skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Wasn't this a Friends episode? Rachel pretends to be a smoker to get 1:1 time with some cool executive?

I suspect smoking, like any hobby, has a social component and making it a PITA will push people to chat at the espresso machine or gluten free granola bar dispenser instead.
Seems like something the military would want to keep close to their chest. I am amazed that things like this are allowed to be in the public domain.
BD is a technology company. I don't think they set out to just build robots that can move boxes. I bet this is a stepping stone towards building an advance machine that can do more than that.
I'm not the author, but I pay out of pocket for my health insurance, too. To answer one of your other questions:

I don't own a home. I drive an old (and thus, inexpensive to replace) car. To save money, I have the highest deductible offered by my insurance company. That ensures that when something small happens, unless it affects drivability, I'm not going to fix it.

The value I see that I get out of car insurance (besides the legal requirement) is its health insurance, e.g., if I get in a crash and need $50K for emergency surgery, or if I get in a wreck with another driver who was (illegally) driving without insurance and they needed surgery.

In other words, apart from the health insurance aspect (which should be single-payer anyway), yes, I think car insurance is pretty much useless for me.

I understand why governments institute requirements like this -- it's a systems-thinking solution which is probably better than not having it -- but pretty much by definition any private insurance system is going to be a financial loser for a lot of people.

I don't have to pay to insure my money -- the bank pays the FDIC from my capital. It seems weird to me that I have to pay for personal insurance at all. Why don't fuel taxes and license fees provide for auto insurance? Why doesn't federal income tax provide for health insurance? Various other countries do these and they seem to work fine. Yeah, I know: politics.
Totally! I was surprised there wasn't any abuse! Hitting it with a hockey stick, smacking the box out of its grip, not letting it finish the job, throwing banana skins under its feet, and of course the solid kicks to its rear.

When the robot revolution comes, those guys at Boston Dynamics are definitely going to be the first up against the wall, without doubt.
Even assuming every single missile destroys its target, you only have so many missiles (this ain't Ace Combat where missiles magically respawn on their pylons). If each of your planes has eight missiles, but there are 10 enemy drones for each of your planes, then you're still stuck with a 2:1 dogfight.
Python's greenlet extension implements coroutine using inline assembly, which has been widely ported (at least ARM and x86, both 32-bit and 64-bit). It's nicely packaged so that you can use it without Python part.
The concept here is the equivalent cost of machinery to a single F-35 going against an F-35. How many missiles does an F-35 carry? Drones carry missiles as well.

The older planes were just to drive a point home. How does an F-35 defend against 20-40 times as many adversaries attacking? If the F-35 is attacking, it might be faster and be able to go around an intercepting force, but that's a big if, and it's more dangerous because it may put it closer to other defensive armaments that the original path was routed to avoid.
ImageOptim is incredible: https://imageoptim.com/mac

It does lossless and lossy image compression, removes metadata, the UI is excellent, and it's FOSS. It's effortless to use - just drag in images from any directory and it'll replace them with the optimized versions.
> In a dogfight an F-35 has an advantage but not a 3-1 advantage. BVR it might.

The F-35 is only intended to dogfight as an absolute last resort. It's normal mode will be to detect the enemy without being detected, and to kill the enemy without being successfully attacked. In exercises it's had around a 20-1 kill ratio.

The fully networked nature of the F-35 brings huge advantages. One F-35 can use its radar briefly (the radar is also frequency-agile), find targets, and then relay target information to shooters anywhere in the area. In a recent exercise, a F-35 cued a Navy SM-6 missile from over the horizon to hit an air target.

This neatly works around concerns about limited F-35 weapon stores.

> The real issue however is that it won't be long before nations like Russia and China will be able to reliably get a weapons-grade lock on the F-35. Some people even think Russia already has this capability (and it's very realistic to think that they do).

First off, as the article points out, stealth is not perfect. It simply reduces the acquisition range of certain systems.

These towed decoys provide insurance in the case that stealth is defeated.

At any rate, there are physical barriers to putting F-35 detecting radars on fighters. IR is another matter, of course.

> Electronic warfare is progressing very quickly and might render stealth completely useless long before the next generation of planes is built.

You have it backwards. Electronic warfare is progressing very quickly, and will be use to vastly enhance the effectiveness of stealth aircraft at the expense of adversary systems.
FWIW, BSD grep has significantly closed the gap since then, often by replication GNU approach in some ways.

Also BSD grep has other advantages, primarily it's not GNU grep.
There's Zero Install: http://roscidus.com/blog/blog/2014/06/06/python-to-ocaml-ret...
Every source I've found refers to it as an anti stall system, and the system is designed to limit angle of attack (eg, prevent the system from stalling).

It's definitely a safety feature that's required and not an assistive device. It was required for certification, and in fact as originally specified was unsuitable to prevent stalls, so Boeing had to increase the authority of the system to make it functional.
>If we reach that point, why do people need to have jobs? Why can't we turn our lives towards something better?

Because we will likely still be living in capitalist societies in which people increasingly unable to provide value to the marketplace due to automation will still need income to survive, and no one implementing that automation has any intention of doing so in order to usher in some kind of post-scarcity collectivist utopia.

Automation exists to allow the ownership class to reap the benefits of labor without the burden of compensating human employees, not to free the labor classes from having to work.
Where you at? Interested in doing actual biotech research (e.g. new biologic drug development) or technology that enables the biotech research?

Best job-hunting advice I've found is "Guerrilla Marketing For Job Hunters"
A lot of thereom proving is done in Isabelle/HOL, a DSL in OCaml.
The pilot can run the trim in the other direction using the normal switches on the yoke. You can see that if you look at the trim position graph in the Lion Air accident.

For some reason before the crash the pattern of repeatedly correcting changes, possibly because he handed control to the first officer.
> can support carriers

If the planes are there to support the carrier then why is the carrier there?

You’ve got the whole concept backwards - the carrier is there to support the planes.
sure, but that wasn’t a problem 10 and 20 years ago when js development was even slower. the language just hasn’t evolved as much as others.
I’ve researched this extensively and I’m convinced we could have done this in the developed world starting 100 years ago, but individuals in a position of power preferred to accumulate wealth themselves rather than distribute earnings equitably.

So I don’t believe an automated utopia is going to happen automatically. We’ve got to work to create corporate structures that naturally reward all of the workers instead of a few at the top. Cooperatively run companies are one way to do this. If the major companies of our world were cooperatives, a wide swath of the population would gain the wealth our world is increasingly producing.

But technology alone won’t solve the problem. We need to intentionally structure our society in a way that makes this socialist utopia possible. That’s what I study and I’m trying to figure it out. I’m also a robotics engineer.
i believe dogs can sense a lot on their owners. that doesn't mean it's by smell though. people just pin it on smell often as dogs nose is very good. that doesn't mean it's the only sensor they have.
Just a quick callout that pinning the search to start of line does nothing. It is just another character, after all.

Now, getting it to report line numbers will kill it, since you then have to scan every character.
With a serialized GPU commands the remote host does not need a GPU since everything is rendered locally. Only the machine running the terminal emulator needs one. And this would also work within screen or tmux if they don't meddle with unknown escape codes.
Ah, good old time-misdirection! I love it. You explained it very well and gave me something to think about for my own routines.
I spent a week at the Biosphere during the transition, after the old crew had been fired and they were trying to figure out how to salvage something useful out of the project. It was a big a mess as every article written about it, including this one, said. One fact that stuck with me was all the sensor data was useless because no one had calibrated any of the sensors on installation. The other was that everyone universally agreed banana wine was disgusting.

The sensors were a dumb mistake. But some of the other mistakes, like trying to get the gas balances right. Those seem like useful learning lessons. Ed Bass sure didn't get his money's worth out of the project and I'm not sure any of us did. But some useful stuff came out of it.
Side note, this teardown is very well done, and organized. I don't think I've ever seen these before, but I'm a big fan. I love how easy it is to digest, and all the supporting media for it is great. Awesome detail, and very informative!
I was kind of hoping the ipo would tank cause I can't help feeling this is going to end badly for the retail investors who once again end up holding the shit sack. A successful ipo just goes to show that the fat cat capitalists have once again managed to game the system
Regarding your 2nd point (which I assume was meant as a joke) - as a fellow unicycle rider and teacher for over 25 years, the first thing one learns is how to dismount safely, feet first and hands outwards in preparation to hit the ground for those extreme cases. My worst crashes were when my shoelaces got caught in the pedals (only once many years ago but since then I always check that my shoelaces are stowed), hopping/tricking, or off-roading. A warehouse environment in comparison is rather sterile and the robot probably won't be performing any tricks so I think the designers can safely forego a helmet.
This is an interesting, feel-good read and I'm legitimately happy for the OP's success, but I do have a few nits. First this is a pretty simplistic way to value a business, using the tools we were introduced to in 2nd year management accounting. They're all useful but the reality is that different buyers have very different goals and their valuation is reflected in what they plan to do. The approach here is most aligned with purchasing as a going concern. It's the classic built a solid business that does pretty well but still requires a lot of hard work and the owners want to retire. I'm going to be focused on cashflows and growth, historic and projected. This is very different from the types of businesses we talk about on HN everyday, or a value investor looking for things like assets devalued by underperformance, etc. The point is "it's complicated".

My second nit is more philosophical, related to this statement:

>> That’s because the process of creating an attractive business for someone else to buy naturally makes it a better business to own.

I only feel this is true if your definition of a good business to own is one that you can sell at this point in time, which seems a lot like a dog chasing it's tail.

There are lots of counter examples to refute this idea, such as deferring hiring, capital replacement or any real long term investment. Amazon is such a valuable company today because of the things it did through the early 2000's that made it look so unattractive to buy.
> gaming is bad for your social credit score under the new system

No it isn't. The idea is popular, probably because it plays into the simple narrative of a totalitarian government doing a single big thing to control everything at once. But the "social credit system" essentially amounts to separate government departments trying to coordinate their actions. Here's the best-informed article I've read so far on the topic: https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/11/16/chinas-orwellian-social...
Bucklescript has caught on to some extent. Its sister syntax ReasonML is getting a little traction which means that Bucklescript is getting a little traction as they share the same build chain.

Facebook Messenger is built using Reason. A few other smaller companies are using it too: https://reasonml.github.io/en/users-of-reason

Wow Air were using it though one probably can't blame that for their collapse.

I guess that list doesn't include straight Bucklescript users either. There are definitely companies out there who use it outside of Reason so the OCaml, in general, is getting some use in industry which is nice.
In my experience -- I was a professional Clojure developer for 6 years (until 2018), and hung out in the #clojure IRC channel on freenode a lot between 2011 and 2014 -- the Clojure community tends to be very experienced. Clojure is not many people's first language, but tends to be a language you find your way to after dissatisfaction with other languages, or exposure to other lisps.

I'm sure you can find crappy or charlatan Clojure devs, but I was generally impressed with the Clojure devs I met in #clojure or at the cons. Overall I found the community to have high levels of both knowledge/experience and patience in explaining things thoroughly and precisely to people who were asking questions.
It is one safety tip you learn when riding motorcycles, however in the realm of self driving cars not only would the face be an interesting item to track but what about hand motions like when people wave you through out of turn?
Why didn't you have any representation, such as legal or a deal negotiator, on your side? Broker isn't your friend. Is there any reason why you saw 2x "earnings" as the golden ticket?
WPF is deeply integrated with Win32. For example it abstracts away the win32 message pump design. I'd call that an abstraction.
if said drones can't identify and position the stealth aircraft, then it doesn't really matter?
I'm assuming it still does both. Parallel is nice. Never touching a byte is tough to beat, though.

I've often thought of making sure my IDs are uncommon characters to exploit the ability to skip a lot.
List Overlap Solutions
TLDR: this person sold a money-printing machine for just 2x the yearly revenue which means that either he got shafted (a 2x price earning ratio is very low) or the buyer got shafted (company was at risk of tanking very soon, explaining the low PER).

More politely, you could say the risky asset was priced according to risk by both the seller and the seller ("hot potato")
That doesn't avoid it needing to read the data off disk though. AFAIK even SSDs still only read in 4K chunks.

As the other reply mentioned though, it's just that MacBook SSDs are that fast.
Hubble spots flock of cosmic ducks
You are imagining a robot by looking at the application demonstrated in the video. Boston Dynamics is not building robots that can just move boxes. This is just a predecessor to something bigger that can do different things, almost like a human.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_Where_Rachel_Smokes
Oh wow, I get that. You scared me. I need to go to a neurologist quickly then, I guess.
> Like I said -- I don't know much about how non-US healthcare systems are funded.

Then shouldn't you read up on that before expounding upon how a 38k price tag for a scheduled routine procedure is reasonable? Healthcare billing isn't that shocking when you travel outside of the states.
WHERE CAN I GET AN ORACLE PHONE? I WANT IT!
> A system malfunction should appear to a pilot the same way a runaway trim wheel appears.

I thought the problem here was that it doesn't appear the same.
Men, lots of users will move to iphone
I think this is originally to avoid any possible plagiarism claims by Unix--if a Unix tool was originally optimized for one of size/efficiency/speed/memory use, the GNU tools were optimized for one of the others. This is part of why the `yes` utility is so freakin fast in GNU, despite being kind of a weird use case for speed.

Mac builtin:

yes | pv > /dev/null

139MiB 0:00:05 [28.4MiB/s]

GNU:

gyes | pv > /dev/null

3.31GiB 0:00:06 [ 584MiB/s]
In my experience, it's vagueness of learning goals that actually kills my attempts at learning.

In an effort to overcome this, I now try to commit to a formal learning program with examinations and tests for things I want to learn. This gives me a definite body of knowledge to master and a criteria to judge my progress. I have used this successfully with learning the rudiments of Sanskrit. I enrolled in a correspondence course program and had online sessions with a Sanskrit tutor for some time.

Where such a program doesn't exist or isn't feasible, it still helps to stick to a definite text. For example, if you want to learn classical mechanics, it helps to stick to just one book rather than refer to books and videos from here and there and losing track of your learning program in the process.
WWII era Mustangs would have no way to target a modern fighter at all unless the pilot of the modern fighter was acting like a kid playing a video game. All they could do is spray in it's general direction with a hope and a prayer. Mustangs had no targeting except the pilot's visual efforts. Human visual aiming does not work well at the speeds jet operate at most of the time. This was a huge problem by the Korean war.

The F-35 would fly by unnoticed most likely to go hit it's target. If it was noticed the F-35 would not engage the enemy fighters. The Mustang could get to ~40,000ft but wouldn't perform at it's best there, it can't travel anywhere near it's max speed at that altitude and it won't be able to maneuver very well at all. Any modern jet fighter could just sail on by even at 40,000ft without a concern.

Mustangs held about 1800 rounds of ammunition. If they were trying to "fill the sky with lead" they'd expend all their ammunition in about 30 seconds. 72,000 rounds doesn't fill that much sky either.
Then it's a bit bizarre to call it memory safe. I would say that "sandbox" is far more established term for what it is or does. Because if by using seccomp and/or user namespaces I would say that Linux/C is memory safe wouldn't it be an unhelpful statement? Can we say that Chrome or Qemu are implemented on memory safe platform?
Interesting stuff. My grandmother has had seizures for decades following a head injury in a softball game. Her and my grandfather at one point rescued a Great Dane mix and over time he would begin to lean on her before a seizure would come on and would then stay by her until she came out of it.
Good luck to the poor park employees who are going to have to enforce this.

I worked at an amusement park when I was in high school that decided to ban smoking in the park one season and move the designated smoking area outside to the parking lot. I took so much abuse that summer trying to enforce the rules, dealing with upset guests coming in and out of the gates to have a smoke, forgetting items in their lockers and having to walk back, etc. Far more abuse than I took from guests in previous seasons over people smoking in the isolated smoking areas that already existed.
That’s an interesting term in this context. The technique is so clever and the gains so big that it does feel a “cheat”. But as long as it replicates the behavior and effects and constraints of the previous algorithm, is it really a “cheat” even in the loosest sense of the word? It feels far more apt to view prior work as “tryhard”
> Swiss Gear Carbon II

It's sturdy, it can host a multitude of stuff (for me, it has hosted laptops going from as light as the ThinkPad T440s to as heavy as the ThinkPad W530 -- with its 170W power supply).

The back padding is nice on my back, and so far it hasn't shown any sign of destruction (I've owned it for two years now).
I'm not sure SCP is specified at all, though. I recently wrote a true SCP client for Go (not SFTP, which oddly enough all the other "SCP" clients for Go use). The only documentation I could find at all was a single blog post from a guy who worked at Oracle.
The constant attempt at one-liner sitcom applause sign humor makes this very hard to read.
I remember reading a paper years and years ago that apparently found that smokers at companies where several of the senior bosses smoked got faster promotions and higher raises than non-smokers.

push people to chat at the espresso machine or gluten free granola bar dispenser instead

The difference is that there is no reason for me to hang around the espresso machine while drinking my espresso and also my office has something like 3 espresso machines on each floor, while all the smokers go to the same spot, so it unlikely that I'll use the same espresso machine as the CEO. And even if I do he has no reason hang around and talk to me. Being 'forced' to stand outside in the cold for 5-10 minutes several times a day causes a different bonding experience,
The F-35 is the star destroyer in this analogy— it's got six missiles onboard, intended for taking out huge targets from far away. Star destroyers fared really badly against a large number of smaller fighters.

So the argument is that a small number of high performance fighters like the F-35 could very well not be a good match for a huge number of drones that individually are a fraction of the price.
https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~3...
> I think it's the time to "alias scp=sftp". If the developers officially believe that scp should be retired, let's do the switch. Both are parts of OpenSSH and the commandline argument is almost identical.

I've never used sftp before. Does it offer equivalents to:

scp server:'*.pdf' .

or

scp server:'*(oc[1])' .

for getting the last created file with zsh extended globs, or

scp server:'$(custom_remote_program)' .

where custom_remote_program is shell code that outputs a list of files using server-side state?

EDIT: Reading:

> * scp(1): Relating to the above changes to scp(1); the scp protocol relies on the remote shell for wildcard expansion, so there is no infallible way for the client's wildcard matching to perfectly reflect the server's. If there is a difference between client and server wildcard expansion, the client may refuse files from the server. For this reason, we have provided a new "-T" flag to scp that disables these client-side checks at the risk of reintroducing the attack described above.

I guess, I'll actually want:

alias scp='scp -T'

or just use `-T` on a need by basis. I admit I don't need that feature every week, but it is a relief that they didn't remove the functionality outright. I think the closest equivalent is something like:

ssh server 'tar c $(custom_remote_program)' | tar xC destination

which I'd rather not be writing.
In some cases, yes. How much does stealth help you if you're defending, not attacking? Even if you can empty your payload and retreat without them discerning where you are, how many times can you do that before they've reached their target?
first part of the SQL Trainer simulator that helps in learning of basic SQL Queries is here https://app.bytescout.com/sql-trainer/index.html

Both parts are made with “learn by doing” approach in mind and work with real data.