skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The very first PC hard drives actually used binary sizes, or even slightly more:

https://www.pcjs.org/disks/pcx86/drives/

A 5MB drive contains 5326848 bytes, or 5.08 binary megabytes. The 10MB one has exactly twice that, for 10.16 binary megabytes, and the 20MB one has even slightly more than twice, owing to more than doubling the number of cylinders (from 306 to 615), at >20.4 binary megabytes.

I think there must've been some sort of agreement between HDD manufacturers after they settled on decimal sizes, to never again use the binary ones, since otherwise one of them could start creating and advertising drives "now with real gigabytes" or "bonus capacity" to one-up the others --- the difference between a binary and decimal terabyte is 99,511,627,776 bytes, or very nearly the size of a "100GB" drive and definitely not anything like an insignificant rounding error, but in terms of the physical media adding those extra bytes to a drive would probably not be that difficult; a small increase in density, much smaller than that caused by moving to the next highest density (per platter).
This makes a whole lot of sense to me. However, one of the elements of truly productive learning is _focused_ practice; that is, practice with mindfulness and intentionality directed at a specific element. One won't necessarily get any better at decoupling unless it is specifically practiced. To that end, _how_ would one truly practice the skill of decoupling? Or maybe, what resources or heuristics or strategies would you suggest to help draw the lines between behaviours or modules?

The first thing that comes to mind is Gary Bernhardt's talk on Boundaries, or "functional core, imperative shell", but I'm not sure that this is entirely what you're discussing here.
We do. It's called social security. Technically, it should be enough to pay the bare minimum of your needs upon retirement, if you're in a low cost-of-living area. It does not ensure a comfortable retirement, and we have enough problems in our government to erode our trust in getting the full payout from the system.

It's also "100%" paid out if you wait until 67, or 75% at 62. Also, I note you said "employers must pay"; we pay social security as a deduction from our paychecks in the form of a 6.2% tax. Employers also match that.
You probably had a window at least. It becomes really bad room is windowless in a musty basement. But people still live in those conditions.
Bitcoin Core Developer Accused of Rape, Sexual Assault, Files Defamation Lawsuit
It isn’t that much of an exaggeration. I’ve seen where the ant tribe lived in my own apartment building near Sanyuanxiqiao, it was very similar to the article.
It's about Samsung Electronics. Samsung Electronics (roughly) has telecommunication division doing smartphone business and component division doing DRAM and NAND. Samsung Electro-Mechanics does semiconductor packaging, not semiconductor itself.
Remember to use a wide definition of "tech". For example a few years age there were some popular post about medieval books https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=medievalbooks.nl . These are interesting post that are inside the topic of the site, defined in the guidelines that say: "anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity"
Cats Can Learn to Fetch
Like I said, Huawei is great at marketing at least in China, their patriotism marketing has been so successful there.

>In the premium market, Huawei is lapping them

Where? In China? My personal opinion is when you dive deep, Huawei is more about marketing hype than substance. The tri-camera is Israel tech, they rely on Samsung for memory chip and OLED, things like their battery life achieved by furiously killing background apps might spur outcry elsewhere.

I think this is also where Amazon is leading the future to：Those who market the best win.
Beat me to the punch.
Yes, only people who know how the tech works should be discussing it. It’s far easier to train a skilled person in ethics than to take an ethics person and train them in that domain.

I don’t buy your argument that all experts are necessarily proponents. Even within a domain there are disagreements.

The government issue is real and also slightly tangential. We need to make working in the public sector more attractive.

And yes it should apply to journalism, but discerning that falls onto individual people. It’s a bit of a different issue.
I think that narrative is roughly correct, but I think it doesn't affect profit of neither Samsung nor Apple in the short term. Who knows about long term.
Extensive discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19587478
You are not wrong. But you are assuming every language author must be wanting to become the next mainstream language. I am already aware Lobster will unlikely be that, and I am fine with it. I am having a ton of fun developing it, and I have used it for many projects. I do not want to have more impact by working on something more boring :)
On the flip side religion at least provided meaning to life, a lot of 20th century writers struggled with that one, and I think we still struggle today.
It was the intent of Smalltalk, but not Simula, so it's not universal among the originators. Simula had actors implemented on top of objects and method calls, not the other way around.

But in practice, does it really make that much difference? A method call is really just a synchronous message. So at that point we're really talking about what messages objects should have - and looking at something like String, Array or Stream in Smalltalk, I don't see how it's substantially different from what we see in mainstream OO languages today.
I disagree with this rationale, but I'll let someone smarter than me make the argument:

"The purpose of abstraction is not to be vague, but to create a new semantic level in which one can be absolutely precise." - Edsger Djikstra

Or said another way, a good abstraction automates a precise set of tasks instead of adding ambiguity.
Nonsense. Trying to get away with whatever you can, has always existed as a principle. Nowadays, it is easy to forget Dow Chemicals, Philip Morris etc. which were nothing short of nefarious in their pursuit of profits. Bhopal still takes the cake in industrial disasters, not Chernobyl [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
I think it's worse than that: it looks to me like this model will either not predict what it's claimed to predict, or will violate local stress-energy conservation.

Basically, if stress-energy is locally conserved, particle masses can't just increase out of nowhere: the energy that goes into the increasing masses has to come from somewhere, and so the overall energy, which is what drives the dynamics of the universe, doesn't change, so the model can't predict anything different from standard cosmology.

OTOH, if stress-energy is not locally conserved, then we should be able to observe such violations of conservation. But no such observation has ever been made: we have extremely strong evidence of local stress-energy conservation.
Just curious, have you ever heard of lodge practice?

It was a huge source of medical care for the poor and working class well into the early 1900 (serving ~1/3 of the population), but was strangled by the AMA and the centralization of unions:
http://www.freenation.org/a/f12l3.html

I think it’s particuarly interesting because it was completely absent from all my previous education about medical systems. I only recently learned it existed, and it’s changed my views significantly. (I.e. I’m no longer of the opinion that switching to full government management is a good target, but rather, the government should stop propping up and providing corporate welfare to the systems which strangled mutual aid societies.)
Once you have hermetically sealed metal cans, refrigeration is essentially a foregone conclusion.

So, with steam power in the picture, making things cold and keeping them in temperature controlled chambers would have been inevitable.

Sure, we know that now. At the time it wasn't obvious. But whatever.
You remember well. Probably like me, you spent countless hours splitting files across disks. ;-)
I think they mean "Coronal Mass Ejections":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronal_mass_ejection
What about it? I'm sure that could also be affecting their earnings, we'll have to wait for the earnings report to find out the extent of it. But the current analysis and reporting right now points to major issues in the component side of the business.

Also, remember that Samsung is still selling these components to Huawei, Oppo, etc., so it's not a total loss when they take market share.
It's not just promising a job for everyone and free university education for everyone. It's government funded jobs for everyone and government funded education for everyone. Not even the so-call "socialist" European countries do this. Such a program would be incredibly expensive and would definitely lead to significant inflation if funded through printing money as proposed by MMT.
Sorry, I need to do better at "getting started" documentation. The exe needs to be placed in the "lobster" dir under the root. It searches for "includes" relative to itself.

Not sure about the error involving "<".. are the executable and the data from the same version of Lobster? Open an issue on github or email me for more help :)
The UFW rule not having worked for you may have been Docker's fault.

If your gateway/webserver is running in a Docker container and you've published port 80/443, Docker will set up it's own IPTables rules, bypassing anything you've set up using UFW.
Yes. In retrospect we could argue eventually those people discovered the "open web" but with Facebook it is deja vu.
> That is now out of favor

It's not "out of favor" just as a matter of fashion: a lot more data was collected, extending much further away and therefore much further into the past.

> a few more new facts just might swing things the other way again.

No, it would take a lot more than that, because our current model of accelerating expansion for the past few billion years (note that before that, the expansion was decelerating) is based on a lot more data than we had 40 or so years ago.
Well Explained Interview Challenges for Web Developers
Peter Todd confirms he filed the lawsuit:

https://twitter.com/peterktodd/status/1114244703103397890

Complaint [PDF]:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.340308...
I wonder if they get Netflix by snail mail.
This is quite possibly the best talk I've ever seen. No joke.
Efficiency of solar or wind doesn't have to come exclusively from improved conversion efficiency - that is from taking advantage of all the photons and all the wind. Efficiency gains also come from using less material for the same harvesting area. He is likely right that once you're in the 50% efficiency range, you can't get 10x conversion improvements. And when you are already at tens of micron thicknesses in the key materials, you can't expect to go much further.

This is not the case for nuclear where energy density is not the problem at all, and semiconductor magic has yet to be applied in the solid-state power conversion realm (i.e. generating megawatts via thermionic devices).
> In dynamic typing, you also solve these same things in a super cheap and low effort way with unit tests.

I wouldn't call it "super cheap and low effort", given that tests for stuff like "what if it's not an integer?" tend to be a large part of the overall unit test suite in dynamic languages. Just on the amount of code alone, I would say that it's far less effort to express that kind of stuff in types than in tests.
I think y'all may be getting confused because this reads like bureaucratic gobbledygook.

So let me try to make it clear: The main requirement they are failing is never having asked for loan foregiveness before

That is, they are applying to a program meant to help those who do not qualify for loan foregiveness, but have not bothered to ask for loan foregiveness in the first place.

As for "really apparent when you look at how little student debt has been forgiven" - you really don't want to measure the effectiveness of this kind of program based on how much money it gave out.

A lot of programs that successfully give out all the money do so due to fraud.
It’s not ridiculous to expect people to understand the topic that they are discussing. You can take domain experts and train them in ethics. It’s impossible to discuss something–and the ethics around it–if you don’t fully understand how it works.

I wouldn’t want John Stuart Mill on that board because he wouldn’t know what he was talking about, and therefore would be unable to properly evaluate things.
The better way of looking at it is that a coffee will cost about $5/per (I dunno, I don't drink coffee) and the median male full time weekly earnings are somewhere around $900/wk in America.

So 5 coffees a week is ~2.7% of a full time wage. That is huge, anyone arguing otherwise isn't all over how percentages work. Only something like 10-15% of your average weekly wage needs to be saved to have a comfortable retirement. Reducing consumption is a double-whammy, you spend less on lifestyle so you need to save less to maintain that lifestyle. $5/day is a huge expense from that perspective.

I don't know how prevalent stupid decisions like a daily coffee are for poor people, but the costs are so high I expect not many of them do it. Having a stranger prepare your food and drink is a luxury for the wealthy.
Are you suggesting garbage men will be millionaires? When we're talking about spending trillions and fundamentally changing the relationship between citizens, their government, and work, platitudes convince nobody but the choir.
This looks a bit like SEO spam. All of the articles barely have any content and are only accessible via key words.
No, I hadn't. Thank you for that.
> It further entrenches Facebook and Google's monopoly on adtech

Just don’t use those sites. I don’t.
Blame and justice-seeking are just two levers to fix different kinds of poverty. They're not even the only levers.

If someone spends all their money on rent because powerful interests are blocking new property development or because they're forced into rooming houses by a lack of rental history, then seeing them as a victim might be useful. If someone spends all their money on iphones and playstations and dinners and lattes and will stop doing it if they get negative peer feedback, then blaming them might be useful. If someone spends all their money on building a new house after a fire, then maybe neither is as helpful as integrating opt-out disaster insurance into land tax.

Taking a hard line against any particular lever is almost always going to make you wrong some of the time, which means that some people are going to stay poor when they don't have to, which sucks for them.
They went away that day after a few hours. They went away in general when I quit taking Claritin.
Please read the Guidelines link at the bottom of this page to see HN's official policy. There, you'll see:

On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.

Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
Accelerating universe is supported by supernova data. We have incomparably more supernova data compared to the past. Discovery of accelerating universe was mainly due to radically scaling up supernova discovery process.
active daily users and impressions
What are the theories on what we think the edge of the universe looks like? What does it even mean? Will we just hit an invisible wall like in a video game? Or do we think it’s curved around the edge? Or what?

If it’s expanding, what is it expanding into?
> Why is deciding what speech / UGC should be allowed in social media a 'corporate responsibility' such that letting the government or some 'impartial' NGO arbitrate this a bad thing

Government arbitrating speech is what First Amendment explicitly bans. And I think there's a reason why it's the First - if the government controls the speech, then it controls election of the next government, and so on - so it pretty much ends the democracy or at least severely limits it.

NGOs can already arbitrate anything they want - as long as it is voluntary to listen to them. There are many NGOs that already issue their opinions about speech. As long as it is not mandatory - it's fine and already exists. As soon as it starts to be mandatory - see above.

> Why do you want corporations to 'exercise judgement' and to be accountable (to the state? to journalists?) if you also don't want there to be some formal guidelines about what is or isn't allowed on social media?

Corporations already exercise judgement and always had. But so far there was freedom for every corporation to exercise whatever judgement they have, either good or astonishingly bad (as in case of Facebook) and for the users to choose if they want to deal with this corporation or another one. Introduction of the government in the equation kills it.

> there to be some formal guidelines about what is or isn't allowed on social media?

In the US, one of the basics of limitations put by the people on the government is that government, outside of the very narrow task of preventing imminent crime, does not get to say what is or isn't allowed to be said.
It's definitely unreasonable. Not because we can't write code to such standards - some people can, and do. But those people are also generally paid a lot more than you for a lot less lines of code delivered in the same amount of time.

The same thing goes for the industry - I think that it's accurate to describe modern software engineering as "sloppy", in general, especially if you compare it to the standards in engineering proper. But we're there because this is what the market is willing to pay for. Much like all the people complaining about all the cheap Chinese junk in stores, but not willing to pay significantly more for quality.
Refugees are different. They don't fall under the regular immigration rules.
This is basically errno++.
Good to hear! Here’s also a fascinating news clipping from a 1910 issue of the New York Times. It really helps to get a feel for the rhetoric of the era, “Physician Condemns Practice for Lodges”:
https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1910/11/06/105...
> Usually you can consume more if you have earned more i.e. have more buying power.

Sure, but you've produced more as well. The key is whether you're a net producer (earner) or a net consumer. As a general rule, high-earners tend to fall into the first group. Past a certain point earnings tend to outstrip spending; the more capital you have the easier it is to produce things other people want, whereas there's only so much one person can consume.

> They're not very strongly correlated. It's possible to provide value without seeing much in reward (janitors, nurses, schoolteachers), earn plenty without providing much or even negative value (telemarketers, those opioid manufacturers we're hearing about), or both provide value and earn $$$ (Google, StackOverflow).

We obviously aren't using the same definition of "value" here. If something is valuable, people will pay for it voluntarily. Providing things that are already in abundant supply does not contribute much value, even if they're things people claim to approve of. Of course, the reverse is also true: anything people willingly pay for has value to them.

> And your society's enforcement of laws and property rights, educated citizenry, and infrastructure were likely crucial to this.

As others have already pointed out, this doesn't hold water. The more wealth you have the more capable you are of providing these things for yourself. The rich already own most of the infrastructure, provide quite a bit of the financing for education, and are perfectly capable of hiring their own security. No, the ones who benefit most from having these things provided to them "for free" are those who would otherwise have a difficult time paying them on their own.

>> The ones who benefit most from society are the ones who manage to consume more than they earn.

> This is true in the case of those who inherit large fortunes/trust funds and don't work.

If someone is rich because of an inheritance, that inheritance was a gift. By taxing the estate you're punishing the one(s) earned that wealth. If they want to spend their earnings on their kids rather than themselves, who are you to judge?

The recipient of the inheritance is benefiting specifically from the work and prudent saving and investment of the ones who left them that inheritance, not from "society".

> If not having a job and being on food stamps/medicaid/unemployment was really all that great, you'd have far more people looking to get in on it.

I never said that being reliant on government handouts was pleasant, but there's really no question that these are the people the system is designed to benefit—at everyone else's expense. If it were purely a question of optimizing the material factors, achieving an acceptable standard of living with minimal effort, I think you'd see a lot more people relying on welfare. The only reason the system doesn't collapse under it own weight is that the more nebulous cost in self-respect of deliberately choosing to live as a parasitic freeloader is simply too high for most people to ignore.
Trump working for the people. Nothing to see here. That 150 million is badly needed for his Mar a Lago golfing
The article doesn't go into detail about how this information was obtained. Did they request it from the official company counsel? Or did they intimidate some night manager who doesn't know the law well enough to protest?
>inflate advertised capacity

It's not "cheating" to use standard base-10 SI unit prefixes. Words like "mega" were in use centuries before PCs and have a well defined meaning. Networking rates are all discussed in base ten and nobody complains about those. Megapixels are base 10 as well. It is not merely tolerable, but is in fact more correct, to use decimal prefixes for computer storage.

I believe this old meme about dishonest hard drive manufacturers is a ridiculous conspiracy theory and insistence on binary prefixes for storage is a form of linguistic hypercorrection.
And then you’re dependent on experts to tell you that information.

In this case “using a nuclear weapon” is easier to reason about for a non expert. What about “using nuclear technology for renewable energy”? If the person doesn’t really understand the pros and cons of this by nature of being a domain expert, they’re just relying on whatever information they may have (incorrectly) learned or been indoctrinated about.

Otherwise smart ethics people may make stupid decisions because they think they understand what they’re talking about, but actually do not.

Just take existing domain experts and train them in ethics.
>You have no authority over the bank.

And ICE doesn't have authority over Motel 6 without a warrant.
I can see a day where every guest of every hotel in every country is photographed and submitted to the government for things like warrants and visa status. It could happen seamlessly at check in rather than randomly pulling records in bulk after the fact.
We observe from a far distant star the red shifted spectrum. This is explained by the expansion of the galaxy and the expanding room between us and this star. So the photons coming from there have a red-shifted and hence lesser engery. What has happend to the energy of the photon? Where's it gone to?
On the other hand, Samsung's smartphone market share is pretty important for its nascent non-memory component business, because Huawei won't use Exynos, neither AP nor 4G and 5G modem.
Which puts types in a different category than homeopathy, despite your attempts to associate the two.