skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If it were emitting the light, yes, but it's not. It's more complicated than this, but imagine holding a black sphere in front of a light bulb. You'll see a ring of light around the sphere.

Somewhat separately, there's the accretion disk, which again is a disk not a sphere, much like other orbiting systems like solar systems or galaxies−the gravity between bodies orbiting the same central gravity source causes them to arrange roughly into a plane, rather than all having their own unrelated orbits. We're not seeing the accretion disk directly though, but rather the light from it, and from other sources, that is able to pass around the black hole. (ie the black sphere in front of the light bulb.)

Watch that video; it explains it in a very approachable way.
> There's evidence to suggest voters preferences don't really impact policy in the long term, such as the Princeton study.

The dirty little (open) secret of US politics: nothing, nothing an individual does really matters unless they put in tons of time (time doing things, not reading Twitter), tons of money, or both. And even then it's a crapshoot unless you've got serious cash.

Less true at a very local level. Definitely true of anything past the county level or so.
Have you ever read the Financial Times? More broadly, in addition to FT I try to get a multitude of perspectives without straying too far into extremes (so no Fox News, no CNN) and I try to rely on single-topic sites. FT, NYT, Jerusalem Post, AlJazeera, Aviation Week, BBC, SkyNews, a handful of science and tech journals, HN, and some others. You can get a fairly balanced (not perfect) perspective without the kind of moral panicking and clickbait you’d often find. BBC and Sky being exceptions, but that’s my local news.
Possibly. But that doesn’t excuse his refusal to have the Senate vote on it.
That doesn't really ring true. If they were actually in favor of those things then they would also be eliminating build-out requirements and other regulations so that it would be easier to start a small ISP with e.g. 500 customers in one section of town, without having to raise enough capital to cover an entire region or being sued into bankruptcy by the incumbents under existing laws.

This is less ideology and more corruption.
For the record I think education should be free.
I think you are again confused. It’s a brand new car. The MSRP is over 60k, but MSRP != selling price.

Perhaps it’s common to pay MSRP in Germany, but if you’re paying MSRP in the US for a non special vehicle you’re doing it wrong.

> Sorry, but a brand new car will be much more expensive then in the US than in Germany.

You’ve provided no evidence to suggest this is the case.
EU offers Brexit extension until the end of October
This is the same for-me-but-not-for-thee response the ISPs gave during the draft spec. Assign a TLS port, deprecate the plaintext port, and set a date when unencrypted SMTP is noncompliant. It really can be that simple, especially in an environment where Google has already demonstrated a willingness to manipulate the standards process for its own purposes.

The reason HTTPS is being forced into this process is exactly because HTTPS has a specified standard TLS-only port. Now we're married to a web protocol to send email, and the entire broken commercial web-of-trust hegemony is trickling into email as well. Google already has an outsized influence on which certificates may be trusted, and now that influence extends to email, de jure as well as de facto.

This is fragile, needlessly complex design, and it's depressing as hell to see it so thoroughly defended by people championing hypotheticals.

The fact that the argument for MTA-STS boils down to "DNS is insecure and we don't want to fix that problem" and the solution boils down to "just do everything over port 443 instead" indicates a severe failure of vision at every phase of this process.
Can you describe the threat model your trying to account for?

The reason I made that statement has to do with the means by which DNS can easily be circumvented and direct encrypted connections used instead. This means using DNS introspection as a means for security doesn't buy you much, DoH just makes that more apparent.
Sanofi to cut U.S. insulin costs for some patients to $99 per month
Firstly, the current domain name system has included brand TLDs like https://home.barclays/ for years. So you're the one saying it's broken, if you think those TLDs shouldn't exist. Arguments like "that's how the domain structure is currently laid out" work for Amazon getting a TLD, not against it.

So we're not discussing how it works. We're discussing how you think it should work. And my request has been the same since the beginning: explain how the domains of level 1 are different from levels 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.

Your argument around taxonomies absolutely doesn't explain this. Taxonomies may be - and usually are - many levels deep.
I would like to see something similar in the U.S. Unfortunately, I don't see a path to resolution anytime soon, both for U.S. and China. In the past 20 years, I have only seen society become more and more corporation-friendly.
I don't understand your point. I'm certainly not solely focused on the unsophisticated ones, but those sorts are important too. And they're much more common as they include ad and other trackers.
Not every AI problem is computer vision or NLP.
First, thanks for writing this post. I find it very hard to understand because you don't say what you think net neturality is. It sounds very different from mine.

My definition is roughly "price you pay only depends on how much data you want and how fast you want it, not what that data is or who it comes from."

So metering the internet is totally in line with net neutrality, as long as you don't discriminate and meter some websites at a higher price than others. In fact, this definition pretty much fits everything you say is good and avoids everything you say is bad. But you seem to say net neutrality does the opposite. Now I don't know the details of this exact bill but can you explain what you think it's doing and how that relates to your post.
Illegal drugs, precursors (such chemicals as acetone or sulphuric acid), plants that may contain chemicals that are components of illegal drugs, information that may be considered "propagandizing" using of drugs, etc.

> unlike in english, there are two completely distinct words for illegal and legal drugs in russian language

Which two words do you mean? I can't think of any two fitting this description.
> but I think at a certain point, you have to understand you do not want to harm yourself just to help someone else.

What's special about the US among highly developed nations is that we've convinced ourselves that most of us would be harmed, when it's likely that only a very well-off minority would be harmed (where "harmed" means "be slight less well-off, but still well off").
This sort of comment doesn't contribute to any discussion. If you feel this posting isn't worthy of discussion on HN, you have the option of flagging it.
>> People who didn't own stock got nothing.

So they lost, since the total amount of money in the economy increased.
Falcon Heavy, SpaceX’s Giant Rocket, Awaits Launch with Large Satellite
Silver's forecasts do predictably change, more precisely in that they swing deterministically in favour of one candidate whenever the most recent poll to come in favours that candidate heavily.

Each time the probability drops below 40% (in your example) it is likely because the fair odds swung in the latest polls. To attempt to take advantage of this is to ignore the recent evidence (conditional upon that evidence being quite different to the current concensus).

It's not at all unreasonable to do so, but isn't arbitrage. What if all polls started being increasingly conclusive leading up to election? 40, 39, ..., 0. No surprises and no arbitrage.

Perhaps another way to express this critique of Silver's methodology is that it lends too much weight on recent outlier observations? Sure if you knew this you could profit off these swings, but making the arbitrage argument doesn't add much to the discussion to my mind.
The final report says it's impossible to evaluate the level of fatigue as they have no data on their sleep during the stopover. But from the CVR, the report says the crew showed no signs of objective fatigue
> is currently eating something big

You mean: was eating something big 55 million years ago ;)
It only sends a 'signal' if you don't believe that aircraft-carrying ships are as obsolete as the gun-carrying ships they displaced nearly a century ago.

Aircraft-carrying ships are so passé in today's world of missile-carrying ships.
One time I tried using these. The internet worked fine but connections to other things on my network was very intermittent. I found out that I was switching between my own router and my neighbor's. The signal was traveling out of my house and into my neighbor's over the power lines.

I do not recommend Ethernet over Power any more.
Nature inside biology too!
Midway Games is still around actually in its new and evolved form: NeverRealm Games and Mortal Kombat 11 is coming very soon. Their offices are a short bike ride away from where I live on Chicago’s northwest side.

Happy to report they’re doing very well and releasing as great of fighter game as they did back in the good ol days :)
I can see it now. Remote brain scanners for salespeople.

It reminds me of NLP. It was developed for psychotherapy. But its key application has been in sales.
Of course we can’t, but every Tom, Dick and Harry who can follow a few online tutorials thinks he’s competent to be—take your pick—a software engineer, a data analyst, a machine learning expert, the next Mark Zuckerberg, or almost anything else.

I predict that once we reach peak bad-hire, companies like Triplebyte et al are going to blow up. Given the cognitive nature of work today, you simply can’t afford to hire someone simply because he’s able to answer a few technical questions. Too often, he won’t be able to apply that knowledge.

It will take them a while, but companies will eventually come to understand this.
Good! IT security theater can go away or own the device, install a root cert and really filter to your hearts content.

DNS filtering was always easily circumvented; a time sucking cat and mouse game at best.
May not launch tonight due to upper atmosphere wind shear:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1116110823015849985
Well what a coincidence

https://twitter.com/matthewstoller/status/111599165366219571...
on the contrary it does because I'm offering to pay for a summary - something that is manifestly useful discussion fodder
Well, we can't uninvent the technology of the day, so that's likely to end up like unregulated social media, but we know there are issues with disinformation easily reaching a large number of people (again, old-hat propaganda, just we don't have to throw pamphlets out of planes now).

This isn't an easy problem to solve and I certainly don't have the answers.
Simple, non-evil answer: because it would severely impede spam prevention. This extensive writeup has details: https://moderncrypto.org/mail-archive/messaging/2014/000780....

Long story short, to control spam, you basically have 2 options:

1. Control who can send messages
2. Inspect message content
3. Impose costs

Signal and WhatsApp chose (1). E-mail (and probably any federated protocol) requires (2) or (3), and there is no universally-adopted (3) for e-mail.
Please provide a citation. As far as I can tell, you're just engaging in namecalling.
The threat model is anything that is trying to phone home without approval. This includes calling command-and-control servers, trackers for ads, data exfiltrators, etc.

All of these use domain names to set up the communications, for obvious reasons, so being able to thwart those lookups is of great value.

You're right, that all by itself is insufficient, but it's still very important.
There's a significant group of people adjacent to and overlapping with net neutrality advocates who are opposed to any form of bandwidth metering. https://stopthecap.com/
Shipping a Visual Refresh Continuously
I'm not a Mason but I always assumed this is what Freemasons are about (rather, the lodge setting and a deep/understood openness between brothers - "builders" from all walks of life). I'm probably completely wrong (never inquired, but have known plenty!) so take that with a boulder of salt
Wait, I'm not getting the rationale behind this and it seems very dangerous advice.

Whether the company goes out of business or becomes the next Google, your AMT tax liability in the year you exercise the ISOs remains the exact same, it's not that your stocks becoming worthless years later can retroactively change (i.e. diminish) what you should have paid in AMT the year you exercised. In fact, you need to pay it because it will create a different cost basis for your shares for AMT purposes, you do need that calculation on your forms. So, your "no point to look at the phantom gain" is something I don't understand and I suspect the IRS doesn't understand either.

Hence, you're going to have to pay the original AMT liability + the hefty penalty regardless, either way. At that point, why not just paying it the year you legally owe it and then slowly recoup it over the years with AMT credits?

What you're proposing is like saying "I bought and sold TSLA and realized $100k of capital gains, but I'm not going to pay taxes now because there's a chance in 5 years TSLA will go to $0, and so the capital loss will offset the gain I owe this year". It doesn't work that way at all and there's no way you could come out ahead adopting this strategy, and it's the exact same thing when you talk about AMT. Yes, the law is draconian because with ISOs you don't effectively have liquidity, but it's still the damn law and it's clear that ISO exercise is an AMT taxable event.

Without even entering in the debate that consciously not paying taxes that you know are owed is effectively tax fraud and could get the IRS pretty pissed on top of just penalties.

If you leave me the contact of your friend, I'll be happy to reach out and confront him/her directly on the matter.
They might be familiar with a subfield where there's a strong culture of accountability through reproduction of experimental results. Certain parts of molecular biology at least used to be that way.
I could see a TPB-style federated proxy service emerging for archived URLs that are unduly censored.
These are the same authors who then wrote the Dictator's handbook:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dictator%27s_Handbook

CPG Grey has a summary of the book:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
So you meant 'Thank valve for this'? :)
It looks like the group described was fairly exclusive: members were voted in. That probably contributed a lot to making sure that the community was reflective of the best qualities of the members.
I knew it would only be a matter of time before someone mentioned this, although I was actually expecting someone to mention a specific alternate language.
People against net-neutrality either:

1. Don't know what net-neutrality really is

2. Are against it because their "team" is against it.

3. Or are getting paid to oppose it
Yes, you're right, but it's also important to combine with Landauer's principle that says that entropy loss (information deletion) actually costs nonzero energy. Reversible computation doesn't.

The idea is cool, but I don't know if anyone really thinks it's an issue relative to all the energy we currently use to compute (the quantities in the theory are negligible).
I don't get how not being authorised by Banksy makes it a fake. I don't think authors need to authorise an exhibition of their work to make it "real". Btw, just outside the Moco in Amsterdam there's the van Gogh museum. Did van Gogh authorise that exhibition?
Koenigsegg Began with Frozen Chicken, Not Hypercars
Isn't this ultimately the origin of everything that we recognize as a modern ethnicity? We're all the products of amalgamations of conquered/extinguished tribes, states, empires, and cultures, most of which are lost to history forever.
It's usually good for a company to listen to what their customers are saying. This time, not so much.
You want a warm blanket that you blocked some well known ad click tracker while having no real visibility overall. Security theater.
I mean, is this really news? We know that Amazon records the clips of what you say to Alexa for the purposes of improving the recognition. Everything after you say "Alexa..."

How would they tell whether their models are right or wrong without listening and having someone compare?

I see nothing in this article to suggest the clips they're listening to are related to an always-on microphone.
> The robocall crisis will never be fixed

...only if everyone resolves to restrict themselves to only using ineffective mitigation techniques.

I think the robocall problem can be fixed easily. Unlike email, the telephone network has sufficient existing billing infrastructure that could be exploited to make robocalls uneconomical. Just bill everyone $0.01 (or whatever) per outgoing call after the first 1000 per account per month; and have the carriers bill each other $0.01 for each incoming call to their networks.

A solution like this is necessary, especially since calls lack much of the texture required for email spam-filtering techniques.
And if the offer and the rest of your comment represented a genuine attempt rather than a sarcastic dismissal, then it might actually contribute something.
If it’s urgent enough that websites have to comply within an hour, why on earth do they wait so long to make these requests in batches?
Oh, the horror.
>Also, none of the other devices that share the same room as the dimmer can use anything on the 2.4GHz spectrum. It's almost impressive how effective a jammer it is.

If it's really as bad as you say it is, you need to report it to the FCC (or other local governing body)
The recent Google employee protests against their Dragonfly project give me hope that there might be a similar push by tech workers in the US, but it could also just be an isolated incident.
A few choice excerpts:

"Sometimes they hear recordings they find upsetting, or possibly criminal. Two of the workers said they picked up what they believe was a sexual assault. When something like that happens, they may share the experience in the internal chat room as a way of relieving stress. Amazon says it has procedures in place for workers to follow when they hear something distressing, but two Romania-based employees said that, after requesting guidance for such cases, they were told it wasn’t Amazon’s job to interfere."

"Amazon, in its marketing and privacy policy materials, doesn’t explicitly say humans are listening to recordings of some conversations picked up by Alexa. “We use your requests to Alexa to train our speech recognition and natural language understanding systems,” the company says in a list of frequently asked questions."
Every time I see Banksy I get the “I’m 12 and this is deep” sensation, I perceive him as the Paulo Coelho of graffiti. I don’t know whether his art lays in the loop of trolling by passing his work for art, but sincerely that’s not my impression. My opinion is he is a poor artist with a simple allegorical sofistication, who is riding the wave of equally simple people who praise the bad boy who vandalise things for a good cause.
$200,000 is a very small amount of money in grassroot crowdfunding.

Against net neutrality is not "an extremely narrow point of view".
He mentions this at the end
I mean, in the end, everything that you're looking at is just a collection of cones and rods in your retina. It's the information that it conveys that really matters.
They’ll just carve out an exception like the US financial industry did in 2006 with specific patent violations.

Congress could have addressed the core issue but instead protected their big funders.
> It only makes sense really

Surprisingly few places seem to culturally benefit from the presence of companies. But I guess selling heavy equipment for public use helps.
Many of the companies that are "pro net neutrality" or at least are incentivized to support it have many, many, many other concerns for lobbying, legislation, and budget. Engaging in a race to the bottom over a single issue is probably not a strategy that people are willing to take.

ISPs on the other hand have few other issues quite as important.
> Are we talking about disabled people?

At what point does lack of ability to engage socially become a disability? Your statement already acknowledged their difficulties.
Are people really surprised about this? I never bought and never going to buy any of these devices. I don't use social media etc ...

It is that simple.
I'd be really interested to read that source, if you were to dig it up. It's nice to explore hard-science based alternatives to prevailing theories.
You actually want to assign to root cause and track that. Them over time you build up data on if it's worth it to stay on one platform or not. Eg doing this let's you build a risk profile to counter the $/time argument against. Then you get to make an informed decision.

You don't just shruggie and move in "that ship has sailed" at least if you're doing it right.
I don't work for Amazon or Google, but I agree with them in this case.

I read through the full text of the bill (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&Sessio...) and it seems like it sounds like the companies can be sued if one user agrees to a written policy, but then is used by another user (e.g. a spouse or sibling or friend), which makes smart speakers basically impossible to exist. (User identification isn't good enough, and even if it were, mistakes can happen)

> No private
entity may turn on or enable, cause to be turned on or enabled,
or otherwise use a digital device's microphone to listen for or
collect information, including spoken words or other audible or
inaudible sounds, unless a user first agrees to a written
policy informing the user[..]
This net neutrality is far from it when Google, Amazon, etc have their own private networks to which net neutrality rules don't apply. If carriers are prevented from offering differentiated services, which are required for next Gen products like self driving cars, video games in the cloud, Tele presence, and even just reliable video conferencing, then the only companies that will be able to offer these services will be the ones with existing multi billion private networks. Or you have to run your business on aws or gce and pay them 10X and they get all the profit. The only way a true competitor could get started is if they can buy the network service they need from an independent carrier. The fcc is right on this and Google is full of bs.
.coop for co-operatives has also been around for a while (2001), with domains like: https://chicken.coop/
Well yeah, obviously: high risk, high reward. Without the benefit of hindsight (and subsequent tests), a paper that proposes something truly transformative will look a lot like one that is just wrong (albeit, wrong in a creative/novel way). If you want to publish the former, you're going to have to take a lot of risks and publish a lot of duds. Don't we complain all the time that NSF doesn't fund high-risk science?
Because then everybody is going to want a TLD, which ruins the whole point of a TLD.
Is it that hefty? I'm seeing a price of 55 GBP for the US.
Specifically, you'd want to do something like:

pid_t child = pfork();
for(int fd=0;fd<3;fd++) p_open2(child,fd,pts,O_RDWR);
char** envp = munge_env(/*parent's*/ environ);
int err = p_execve(child,file,argv,envp);

(Y'know, this looks kind of familiar...)
Everything after you say "Alexa..."

It's everything after the product thinks you said "Alexa".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peirce_quincuncial_projection