap, Linux has no intention of bending over for that garbage.
Netflix is basically just an incremental update to the cable TV model: one centralized distribution service that negotiates broadcasting rights. The only real difference is that people are free to choose when to watch things, and even that is just an "Internet version" of the same thing people had with their VCRs (time shifting) or rental services. It is innovation, yes, but in a box that does not really change the larger business model; by way of analogy it is like railroads switching from steam engines to diesel locomotives.

Peer-to-peer is a totally different concept of global distribution, one that challenges the entire business model that is built around copyright. If Netflix is a diesel locomotive, peer-to-peer is an automobile -- it is more than just a new way to do the same thing that we had done previously, it is an entirely new concept of how things can be done. That is why the RIAA and MPAA panicked. They understand how to negotiate with or sue a centralized distributor like Netflix or Megaupload, but their entire business model is threatened by peer-to-peer distribution.

Bittorent is only half the promise of peer-to-peer. Yes, you are participating in distribution, but you still need a central service to help you find the torrents you want to download. Hardly anybody is working on distributed search, or good ways to deal with spam/malware/etc. that do not involve a central service of some kind. There was a time when people were talking about peer-to-peer messaging systems, but the death of peer-to-peer left us all relying on more centralized approaches.

Ironically, the death of peer-to-peer contributed to the rise of tech giants, all of which follow the same centralized model that peer-to-peer challenged. I think it is entirely possible that a peer-to-peer social networking system could have hindered the rise of Facebook. Youtube might never have been created if peer-to-peer had flourished. We may not have even been having this conversation if the talent that went into Google and Facebook had instead been devoted to peer-to-peer.

It is impossible to know. The problem with deliberately killing a technology in its infancy is that it is hard to know how the technology might have developed or what it might do for society. It is certainly possible (I would say likely) that consumers would have benefited from the growth of peer-to-peer technology.
Fanta would be a more apt simile.

Coca Cola contains caffeine, which oranges decidedly do not.
> Maybe me having grown up on American sugary substance, my palate has gotten worse.

Serious question: how is your sense of smell?
Designing a Basic ETL as a Data Engineer – Video
Sorry, I just didn't want to give people the impression that it's more difficult than other languages. To upgrade you'd just have to remove the original install directory and untar the new release.

I'm not familiar with Snap, but I did find https://snapcraft.io/swift

Also, upgrading will be less common than Rust since almost everyone uses the latest release/toolchain. There's not really a reason to use the daily builds unless you're contributing to the Swift project.
Wouldn't that be just a round about way to lie about yourself?
Virtualbox is much slower than VMware on Mac. Get VMware and it will be much better. The only possible issue is the relatively small amount of RAM you have for two OSes.
> Nvidia’s position seems to be that Linux needs to grow up and provide a stable driver API and ABI, and stop claiming anyone is a “bad actor” just because they don’t want to put their drivers under the GPL, make them part of the Linux kernel source tree, and essentially give up control of them.
I’m honestly surprised the major distros haven’t gotten together to do this, in a shared fork if necessary. It’s outright embarrassing that this attitude still infects the Linux project.

I don't find it embarrassing that Linux maintainers prefer to leave every line of code in the kernel up for improvement, rather than desperately replicating known misbehaviours until a new five-to-ten year waterfall release comes. AMD's drivers work great, I buy AMD because instead of getting upset that they don't get to call all the shots, they put in the work and make peace with the establishment.

NVIDIA would rather throw a pathetic, childish tantrum and blame everyone else for their arrogant position which leaves their customers begging maintainers to comply and work on their own time to enrich NVIDIA.
I get it, I'm on Android because I can't swallow Apple's bullshit but would like it if Android had similar security to Apple.

It would be nice if we could have our cake and eat it too.
Honestly the user agent string should just be removed. The correct way to use it seems to be do not do anything with it so why does it still exist.
An incomplete survey of Bitcoin privacy technologies
read the link; i wasn't referring to website originated experiments.

btw midori is without backdoors, so is dillo, or lynx.
How is this a "backdoor"? They could have just done this in the browser code itself if they wanted to.

Unless you've found some way to change the content of that url without the browser detecting it, I don't understand what you think there is to be concerned about here.
> Far from being a partner, CRRC became the bogeyman that the two companies used to spook European antitrust authorities into waving through Alstom’s takeover of Siemens’s rail unit.

Why do Alstom and Siemens feel such pressure to merge given their Chinese competition? Is it harder for each of these firms to compete individually against a larger company? My understanding of economics is limited.

In the US, we hear all the time about how competition is good in markets because it keeps prices down, which makes sense at a surface level. But articles like this seem to tell a different story: that there are economic forces causing major industry consolidation, which in turn hurts competition and (I'm guessing) increases inequality.
The “rate limited” error occurs for me on MobileSafari on iOS, so it’s not Firefox related. Reloading the page works fine. It seems to have to do with which referrer took you to Twitter.
> What if the next level of yet unknown physics requires building a machine that's as large as the equator? Or larger than anything that can be built on earth?

Then we need to fund that engineering.

That's part of the argument. Will a bigger collider really be the best use of funds?

Pouring enormous sums at, for example, the solid-state physics of superconductors and figuring out how to make an actual room temperature superconductor could advance many things simultaneously. (For example: room temp superconductors probably enable fusion at reasonable scales--and fusion at decent sizes gates most megascale engineering projects. Another example: quantum computers have several open questions about them that may mean that they never achieve generality--we should probably probe that intensely).

Nobody is saying to never build another collider. But the real question is "Do we have a good reason to build another collider right now? Or should we shunt that money elsewhere in physics?"
Disclosing certain information (like, your banking account password) would certainly harm you. But this is not the kind of information we're discussing here, are we? We are discussing kind of information that is already either public or semi-public (i.e. known to some - potentially wide - circle of unknown people) but aggregation and concentration of which may lead to knowledge about you that you'd prefer not to be public.

I am not sure we have an adequate legal model now to deal with it. We should probably get to developing one real soon. But roping in emotional terms from the different field - like calling it "stealing" or "robbery" or "piracy" or "stampeding cattle through Vatican" is not very helpful. It makes it look as if it's simple - if it's stealing, stealing is already banned, just use the same laws here - but it's not and those laws won't work. Real work is needed here, not wordplay.
This a very simplified way to look at the original post, glossing over most of the details and missing nearly all the points.

Nobody is arguing against spending (lots of) money for scientific experiments. The problems that arise are qualitative rather than quantitive. As the original post outlines, there are many experimental domains one could allocate that money towards. One of the issues is that of cutting your losses. When does one accept that enough is enough and starts doing something else? Smart and reputable people are not infallible or less prone to making terrible (self-centered, ego-driven, profit-seeking) decisions.

One of the points that the original post is making is that high energy physics is dominated by these kinds of people. Predictions repeatedly invalidated yet still clinging to the same ideas. That is starting to look more like a religion or mania than science.
That's an unfair comment on 2 counts.

Firstly, it's refuting a different point than the one I was making. If the problem were "it's too difficult to determine if hardware is compatible with the distro I want to use," (which is a real problem) then the comment would at least be relevant. But the comment I was replying to said "If software is going to dictate where I spend my money [what hardware I buy], ..."; they were rejecting the validity the claim that they should consider which software they use when making a hardware purchase, which is true for no OS, and no reasonable user expects to be true.

Secondly, you are demanding an impossible task. Because GNU/Linux distros have less marketing budget, and not enough dominance, and can't convince hardware vendors to put a sticker on the box... they need to have better hardware compatibility than Microsoft, and just be compatible with all the hardware? Microsoft has vastly more resources to dedicate to hardware compatibly than just about any other organization, and hardware vendors themselves test their hardware with Windows. Expecting a less-popular desktop operating system to work with more arbitrary hardware than Windows does is unreasonable.

I get that "being able to try it out with the hardware I already own" is a hugely powerful thing. But most users who want to make any other switch accept that they might need to buy some new hardware when doing it. A user switching from a Windows laptop to an iPad as their daily-driver accepts that they may need to get a new printer that's compatible. They may even realize that they have an older iPad, and research the printer they want to make sure it's compatible with their model, and not blindly trust the AirPrint badge on the box. Few users would think that level of due-diligence is unreasonable. Saying "that research is difficult for GNU/Linux distros" is very different than saying "expecting any level of research at all is unreasonable".
I'm not a D expert, but I think the raptor_uri_copy is called in dup() method of URIWithoutFinalize/URI, which is essentially the full_copy() method. The code says only URIWithoutFinalize() is shallow-copyable, and URIWithFinalize is not (see @disable this(this);).
Sounds intentional, probably something sent by the USB host controller driver. I guess some hub chips might send it independently as well in some scenarios.

USB bus resets (both D+ and D- down for 10ms) are a signal for the USB device software (well, firmware) to initialize device configuration. Basically to set configuration, data toggles and stalls to their defaults.

(I've written USB device firmware.)
At one point they were using a different user agent so that Brave couldn't be blocked. Of course the same people that care about this sort of thing are the same people that want to track you without your consent.
PEM format also adds the "----- BEGIN …" header/footer around the base64-encoded contents, which helps humans identify what the blob is.
Whole oranges? Orange peel / rind probably accounts for a significant portion of the weight of fresh oranges.
It is not. The Mr. Robot controversy showed that they can remotely install addons, and the Booking controversy showed that they can remotely alter the contents of the "new tab" page.
pretty weak response so far.

His explanation as to whether this might make a user more prone to fingerprinting was a total cop-out too. It does make you more prone to fingerprinting "but only to their audience" isn't a good enough answer. Customers/partners which users have no control over and are expected to trust Brave executives as acting in their best interest. Where is the foundation that justifies this trust?
Yes, this is it. I became not so motivated in physics. I have enjoyed the work I have done since then more. I missed the golden age of physics but instead have been able to take part in the golden age (to date) of software and the internet.
Andy Grove talks about this in his excellent High Output Management, where he asks the question: how should knowledge managers (senior ICs) and people managers spend their time?

His answer is: on high leverage activities. Instead of fixing a small bug that affects a few customers, fix a big one that impacts revenue; train others to be better engineers, multiplying their future output; improve the process your team uses to build product. Essentially, look for activities that multiply output, rather than add to it.
I've been working on a fantasy console, which touches on this "design down" space. It's the kind of endeavor that lets me iteratively redesign to go deeper and deeper into the stack, by starting off with "scripting plus some kind of I/O", gradually extending the concept, and then, more recently, to shift towards using WASM, memory maps, a BIOS layer, and an emulator UI layer, giving me more spec clarity.

The I/O boundaries and resource limits are the really important bits: A web browser is ultimately just a bundle of I/O functions buried inside specialized feature APIs, with only some very specific "patch this" limits for maximum resource consumption. This has allowed the size of web apps to creep upwards indefinitely while not being able to actually do every task, because the feature APIs sandbox in a haphazard "intended for the average consumer" way. When you add in comprehensive limits, the design and the software built on it are able to last: it's the lack of limits that has always created software crises.

One could imagine, instead of the browser as a lowest-common-denominator sandbox, a fantasy system specialized "for text editing", which has a different spec from one specialized "for 3D graphics": This would narrow the scope of sandboxing, make it easier to task-optimize, and yet also create the need for a Lisp or Smalltalk type of system that needs flexibility "for prototyping". It's not an unreasonable path, considering how broader trends in computing are leading towards hardware specialization too.
i am saying that he enforces that no actual fork can be done and don't allow even simplest exceptions for AppStores.