skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You can't really aggregate trade at the country level. Well, people do that all the time, but you can't expect it to follow the same rules as the real market.

People participating on the international trade are better off. There are plenty of cases of market failures (monopolies, etc), inertial problems (deflation, etc), or human capital destruction (due to worsened wealth distribution) predicted by theory already. Any of those can overwhelm the usual net positive contributions of trade.
obligatory, is there something like this for Nikon cameras?
Well, there's this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Ac...
A photo management UI on par with smartphones. Fast, easy to use and easy to do edits and sharing with. Along with GPS, WiFi & LTE connectivity that doesn't suck. Maybe direct app integration with instagram and other apps. Put an OLED screen on the back, not just the viewfinder.

Basically slap a fucking android phone on the back when browsing photos. Make it a separate CPU if necessary.

Embrace the 'casual camera' body style more. The viewfinder should not be a big chunky thing in the center, but on the side and a pop up if necessary. Get rid of grips and make them a uniform rectangle, and add a battery grip in the box to make it slr grippy. People are scared of slr style bodies, while they are not scared of casual camera bodies.

They will continue serving the standard pro market who want the big chunky slr style bodies, this is how they can capture the 'high quality life memory / instagram influencer' market better.
Home-built 737 cockpit
Anecdotal: A strawberry farmer once told me that people prefer to buy the bigger ones, unaware they are less tasty, so that's what he's growing.
Seemed to be, whenever it was moving.

(High processor usage with both browsers, BTW, not just Safari.)
Both gold and real estate require massive amount of physical force to secure. Nation state level force and law and order.

Bitcoin just needs electricity.
Bitcoin does use a lot of electricity, exactly how much is hard to judge, most of the shock headlines seem to trace their way back to Alex De Vries who uses some questionable assumptions. He seems to calculate the energy use by taking the price of BitCoin and guessing how much profit is being made by miners and how much they pay for electricity.

Nevertheless it is safe to assume that the energy use is significant, even at half or a tenth of Digiconomist estimates it is still quite large. It is broadly true that the energy use of Bitcoin is related to the value of Bitcoin, via the mining reward.

The arguments against the energy use that are based upon the merits of Bitcoin are not valid. If Bitcoin is useless and doomed it stands to reason that the energy consumed is a waste, but that is true of anything. To argue specifically against the energy consumption you have to make the case that it is not worth the cost even if Bitcoin is a success.

If you assume that the costs and profit for mining are more-or-less static then the mining network will use roughly the same amount of energy if Bitcoin doubles in value every reward halving. That flattens out to about a 20% increase in value every year. To accept that the energy use will continue at this rate you would have to also accept that Bitcoin will increase in value at that rate. To date Bitcoin _has_ increased in value quicker than that, which is why the energy use has grown so high. Hardly anyone would argue that the increase in value will be sustained perpetually. If just holds its value the mining reward and power consumption will reduce accordingly. If Bitcoin ends up worth pennies, the consumption will be minima.

Furthermore, Bitcoin mining adds options to _how_ electricity is generated and consumed. Being able to convert electricity into money not only acts as a stimulus for cheaper energy generation but as a motivator for building new capacity. We are already at a point where Solar and Wind are becoming the choice not only for Environmental but also Economic reasons. Any new power plant needs customers, those customers take time to appear. If a power plant sold excess generation at cost to mining facilities the investment required to build a new plant is greatly reduced. This presents the possibility of developing nations introducing power generation to areas that currently have little or none.

If Bitcoin did end up stimulating the increase of carbon neutral capacity and efficiency, then people in the future might end up making the argument that Bitcoin ended up carbon negative.
While I disagree with your original point that Apple/Google should get into the camera manufacture space, Zeiss is working on a new "next generation" camera system. It's targeted at the RX1/Leica Q market, but with significantly better software and obviously great optics.

https://zx1.zeiss.com/
What would be a scientific approach to compare search results? Let's say I do a search on DDG and on Google, how do I determine which engine provided the most accurate results?
I thought google search (without "books") is broken... why is the books search being broken a surprise?
A small PoW on each block, however for some reason it can be precomputed which allows you to precompute a spam attack (which has happened from the CEO of BrainBlocks recently..)

It's an interesting issue, although it's a good question if it is possible to stop network spam. Bitcoin's solution to network spam is to limit the amount of transactions and charge a fee, with the fee going up the higher the demand for a transaction.

I don't see this setup working with Nano, as much of the protocol is designed around not having fees. After all, deciding who gets the fees and splitting it (among top representatives?) causes even more processing on the network.
How to teach informatics in 3 months (german satire)
> Here you're formulating an argument which presumably states that it is good to take a leap of faith, indirectly claiming that "a deity will intervene" is a valid assumption one should take when making decisions.

One doesn't have to presume, you could just ask. God can intervene, or not. Assuming intervention is not normally done. When it happens, it's usually for the better, and in a way that one didn't expect. This is generally called serendipity. Assuming serendipity will happen is a good way to get it to never happen, most believers will tell you that. I personally find serendipity all the time, but never where I assume or expect.

Assuming it will happen is a leap of faith and is not necessarily a good thing. God may decide not to intervene and leave you to your fate. Nonbelievers simply describe such things as luck, but believers ascribe agency to what others consider to be random events. That is the difference you're looking for, and if you don't want to be accused of misrepresenting theism, you should just stick to that.

Let's put this in D&D terms. God is the dungeon master, I am a player character. What you're saying is tantamount to saying I'm expecting the DM to just save me from the consequences of every stupid decision I make. I'm saying, no, I just ascribe agency to the DM's actions. The difference might not mean much to you, but it's very important to a believer.

You are making a false equivalence here in equating belief with assumption of intervention.

> "Anybody" includes atheists. So when I say "act like an atheist", you do understand that the word "like" implies a comparative analogy, yes?

> You don't act like an atheist sometimes. (Like when you made this comment.)

I think anybody, atheists included, would want to explain their position. I'd be curious as to exactly in what way I'm not acting like an atheist by responding here. I have a position, I am explaining it. An atheist would have a position and they would want to explain it.

Even though the position is not shared, the underlying impetus to action is the same. Therefore I am acting like anyone, including an atheist. The specific position, atheist or theist, only affects specifics, not essence. I'm acting like an atheist, in that the essence of what we're doing is similar, but the specifics differ because of the necessary difference in position.

> In fact, I feel as though I said "to be an X, you must jump off a bridge", and you shout up "I never jumped off a bridge, but I am an X!" as you plummet into the river below me. Like...

We don't need to concoct a silly hypothetical analogy, we can simply use your words. You said theists assume God will intervene, and that's how they make decisions. This misrepresents how theists operate. I am explaining that difference. Atheists act the same way all the time, when theists misrepresent their views.
As many comments here point out - you are seen as a heretic for going against the 'recycling gods' in many parts of the world. That is certainly true in parts of American industry as well.

U.S. kids have been conditioned since the 90's to believe everything is recyclable, and you commit a public disservice if you throw things away. Slowly people are realizing that 'single stream' recycling just results in a lot of contaminants and ends up being thrown away anyways.

Up until 6 months ago, one of my party tricks was to explain to people that glass is not commonly recycled, but actually ground up and used as 'daily cover' on a landfill (2-3" of material to help keep down odors, start the decomposition process, and provide long term stability to the pile of trash). The reactions ranged from "ha, I figured..." to jaw dropping denials.

People are finally starting to realize that, hey... Maybe a bunch of 'recycled' (read: shattered) beer bottles of mixed colors (green, brown, clear) present much as much of an OSHA workplace hazard as they do an 'environmental benefit'.
The Interactive Deep Learning Landscape
> When you say Bitcoin "hurts the environment", what, concretely do you mean? Presumably, you mean it in a stronger sense than "using energy to produce food hurts the environment" or "using energy to run an ER hurts the environment". That is, you think that relative to the benefit provided, the use of (harmful) energy to run bitcoin miners doesn't justify its environmental cost.

For myself, that is not what I mean when I use the phrase.

Bitcoin hurts the environment because Bitcoin, by design, wants to use as much power as available to secure it - and conversely is vulnerable to anyone who has significant power available, and so it had to design itself so that the rational thing to do is to commit that power to Bitcoin itself.

Bitcoin automatically adjusts its difficulty based on the computational speed of the network over the past few thousand blocks. There is a target mining speed of one block every ten minutes. If someone throws more computational power at Bitcoin, Bitcoin itself will adjust to the additional available power, so that nothing more gets done, it just uses up the power. This is not a claim that the benefit is too low relative to the additional energy; this is a claim that the benefit is zero, by design, relative to additional energy, and that this property is inherent to Bitcoin.

There is a reason to single out Bitcoin and blame it for environmental problems. No other product, concept, or idea in human history (besides Bitcoin clones) has been designed in a way where it expands gas-like to all the energy available to it (... except perhaps capitalism itself, and funny enough, people are claiming that capitalism too must be stopped to avert irrecoverable climate change).

I'm supportive of other forms of cryptocurrency without this property (weakly supportive, given that I haven't used any of them in detail, but they seem promising). There seems no particular reason to use Bitcoin if alternatives exist without the burn-all-the-available-energy property.
What drove the decision to go with hexagonal pixels? Sounds pretty crazy and cool.
The only people I've kept in touch with since college are my friends. I'm 11 years out now and I don't even remember the vast majority of the names of the other people. Maybe a year out of college I could've still found a way to connect with some of those people, but it's long gone now. I don't remember the vast majority of them and I'm sure it's mutual.

I did have a four year long multidisciplinary research project that consisted of nine people. I saw them on at least a weekly basis for four years. I only kept in touch with one of them post-graduation (we became friends for a bit), but even that has since faded away.

I just don't see much value in having acquaintances that you aren't actually friends with. I hate it when people that I'm otherwise not in contact with reach out to me out of the blue because they need something from me, like a referral. I'm not willing to offer a good referral to anyone that I haven't worked closely with, or that I'm at least friendly enough to know their work ethic. And because I hate it when people do this to me, I also don't turn around and do it to them.

Why should a referral from some random acquaintance count so highly, anyway? I'd much sooner trust an interview loop than "Oh, I went to school with them a decade ago; beyond that I couldn't tell you much of anything about them."

Anyway, I didn't apply to my current job and I didn't reach out through friends; they recruited me.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...
eh, I think that for better or worse, the 'prices will fall to match the marginal cost' ship sailed a long time ago; Yes, this is going to make Adam Smith mad, no, I'm not going to fight that fight anymore. I'd pay $200,000 for another 20 years of life without complaint even if the marginal cost for the treatment was super low.

I mean, I think the real problem in misaligned incentives here is that there would be an incentive for the for-profit experimental treatment providers to keep things that should become mainstream "experimental" so that they could continue to charge for things that worked. But even so I still think my suggestion is better, at least for those paying for treatment, than the case in the story where people without medical expertise end up deciding to spend lots of money up front for treatments that explicitly are not generally accepted as effective by the medical community.
I wonder if there are thermal issues that may affect the life of the sensor?

But it’s mostly a business decision I guess.
Those incentives are misaligned. Not every law school grad can pass the bar.
A little ASCII art for math from a code snippet of mine:

//
// B(m,n)(x) = binomial(m,n) * (1-x)^(m-n) * x^n
// __ m-n
// (1-x)^(m-n) = \ (-1)^i * binomial(m-n,i) * x^i
// /_ i=0
// __ m-n
// B(m,n)(x) = binomial(m,n) \ (-1)^i * binomial(m-n,i) * x^(i+n)
// /_ i=0
//
Polynomial Polynomial::bernstein(unsigned m, unsigned n) {
Polynomial B(m);
unsigned j = m-n;
double scale = binomial(m,n);
for (unsigned i = 0; i <= j; i++)
if (isEven(i))
B[i+n] = scale*binomial(j,i);
else
B[i+n] = -scale*binomial(j,i);
return B;
}
I wholeheartedly agree! Neither in extreme is good... picking best of both is probably the best way to move forward.
Tiny Homes for Homeless Get Go-Ahead
I was a naval officer in a prior life, and my current manager loves that I get the job done, whatever it is, without complaint.

I'm pretty much the opposite of what you think, so if my desire to study for the algorithm interview is your litmus test for that, kinda proves my point.

Not everyone that would be good for Google has a burning desire to work for Google. Google might want to consider that.
Hi,

Apache Spark is easy target to beat. I would be much more interested looking at comparison to ClickHouse :)
I immediately decline your type of interviews and my life is most likely better for it.
Yeah, I was happily expecting an interesting radio station, and instead got a disappointing SPA about camera software :(
It has been HNed.
Mining gold gets harder over time. If you want more gold that's the price you pay.

Trust-less consensus may be the same. Nature doesn't care either way.
If you want influence at your company, transform into a product owner. If you want to stay a coder, I think in most companies you can't expect to have any real say. I think most companies would love to have more technical product owners that can't be bullshitted by the dev team. Fake it till you make it!
I've seen people who worked their own business, freelancers, etc., come in such a shop and end up out of date code monkeys after 2 years.
> Fair to the applicant (no free labor/conflict of interest issues)

Absolutely.

> My off-the-cuff thought was to ask for them to work on a smallish issue on an open source project they haven't contributed to before.

I think you just contradicted the previous quote. Sure, you're going to let them re-use it across multiple interviews, which is somewhat better. It's still not good, though. No free labor for interviews!
I hadn’t really thought about it before, but this makes clear that renewable != clean.
You can’t use in-camera presets if you want RAW. That was shot RAW, with the expanded bit depth that Magic Lantern affords. Then, it was loaded onto a computer and graded. I personally only use the presets to get more depth out of the space-efficient photo/video encodings by lifting blacks before they get cut off or turn out so dark you can’t get accurate colour out of them, or to do that in the digital viewfinder only before saving as RAW. The more finished-looking presets are fun for previewing but not all that useful otherwise.
What makes you think that I just discovered fake news? Are you always that aggressive?
Wow I guess I am officially old now because I finally installed TikTok, and I would describe it as trivial and obnoxious rather than "nimble".
Okay, it looks like i have to put it into simplest words possible.

As mentioned elsewhere this:

> So… My first instinct when I read debunking efforts like this is to try to check out who is doing the debunking.

is the definition of "ad hominem". Attacking not the position a person holds, but the person.

Discussion is what we have here. The comment in question, a part of the discussion, implied that the point what was made by the author is questionable because of who the author is.
> You cannot look at bitcoin by any measure and say that it's a practical success for any of its goals.

I can memorize 20 words and cross whatever border I want with $100 million in my brain, and full confidence that that money is mine. That's pretty damn cool.

> I do support some form of decentralized currency. Not because people are ever going to be smart enough to be their own bank or because I think some currency will magically topple governments and financial structures, but mainly so people can transact without overly-censorious middle-men who take a cut while adding nearly no value.

It sounds like you're projecting what you think Bitcoin should be.

> We have the internet, now. Payment networks should have died years ago. I'm glad this problem is being worked on. However, it's possible to solve without using a country's-worth of energy to support a pathetic ~10 transactions per second.

10 transactions per second on the L1 network (averaging $10k-20k each), and many thousands possible today on L2. Plus a way to securely store the transacted value.

To argue that a small country's worth of energy being used to secure Bitcoin is a poor use of resources, you really have to consider how much energy the worldwide banking system consumes in all its complexity to do the same thing. I don't know how to do that calculation, but my point is there's more to it than you're seeing.

You have to also consider which energy is being used. Dirty energy is certainly part of it. But a lot of the energy used is through geographic renewables arbitrage. For example, there are hydro power facilities in China that were built and never fully utilized or connected to the main grid. You can set up miners nearby those facilities to use the surplus energy, and as long as you are connected to the internet, you're good to go.

It's also a potentially great incentive for governments to start NEW renewables facilities, because they have a way to use the surplus power until their populations grow to use the full capacity of those plants.
The best way to make a service provider care about the environment is if trees can somehow be the customer.

A big part of a decentralized database's design is its protection against DDoSing. Proof of stake is very low environmental cost but you'll discover that the proof of stake networks with low fees can be DDoSed extremely cheaply.

Other networks use the networking architecture to protect against DDoSing.

> amount of energy being used to mine bitcoin is a real problem

Yes, it is. Although I'd like to say that if bitcoin energy use has a crowding-out effect, like an electric car does, then I'd favor mining bitcoin resulting in more hydropower dams being built than people doing business that can't be centralized like mining can and requiring liquid (dirty) fuels.

Datacenters as a whole can be made really efficient and are, in my opinion, a decent investment that can be repurposed better than e.g. an office building full of people doing traditional banking.

So it's not super straightforward even if on net we don't need cryptocurrency miners and I of course agree that it's bad for the environment.
> - Intellectual property (particularly copyright) is not a scarce or limited resource. (Create your own copyrightable work if you wish to own the rights.)

It isn't scarce for those seeking rent from it; it absolutely is for those seeking to use the works under copyright. In case of books, music, movies, games, etc., the works are not substitute goods. If I need a particular book for my research, there's a good chance I can't just take a different book instead. So there is acute scarcity involved for a subset of parties interested in a copyrighted work.
I think it's a great idea. There's dead space between the menu bar and the icon area. Why not use it for the webcam and shrink that top bezel?
Not in a 30 minute interview.
This is also a somewhat confused take. The human visual system adapts to arbitrary light sources within a pretty wide range. Whatever the brightest light source is will typically look “white”. Which is why either an incandescent lamp with 2400K CCT or a fluorescent lamp with 5500K CCT will appear to be “white” after adaptation.

The midday sun is so much brighter than everything else in the field of view that to the extent it can be given a color label (again, it will superstimulate all of your cones to the point that “color” loses meaning and permanently damage your vision; please don’t look at the sun) that “white” is really the only reasonable choice. If you pointed a long tube at the sun to keep out light from the rest of the sky and used the sunlight to light a surface that diffusely reflected say 30% of incident light irrespective of wavelength, then that surface would appear white.
One thing I want in full frame EVIL cameras is live photos capability

Record from 1 keyframe to the next keyframe, take full resolution still at the user clicked place in between

And done as automatic as it happens on iOS
Those figures from digiconomist have been debunked.
This whole rock star/ninja interview process is ridiculous. They need to paint a house but they want to hire Michelangelo.
Not HTTPS. Plain unencrypted HTTP on port 443.

No authentication for clients either.
There is NikonHacker [1], but I don't think it's nearly as feature-rich as Magic Lantern.

[1] https://nikonhacker.com/wiki/Main_Page
Exponentially increasing fee, set in a way that past two-three such renewals, even the biggest and richest corporations would think twice before paying up.
There is so much that can happen between the browser making a request and receiving a response, that someone could completely gloss over the OSI model and still talk for a very long time.

I've toyed around with starting my answer with what happens when the physical return key on the keyboard is pressed. Could spend quite a bit of time on what happens before the browser even knows the return key was pressed :D
This reminds me of the computer UI in movies from the 90s.
Basically, your typical Brogrammer