skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Do me a favor and Stop talking about temperature for a second. Do you agree that carbon concentrations in the atmosphere are shooting up? 10 years ago they were 390, now they are 411. At a certain ppm, human cognition begins to suffer. Try staying in a stuffy room. Acidification of the oceans and other things - animals cannot evolve to adapt that quickly.

When you talk about pollution on such a massive scale, why get stuck in an argument only about temperature? I can think of a reason: insane political partisanship.
But all the industrial scale processes we use require gravity, plenty of liquid water or solvents and a LOT of other infrastructure in place.
Sure, you could pack up some tools in 10 ships 500 years ago and could start a colony in a hospitable part of Earth.

I'm convinced you cannot bootstrap a colony in an unhospitable place in the Solar System without ships 3-4 orders of magnitude above what we have today.
I managed to preserve the 500px one: http://archive.is/RLc2g
HN is my “safe place”. Hardly any discussion about politics, religion, or any other topic that no one ever changes their minds about.

I do my part. I flag submissions that are overly political even if I agree with them.
Yup. Tax things which really exist within a country, not accounting fictions (like precisely which arm of a multinational made how much profit).

Although I'd also like everyone to stop using the term "income tax" for this. It's a tax on corporate profits, and has nothing at all to do with personal income tax, a tax on wages.
For every company already using it "will be", in 2020. Enough time to migrate to the next trick.
Climate change people. Key word is change. We will need to get used to adapting.
Polar as a Personal Knowledge Repository
“Regulate” != “Ban”

And in this case, the proposed regulation is:

“””[R]adio equipment [shall support] certain features in order to ensure that software can only be loaded into the radio equipment where the compliance of the combination of the radio equipment and software has been demonstrated.”””

Now I don’t think that’s a well written rule, but my problem is the specifics rather than the general idea. I think that either all broadcasts should be digitally signed, or it should not be possible for hackers to remotely modify many other people’s radios to broadcast false signals. (One-on-one modifications I don’t care about so much, but how do you write/pass such rules, given the difficulty getting people to care about or believe the scale difference between automated and manual hacking?)
Yea, I think a good demonstration is Antarctica. Antarctica is both much more accessible and much more hospitable than Mars. But there's very little human activity there.

It's hard to imagine there's an economic case for Mars or the Moon while Antarctica remains undeveloped.
"You can generate $15k of monthly passive income directly with $300-350k investment"

$15k/month is $180k/year

$180k/year passive return on $350k/year is over 50%

Can you please share something about how you achieve that level of return? If 50% IRR is 'usual' for affiliate marketing, why isn't competition pulling those returns down?

(genuinely curious, not doubting you!)
This is bad for many reasons
* Security, device manufacturers stop supporting updates after a certain while
* The environment, lots of devices will become obsolete with no software updates. Free software provides such updates. This will contribute bad towards global warming.
* Being able to experiment with hardware you own and run open source.
All published scientific research is wrong in some way.

That is a good example of knowledge that is so well understood by people with formal education in science that it’s taken for granted.

It can seem revelatory to people without that education. But science is only what people make it to be. If you have an idea for how to make scientific knowledge better, by all means go for it.

But if your idea is just that scientific knowledge could be better, well, join the club. Every scientist on Earth agrees with you.
"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False", and those other similar papers, is based on using scientific methodologies and standards of correctness to evaluate published peer-reviewed research.

If you use those same standards and methods, you will surely find that _even more_ "non-expert" arguments on the internet that are not scientific-research-based at all are false.

If you accept the scientific approach to knowledge, then that same approach can be used to critique science as actually practiced, which is what's going on there. But if you accept that approach that is hardly an argument for the alternative of paying no attention to scientific expertise or practices and just opening it up to amateurs with Ideas. And if you don't accept the scientific approach, you ought not to be citing articles using that approach to critique scientific practice.

Science as actually practiced isn't perfect, and deserves critique, and improvement. But the alternative is way worse, and "seems right to me" and "arguing on the internet" aren't science either, or more likely to produce more accurate knowledge. Neither is "I've been tinkering in my garage and even though all the actual scientists think I'm a quack, I swear they're wrong and I'm right."

That science as actually practiced has a lot of problems is not itself a valid argument for some other form of practice, such as "scientific-seeming claims by people who are not recognized as experts by science but have managed to convince a bunch of other non-scientists on the internet of their weird theories." That's not gonna do better at finding accurate reproducible objective knowledge.
I like the font of titles, can anyone advise what font it is?
I remember that the FCC has a similar requirement, and that was one of the issues behind "no open source drivers for wifi modules"

This shouldn't affect OpenWRT if it uses a standard driver, unless I'm mistaken (or "radio equipment" means the whole thing and not just the radio module - but that's up to debate)
That would be a nightmare.

First, tax laws don't have clear intentions to begin with -- if a tax law passes with 51 out of 100 votes in the legislature, all 51 representatives could be supporting the "letter" of the law for 51 different actual intentions, many of which might not be noble in the first place (e.g. give a particular local factory a tax break to win more votes next election).

Second, because of this, "intention" would be left open to completely different interpretation by different judges and result in completely arbitrary, non-predictable outcomes in different cases, which would be a nightmare for companies to even attempt to comply with. There's a reason that laws are interpreted by their letter -- it's the only fair way to do it.

Third, the tax laws are passed by different countries and are not harmonized, so even if they had clear intentions, their intentions can completely conflict, and there's no reason why they should be harmonized -- different countries are allowed to have legitimately different philosophies on taxation, there's no "right" answer.

The things you say should "simply be outlawed" -- how? How are you going to determine which internal loan is merely
"expensive" (OK) versus "very expensive" (not OK)? How are you going to differentiate between legitimate payments and the "royalties" you put in quotes that you call a construct?
Tech critics create a powerful response to IBM's “Dear Tech” ad
There used to be a time when a single person mastered X% of humanity's technology anf knowledge.

Packing up 100 people on some boats meant you could start a viable colony across some seas.

Can you still do that today?
hmm. “stock” k8s still has limitations that make it look like a toy (how many nodes can you have in a cluster again? is that hyperscale?).

the pattern I’ve seen is that teams/companies that go into k8s hoping it’s going to solve the problems they have replace some of their problems (which k8s does address) with the operational burden of keeping k8s up-to-date and stable. the struggle to understand new things being rolled out and keeping up with the tech is real (another way of saying this is that k8s is nowhere close to having a story around deployment and maintenance that would make it easy to operate - big players can figure it out, but chances are you are not a big player and the big players want you to pay for their shit - pretty much like Rackspace wanted you to pay for openstack)

another aspect that people don’t seem to get is that k8s is what google is doing (or used to do 5 years ago) internally but without the supporting infrastructure/experience that google has internally.
I've been enjoying Chartify quite a lot. It works well with data frames and generates gorgeous plots by default.
Marketing techniques, propaganda and low-level politics (promote your guys, blow up the other guys) are obviously vastly more efficient than old school rhetoric.
I didn't conflate them but specifically pointed out that my opinion on media coverage does not imply denial of science, and my complaint is specifically about media coverage of "global warming", not necessarily the science itself.

However, replace "facts" with "The outputs of our climate models," because the two are very different things. There are some tangible facts about global temperature and such which are measurable and reproducible. The models which link human carbon emissions to the temperature are not "facts", they are estimations based on the extent of our climate knowledge, and they are under constant revision.

There's the claim that "the science is settled", but it absolutely is not. There are politicians hiding behind media coverage which keeps telling us it is settled, which resorts to ad hominem attacks on scientists who challenge the idea, and of course, all of the funding in climate science only goes to parties who are interested in continuing the scaremongering trend.

I personally couldn't care much about whether the science is accurate or not anyway. The climate is going to change whether we do anything or not. I put more weight on dealing with real problems that exist right now than hypothetical problems that might exist next century. More money will be wasted trying to prevent a problem which probably can't be prevented, than spent on actual solutions which deal with the problem at hand.
Whatever we can do is minor in comparison to the overall trend that the earth has for climate change, irrespective of humanity.

To think we can effect a real change and avoid a natural change is to give yourself too much credit.

We should still aim to live in a clean environment, but not with the goal of reversing climate change.
Congratulations to SpaceX!
All News Is Fake News – That Is Their Business Model
They used the original plans and artist drawings for Freedom which became the basis of the ISS for the intro, the ISS was about half way with being completed when Enteeprise got pull off the air and when it first aired the ISS had only 3 modules.
Because most people who make those returns don't sell their businesses openly. You need to know the right groups or people and you need to have specific knowledge to assess a web project properly.

edit: To clarify - most people don't sell them because they're literally money makers. Usually they need the money for investments or have unexpected expenses that force them to sell. Some are just tired of their projects, but this is rare.
I’d say ‘while’ is perfectly fine for a native speaker in place of ‘because’. You could leave ‘while’ out of the sentence, the comma alone implies ‘because’. The reason for the statement is implied by the two clauses sitting side by side, many connective words would do equally well, right? The only thing that suggests a non-native speaker to me is ‘respect to’, which is still sometimes correct. Respect to charitable interpretations, and respect to multi-lingual people.
Much of our carbon contribution comes from deforestation, soil erosion, etc. In other words, habitat loss and conversion. For example, there used to be forestation across much of the "Fertile Crescent" before we had our way. Manhattan was a thousand year growth forest before Europeans showed up. Removing the dead hand of man from the scale can do much to reverse this process; actively fostering reforestation (see: Dune) can do more.

We are over budget here - putting 1000 gigatons of C back is going to be tough. But putting a good chunk of that away is probably the result of something like: humanity stops eating meat and reduces its agricultural footprint, commits most of the earth to nature preserves.
A, the old "it's how you use the tool" chestnut.

Only some tools are inherently abusable -- something that has been expressed in lots of forms, from "the medium is the message" critique of TV/internet/etc, to the gun control debate ("guns don't kill people, people kill people" etc).
>Ethical AI is hard, but so are ethical laws, ethical taxation, ethical advertising, and yet we don't see those being questioned.

We don't? Not only we question those all the time, but we also have failed in producing them in any stable condition in most of our societies.
It's worth noting that Antarctica remains undeveloped in large part because the Antarctic Treaty System bans commercial exploitation:

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

Not that there would be much going on without the treaties, but it would likely be commercially viable for oil exploration or maybe mining.
> Hardly any discussion about politics, religion

I don't get a lot of this on reddit as well, unless I purposefully wander into related subreddits. Maybe the odd trump reference comes up sometimes.
what about those fake help videos / pranks that can hurt people? like fixing your phone with a microwave. Can we ban them too?
> I believe OCaml isn’t as strict about side-effects as Haskell, so if you don’t want the side-effect ceremony Haskell sort of forces on you, OCaml might be a good choice. Also, OCaml is strict by default and had a fairly good compiler.

Probably anyone who's interested here knows, but it may be appropriate to point out that you are using the word 'strict' in two different senses, first in the informal sense of being restrictive, and second in the formal sense of strict evaluation (which is why it makes sense to say that OCaml is less strict, and yet strict by default).
Location: Toronto, Ont
Remote: Yes
Willing to relocate: Yes
Technologies: HTML/CSS/JS, UI/UX, MySQL, MongoDB, .Net
Résumé/CV: https://kevinnnz.github.io/resume/Kevin_Zaworski_2019_resume.pdf
Email: kevinnzaworski@gmail.com

Junior UX Designer looking to kick start his career. Has had 2 internships, one in UX Design and one focusing on UX Research.
That's overkill too.
If you need help with the alcohol I can't recommend The Sinclair Method enough. Absolutely life changing for myself and many others. https://reddit.com/r/alcoholism_medication
The efficiency doesnt matter - solar inputs are ubiquitous and require no effort on our part.
Colonies don't subsist in isolation, they require trade to survive. See Jared Diamond's Collapse for the pop science version of what happened to a few isolated colonies (Greenland, Easter Island, etc) when trade stops.
Very fair, I'm editing the last part off.
> No astronauts or humans were on board the maiden flight, which completed the initial link to the ISS about 5:51 a.m. Eastern time.

Is there a difference?
Could you provide some examples of tools which are not inherently abusable? I can't think of any.
Ask HN: How would you monetize software that runs mostly offline?
So Im close to finishing an electron (yeah, I know...) application that helps run competitive weightlifting events. Im not really looking to build a business out of it, but I would like to monetize it in some way.

Normally this would be relatively easy... just have a subscription model for $x/mo and move on. But the weightlifting events are rarely held at locations with internet. So the software is written to 100% functional offline... but Im having trouble thinking of a way of monetizing it.

So far my idea is to encrypt the results of the competition after it is complete. The user would then need to connect to the internet after the competition, log in, pay, and then could get their decrypted competition results. Alternatively, I could just sell it like a normal product, $x/per download...

That all feels so obtuse though... Id love any feedback, better ideas, or discussion.
Colonizing Mars and others is not about the economy. It is about survival of the human race.
Came to the comments to look for this post. I completed TSM myself not so long ago. It has been nothing short of life changing. Seemed too good to be true, but really doesn't seem like there's a catch.

There's a subreddit here too which is becoming more and more active. https://reddit.com/r/alcoholism_medication
You liter ally put it in a preamble.

Like, if you say "this tax break is intended solely for people who sell second hand cars" then you don't have to spend 100 pages exactly specifying every nuance to 100% prevent people not selling second hand cars from taking advantage of it.

Ots called principles based tax code and it works.

I was initially high sceptical of the idea but, based on outcomes, it is a vastly superior system to rules based tax codes. It makes it far simpler and clearer to everyone.
This reminds me of a horrible tax I came to know of recently - something called the EU VAT MOSS on digital goods. Apparently, it is supposed to target giants like Amazon who route money via multiple countries to evade taxes. Not surprisingly, this ends up affecting the smallest players most drastically. Worst, the glib language used to describe who should pay the tax is utterly confusing. As always, this means the actual target company of this tax chalks it down as yet another thing they need to remember (amongst a million other things), while the tiniest players who are starting out and who don't reside in the EU will have to worry and stress endlessly about the stupidity of dealing with something like this.

Here is what I have learnt about Eurocrats: a) they don't understand economics b) they definitely don't understand unintended consequences c) I am willing to bet not one of them has ever bootstrapped a successful venture and finally d) there is a good reason why no country in Europe is able to create its own Silicon Valley - they are just too busy creating more busywork for themselves.

And to the well-intentioned person who comes along and says "Well, if you are clearly not the target of this, then why do you even worry?" I have a question - if it turns out that you are wrong, are you going to pay the taxes on my behalf? Actually, this is literally what I asked a friend of mine from Europe who expressed that sentiment. Not surprisingly, he wasn't really willing to put his money where his mouth was.

I am frankly astonished by all the people from EU who come in and comment things like "Oh, you don't really know how European laws actually work. If you did, then you wouldn't be worried". Do you not have nothing better to do in life than trying to understand the nuances between the "letter of the law" and the "spirit of the law" in every country around the world?

Oh, and by the way - HN will be very interested to know this: right now, there is a company called Paddle which is a Stripe competitor - and this one law (EU VAT MOSS) seems to have single handedly revived this company. It was (and apparently still is) a painful software to use, and Stripe is faaar superior in terms of API and integrations [1], but Paddle has now become the defacto choice [2] for everyone who actually cares about the EU VAT MOSS because Paddle handles all the annoying crap on your behalf. My guess is, Stripe - which is too Silicon Valley focused - is going to be blindsided by EU VAT MOSS, hand over a lot of their next generation of customers to Paddle, and won't even know what hit them in a few years if they don't pay careful attention to what is going on here.

[1] https://www.indiehackers.com/forum/anyone-using-paddle-for-s...
[2] https://www.indiehackers.com/forum/how-do-you-handle-vat-mos...
First astronauts where animals. https://www.space.com/17764-laika-first-animals-in-space.htm...
Jokes can be light-hearted and inclusive.
Yes!
I didn't have mobile support in my mind when I started the development. But in the future I'll change those hover interactions and optimize for mobile. Thanks for the feedback :)
I really hoped they would hide a rubber face hugger next to Ripley, but I doubt it. Such a missed opportunity.
Might want to focus on that "don't destroy ourselves first" part.. And consider all the other things on the planet & maybe it's a good thing to save those too. Just because, when is the last time we discovered another planet with intricacy and diversity of Earth?
I believe that’s a bit unfair. Different Openstack components had different level of quality.

The biggest problem I saw was that little to no thought was put into what the experience of an operator would be. It looked more like a playground / place to experiment and learn than something you would bet the farm on.

If someone would have cared enough to holistically drive this across the whole platform I think this could have gone in a different direction.
Thanks! Yes, I was planning on doing so once I've proper pre-built binaries available. I might do it in sync with a new upcoming Firefox Send release.
Isn't your first point the natural development of things? As example: Which tank or fighter jet is NOT produced by a private entity today?
If we all wait to start anything in Mars when it is too late for our planet, well... humans won’t be around anymore.

Think about Mars as redundancy site for the human race.
I think this is the why monads are hard to understand. It's hard to come up with a general example of why they are useful and anything beyond they significantly simplify a lot of common cases you run into with functional programming quickly get convoluted.

I didn't really understand monads until I ran into really long / repetitive / ugly code when writing Haskell and then reading a book and realizing they could be used to simplify the parts of my code that frustrated me.

I think the biggest reason they are useful is because data and the container around it can be treated independently and gives a good common interface for container behavior.
> They have bought into the weird myth that moving to sustainable energy will harm the economy

It's actually a bit more complex, and thus less weird, than that.

On the one hand, you have blue-collar workers in the US. A significant segment of those has always been coal miners (and those in their orbit). It's not just that the shift away from fossil fuels has caused them to lose their jobs—it's that, for many such communities, coal mining was the central part of their identity. They were proud of it, and had been for several generations.

Then, on the other side, you have the oil & natural gas industry, which makes massive amounts of money, and spends huge chunks of it on propaganda, aimed both at regular people and at legislators.

The end result is a large proportion of the population that believes that renewable energy is The Enemy, an existential threat to their entire way of life—whether it's because they're coal miners themselves, because they, as working-class people, coidentify themselves with the coal miners, or because they're simply on the political right, and have been indoctrinated by the aforementioned propaganda to believe anything that tries to help the environment is Evil by first principle.
This is how we get there. That kind of space flight would be the end result of hundreds of years (probably) of space flight development. Compare polynesian canoes with modern powered ships.
What did I not read in your resume about you, Employee of the Month?