skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yeah, sometimes they have. Once riding around a bike near Powell street in SF in a bike lane with 10 mph limit. A car approached me from behind. Initially it was probably at 40 mph but it slowed down as it came near me. But it was scary as hell as you have inherent assumptions when you are in a bike lane.
>Too many organizations have chosen to throw WikiLeaks under the bus after their 2016 election leak harmed the "wrong" American political team.

I think it was about the fact that he selectively decided what to release in order to harm his own opponents. Wasn't very principled of him, and he effectively did the same thing he pretends to be fighting against.
San Francisco is not a cultural hub. Cultural products still largely come out of two places: LA and NYC.

edit: anyone downvoting, feel free to defend what makes SF the cultural hub for western civilization.
This sounds similar to Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) [0] which uses a moving antenna to achieve the affect of a very large aperture.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic-aperture_radar
But can they bike from a train station in the city? Can they bike around the suburb they live in? Yes, they probably can.
Look up moon lava tubes. There are huge prebuilt structures on the moon.

Sports create value through mass attention. The moon is more than a passthrough to Mars. The moon is fun and fun is money.
Virtually Unlimited Memory: Escaping the Chrome Sandbox
What about an owl or other big bird. Attached with a tiny gps and radio. Trained to push a button or make a sound when they find a human not dressed in search west.
SpaceIL – Landing the First Israeli Spacecraft on the Moon
Riding a bus to work is not an optional activity. People driving their cars in the city are doing it for fun/thrill/whatever.
>But lots of people don't know how this stuff works and should not be expected too.

How does caveat emptor not apply here? If you put an internet connected microphone in your home - it seems very reasonable to assume someone could listen in on that.
If you're committed to high quality public transport, it's more efficient for both.

Do you think there's a lot of cleaning ladies driving in and parking downtown in expensive major cities?
I’m not sure how broadly this generalizes. Having lived in 7 different regions in the US I would say 4 were cycling-friendly and 3 were cycling-hostile.
Interestingly enough there has been some evidence that driving on the street is safer than using the bicycle lanes in cities that have a flawed integration of these lanes.

It all boils down to the parts where these lanes intersect with car traffic. There is no use in adding a few lanes here and there, you need to have a concept and micromanage every intersection between cars and cyclists to get something that really pays off. Often this is prevented by the unwillingness of motorists to loose space to park or drive on and this results in pseudo-solutions that are more dangerous than having all cyclists using the middle of the road.
>Well that's just flat out false. Here Moreno (Ecuador's president) says: "Ecuador sovereignly has decided to terminate the diplomatic asylum granted to Mr. Assange in 2012."

The indictment predates your video by many months.

>I get your point about filing and then unsealing but that's just mincing words.

Why was Assange not indicted before 2018 if the indictment wasn’t politically motivated?

During Obama admin DOJ officials said that they did not want to charge Assange for this, the elections suddenly changed this.
AI Will Go Out of Control According to 52 Experts
If you truly believe you are safe joking at parties, you must be going to some very exclusive parties. More power to you. I wish you continued luck.
Show HN: MailSpons – Fake SMTP server for safe email testing
> There will not be a Rust 2.0.

Isn’t Rust 2018 effectively Rust 2.0 (since it introduced new keywords and requires changes to old code if a user opts in to Rust 2018)? So the function could be made unsafe in Rust 2021 (or whatever it’s called).
It's also used as an unofficial form of punishment.
I've personally never went to wikileaks looking at information gathered, but consumed it second hand from journalists reporting on it. As such, I didn't have a problem taking Snowden's leaks seriously yet wasn't eyeballing raw data (nor did the vast majority of people who read about it), so I'll have to disagree.

What you have with the Democrats and the Mueller report is that the "journalist" in this case is the Attorney General who was put into the position by the guy the Mueller report is about. As such, it is a case of not trusting the messenger due to bias so they want to see the actual report.
Step 1: no human drivers.

Ah yes, so simple.
The original articles about “China’a ghost town” were also not true.

I've seen news reports on NHK showing Chinese ghost cities. One was a very long (maybe an hour) documentary that also included the ghost villages happening because people are being forced to move to the cities.
>Nope, psychiatry is still not considered part of medicine by doctors.

Psychiatry is a branch of medicine. Psychiatrists are medical doctors. Psychiatric disorders are recognised as diseases by the World Health Organisation in the International Classification of Diseases. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines psychiatry as "a branch of medicine that deals with mental, emotional, or behavioural disorders". Psychiatrists are eligible for full membership of the American Medical Association, the British Medical Association and every other medical association I am aware of, because they are medical doctors.

The rest of your comment is just as wrong as this sentence and just as readily debunked. Due to the length of your comment and the sheer density of falsehoods, I am not inclined to debunk it point-by-point; I would suggest that anyone with an interest in the topic should consult the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's Technology Appraisal on ECT.

https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta59
> The original articles about “China’a ghost town” were also not true.

They're 100% true and many of them are still ghost towns, unless you listen to the Chinese government (which is desperately trying to convince you otherwise).
China has moved 300 million people out of rural poverty, into nearly-first world lifestyles in the past 30 years.

At that rate of development, it would be a failure of planning to not have millions of empty units.
Indeed, up are approved targets. The trouble is the definition of up changes all the time.
I've seen vehicular cyclists have good points in theory, but in practice their results seem to be awful. Are there places practicing 'vehicular cycling' that have high rates of cycling and good levels of safety?

Infrastructural cyclists can point to the obvious success in the Netherlands and some other bike-friendly cities/countries, at least.
I think you could arguably entirely remove non-commercial vehicles form dense cities like Boston and New York. You could build massive parking garages at the limits of the city and suburban commuter could just park and take alternate transit from there.

During peak traffic in both of these cities I've been easily able to walk as fast as traffic, forget how much faster public transit or biking would be.

If you displaced all the cars within a city, then transportation within the city would likely be faster and more efficient for everyone. City buses would be much nicer if there was virtually no traffic in the city. Biking would likewise be a more realistic option if was dramatically safer and had better infrastructure for storage.

of course that's a pipe-dream, but the obsessive car culture in the US is a nightmare so it's nice to have some contrast.
I think that's likely. async/await doesn't appear to map directly onto traditional OO GUI framework callbacks well, just like rust doesn't tend to map well to traditional OO. I believe that async/await will open up new architectural patterns that should be as ergonomic as traditional OO callbacks for GUIs. But these won't map well to existing code or existing frameworks.
Even if they use an electric bike and don't exercise, it's still good for pollution and congestion.
No, because it is opt in. All existing code keeps compiling as-is.

The standard library cannot change with editions for exactly this reason. It’s compiled with a particular edition, like any other crate, and so can’t work differently in different editions.
Akka has testkit and multi node testkit which you can use to test such systems. If you need to explore state space, you can use data driven and or combinatorial testing attributes from *unit libraries.
Sell the Appointment, Not Product
Seattle also has pretty good signage for their (very limited) protected bike lanes - typically a green-painted turning lane, with yield markings and signs. I still see drivers ignoring them from time to time - I think Mad-Eye Moody's mantra is a good one to keep in mind when riding a bike: "Constant Vigilance!".
The rich get new roads anyway.
That is great news for America. Can you share some details?
I agree with you in the sense that especially in America a lot of the bike lanes are really just faded single lines littered with gravel, and practically speaking following the Vehicular Cycling model has been very successful for me in interacting with cars.

However, while I can nimbly integrate with traffic being in shape and experienced, trying to get friends and family who are not experienced in this are usually met with an awful time, further discouraging bicycle use.

A fully segregated path, where you can get comfortable and learn without impatient drivers honking or zooming past 45+MPH would be infinitely valuable in helping. Cities need to stop half-assing bike lanes and either provide a safe, effective path or not bother because like you said they can even more dangerous.

There are plenty of intelligent solutions to the intersection problems, as well.

https://www.industrytap.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/duth....
Operation Bayonet: Dutch Police Darknet Sting
Used car dealers didnt want to fix deadly defects,so they wrote law to avoid it
There have been attempts, like relm, to map futures onto GTK. That means it would work with async/await too, as they’re fundamentally sugar for futures.
> Generally "protected" bike lines are not protected at intersections, which is where most problems occur.

Then also build protected intersections? These are common in truly bike-friendly cities. I see them frequently here in Munich (admittedly not as bike-friendly as Dutch cities, but much better than any US city).
It is universal practice within cloud service providers to span redundancies across "fault domains" - basically things which could make failures correlated, like being in the same machine/power strip/datacenter/geo region. If you assume your fault domain analysis is good, then your failures should be independent. Many global outages are the result of a previously-unidentified fault domain, like the Azure certificate issues. Of course past a certain point it becomes unimportant - who cares about your data if an asteroid takes out every datacenter on Earth at once?
The sensor was never designed for what it was used. It was designed to provide input to a visual display for the pilot. The pilot always had a lot of other inputs. The reliability requirements were totally different to what was needed to directly control an airplane in a critical situation.

The software design compounded the problem with some bizare design decisions.

This was a system design failure. High level reliability requirements were not properly communicated to the subsystems. Subsystem failure was not properly analyzed. Human Machine interface considerations were ignored.

Considering the rush job and shortcuts Boeing made for this "feature" a valid consideration by a regulator would be to question their quality system. And that should trigger a systematic approach to reviewing all other requirements and design work going into the 737MAX.
Too bad those vacant buildings will all be uninhabitable within a couple years thanks to the lack of maintenance.
I wonder if they could just treat this clause as non-existent since in Hungarian law racial discrimination is illegal and binding agreements can't contain illegal clauses.
As someone who lifts 5-6 times a week, let me give you a solid blueprint based on what has worked for me, my peers, and many others who know what the fuck they're doing.

It's important to note that this will be a process and anyone trying to sell you a shortcut is full of shit. Including the guy who made this thread. Cool idea, but misleading as shit.

Here we go.

1. Your diet will fuel your growth way more than any workout routine generated by a man, woman, alien, genderless entity, or artificial intelligence ever will.

To put it simply, if you want to pack on muscle? Weight train and eat eat more calories than you burn. ~300-500 more calories.

If you want to lose weight? Weight train and/or cardio. Eat less calories than you burn. ~300-500 less calories.

You can find many TDEE calculators online. I like to use the calculator over at iifym.com.

For example:

If I want to gain weight and my body burns around 2000 calories per day, then I should probably eat 2300-2500 calories, with my protein intake being around 0.7g/lb of body weight.

If I want to lose weight and my body burns around then maybe I should eat around 1500-1700 calories, with my protein intake being around 0.7g/lb of body weight.

That's it. It's a numbers game. Calories in vs calories out. Your body doesn't give a shit about anything else (assuming you're eating balanced meals to fulfill your vitamin needs. If not, pick up some multivitamin and you'll be fine). The hard part is usually planning the meals and actually getting used to eating a lot. That's going to suck, but it gets easier.

And forget all that shit about supplements. Only thing you truly will find useful is whey protein powders and creatine. Do your own research. You're a smart guy, I bet. You got this.

2. Your routine is secondary to your diet. Remember this shit. Don't forget this shit. Write this shit down. Your routine is secondary to your diet. Aside from that, you need to know what you want to do.

Do you want to be strong as fuck? Find a routine that focuses on strength training.

Do you want to be aesthetic as fuck? Find a routine that focuses on hypertrophy. This will most likely be a program that works each body part twice a week.

No matter what you decide to do, be patient and consistent. Results will come, but never overnight.

Whatever routine you choose to do, focus on progressive overloading aka increase the stress put on your muscles each workout. This could be by increasing the number of sets, reps, or weight. Just do more.

Find a routine. Make sure it has a focus on compound exercises. Find a personal trainer who can actually show you how to lift correctly (should only be a few sessions). Go hard. Be consistent. Don't switch the program until you at least put in 6 months of work or your goals change. Don't be afraid to tweak things to your own liking.
If you start out even with $100k inheritance you're pretty far ahead already. That's enough to get an education, buy a home, or start a business. If you can turn that $100k into $1mm you can draw off $35k for the rest of your life without lifting a finger.

Having modest savings and being in good health makes you much closer to wealth than if you were further down the economic chain.
Nexe, create a single executable out of your Node.js apps
A parking spot uses about as much space as a mid-sized apartment if you build four stories above it. Fewer cars mean more room for affordable housing.
Are you a pilot? This is the basic way that a pilot can know whether he's close to stall without anything more than an airspeed indicator.

It's basic flight physics. The lift developed by the wing is equal to CL.q.A. A is the wing area, the dynamic pressure q is basically indicated by the airspeed indicator, and CL is a known function of AoA. Lift is by definition equal to the load factor * mass.

For a good, in-depth explanation, see http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/aoa.html#sec-ias-aoa
reminds me of nixos early days, then they added binary channels, so much nicer
Why Use Free Software ? [video]
Outside of the serious tech community, no one knows who Linus Torvald is. They do know that Linux exists.

Well, I take part of that back. He did have some personal pieces about "he's the guy that's a bully of the project" (when he took a personal hiatus from the project)
Reducing the number of cars (and therefore traffic) on the
roads will benefit everybody

You seem to have a rose-tinted view of the world we live in.

Have you ever had to commute in less-than-ideal
conditions?
Heavy snow? Sleet? Black ice?
Have you ever lived in places that are not
perfectly flat? or lived in places that
are hot that make bicycling unfeasible?
Did you have sporting gear / work gear that
you had to lug? Did you know some people have
to fetch their own gear to work
Did you have to take calls during transit?
Did you know its common practice for employees
to call into meetings during their commute and/or
help assist operations via conference calls?
Have you had to shop for more than a baguette
or a bagel at a store? You know how cumbersome
that gets for even a family of three?
Do you have the slightest clue how much casual
violence and crime happen on public transit?[1]

Not to belabor the point but there simply are dozens of cases where bicycles or public transit just don't cut it. Not to mention the hygiene, personal safety (from other passengers for example) and personal space aspects involved in someone choosing a mode of transportation other than public transit or bicycling.

Ride-sharing, autonomous vehicles and emission-free vehicles should all alleviate the issues we currently face with traffic, parking and accidents.

However doing away with cars or vehicular traffic is just pollyannaish madness.

[1]

Teen robbed at gunpoint at Fruitvale, BART officer says writing a report is a 'waste of resources'

https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/bart-police-refuse-repo...
Thank you! I did not know.
Fun fact: 49% of non-cyclists think people who ride bikes are less than human: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/03/28/study-aggressive-driv...
>> We can’t get rid of it because we have a commitment to not breaking users’ code.

Totally the correct way to go about it, IMO. Thus my comment about deprecation.

>> There will not be a Rust 2.0.

>> Note that upon using it, you’ll get a warning, so everyone will at least be notified.

:/ That I've mixed feelings about. Why not? Is it because of the fiascos between Perl 5/6 and Python 2/3? Deprecations and warnings about using deprecated features are indeed the correct thing to do, but IMO, aren't the whole picture. I think to all the times I went to compile something, and got to watch a constant stream of warnings for it (or worse, got hit by bugs I shouldn't have because the programmer took time to finally suppress that annoying warning pointing to the flaw in his code). A (very occasional) major version bump to show "These things we found out were actually wrong and said that you shouldn't do N years ago? We meant that, those are gone now," strikes me as the Right Thing for a language with a major focus on correctness, like Rust.

But, since I'm here armchair quarterbacking here on HN, instead of getting my hands dirty building a major language, I'm willing to concede that my opinion might be different were it informed by experience.
Ah yes, the classic "software engineer reveals one easy trick to solve a complex problem domain" post. Maybe they just needed a Raspberry Pi and a sixaxis sensor board, has anybody thought of that!?
And if you have to drop down to looking at the disassembly, distributing binaries helps ensure everyone's looking at the same disassembly. Reasons for this include investigating codegen bugs, figuring out optimization issues, ensuring functions involved in cryptography aren't leaking information through timing side channels, etc...
I concern myself a lot with these kinds of “shadow caste systems”, so I’m intrigued by your faith that they are universally opposed.

I see a lot of people who sort of cultivate a barrier of ignorance because their bread is buttered by the system. They do their job but, only semi-consciously just won’t peer behind the result of their actions.

So I will meditate a little on your position. Maybe I’ve got the wrong bias here.
These are two different kinds of cases. In this case, the substance was known to be harmful but the court ruled it was not properly labeled.

In the case of Roundup/Glyphosate, it isn't known to be harmful, at least not in the sense that it causes cancer. It was a kangaroo court case.

One can argue that the risks of Glyphosate are unknown, but that's true of a lot of chemicals that farming/industry relies on. For what we do know, Glyphosate is relatively harmless. It's the most common herbicide in use and it's produced by several other companies besides Monsanto.
Only if he was Black.
Thanks for the input. I personally love it, plus it saves energy!

Once I figured out a good way to let my users change from Night Mode (dark bg) to Day Mode (white bg) without any scripts I plan to implement that as an option.
The alternative is that it was inevitable, given the conditions in which it occurred, dictated by laws of physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics, and was just a matter of time, like rust or diamonds.

I approve of this interpretation.
This is a terrifying idea. Most of the US -- and its cities -- is already designed around the car over the people which make it up, and there's more than a few convincing arguments this car-above-all philosophy has been detrimental to the economy, sustainability, and overall health and happiness of cities, and, as Jane Jacobs would say, has all but destroyed the diversity of city life and replaced it with cookie-cutter "Great Nothingness".

I personally shudder at the thought of redesigning our cities any more around cars, and instead hope the next decade will continue the trend of adapting car usage to living in cities and not the other way around.

---

Self-driving cars can and should be an amazing complement to city life: owning a personal vehicle would be unnecessary if the city were dense enough to support a fleet of ever-roaming self driving cars, allowing more space for pedestrians, residents, and workers to enjoy the city and reclaim all the land dedicated to street-parking and parking lots (Los Angeles proper has more area dedicated to on street surface parking than the entire city of San Francisco is big). That's more housing, more parks, more schools, more activity, more events, you get the idea.

Most of that promise would dissipate if we had to further redesign the city around the car, and for what: so the few of us lucky enough to own a self-driving car could live far away from everyone else and putter around on their phone while their car is stuck in traffic on ever wider and wider highways?

American city planning underwent a fundamental shift in the 1950/60s which prioritized cars (I'd argue for the worse), and I think it's past time we undergo another shift away from ever-extending sprawl.
At a glance the graph UI looks like matplotlib's.
I appreciate you're trying to be glib. However, up to level 4 autonomy I'm not sure I understand your point? Even the most optimistic people agree level 5 vehicles are multiple 10s of years away.