skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I guess Im just an outlier as I love the butterfly keyboard. It is certainly my favorite thing about the new macs. I still have my 2016 Mac and it is in prime condition. I am a light touch typer. Therefore I dislike having to mash my fingers down into the keys to register the click.
Okay, I don't think you should be downvoted to oblivion, but this is a hard point to get right.

Yes, we should account for technological improvements in the quality of our lives. In fact, it's the only way to have long-term improvement in real, appropriately measured consumption. And yes, there are creature comforts you can buy today that were darn near impossible back then.

But ... you need to weight these improvements by relative impact. Yes, TVs are better. But how much utility they can really add to your life is limited. They're little comfort when the important things -- like not being bankrupted by health care costs -- eat up all the rest.

If you buy too much into the importance of better TVs, you end up like Fed banker William Dudley, and insist that living costs went down, even as every bill went up, because iPads are faster.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-dudley-ipad-idUST...
They're 12mi offshore: they can re-supply by canoe if the water's still enough. Better yet, a squanoe (square-backed canoe) with an electric trolling motor that they can recharge at base.
> Crux follows an unbundled architectural approach, which means that it is assembled from highly decoupled components through the use of semi-immutable logs at the core of its design. Logs can currently be stored using either RocksDB for standalone single-node deployments or using Kafka for clustered deployments. Indexes can currently be stored using LMDB or RocksDB.
If anyone lives in London and would like to investigate how the ancient sword arts of japan tie into meditation, I highly recommend http://battodo-fudokan.co.uk/
I meant blowback bigger than just consumers pocketbooks. Issues related to national security because the nation just lost one of it's primary aerospace contractors.

The "too big to fail" issue is an important one, though many Americans tend to hate the idea of nationalization because in their minds it's a social evil.
It's a good point that it's a failure of management. It almost always is in situations like this.

I design and deploy customized automation systems for customers, and it's part of the standard process that we run the automation side-by-side with the old process for several months in order to learn the new failure methods and synchronize the process. Yes, for a few months we're duplicating the machine's work, but without the machine we'd be doing the work anyway. And no one is going to die if my automation fails, but we still do this anyway. It's crazy to think anyone would believe they didn't need to do side-by-side verification no matter what sales and marketing told them.

I don't know enough about Watson or IBM sales to say if Watson is good or bad, but I'm not trying to defend Watson or IBM. Watson may very well be a complete failure. But that aside, it's not the only failure in this story. No one should expect to implement a new tool and never verify if it's working correctly.
Jsonnet has been around for a while, but it looks like stale. Its stdlib is limited and nonstandard and the whole lazy evaluation is something new developers struggle with. I've been using it at work for 2 years and it's sad that it hasn't moved much. I think it lost a huge opportunity if it had more active and more open for innovation development. I'm sorry to say that, but the lead is busy with stuff and is highly opinionated. Also, Jsonnet is slow. We have a few hundred Jsonnet templates and it takes a very long time to compile, which is a pity given it's written in C (now being slowly and painfully rewritten in Go for whatever reasons).
And that is exactly why it isn't a paradox in quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is consistent for the domain of questions it was designed to ask: particle scattering experiments. It's when people push it into philosophy or other unintended domains that they run into problems.
I got 6 right. For another 2 incorrect estimates an edge of my estimated range was very close to the correct answer. I think the key is not to try giving too narrow estimates and think in logarithmic scale. If it was possible I tried to decompose a problem to smaller pieces and calculate my estimate from information known to me (i.e. radius/circumference of the Earth for geographic questions) and make a range out of it by adding/taking couple of zeroes from my original estimate.
Thatcher politics most definitely has been tried, by the UK when Thatcher was PM.
As a hobby, I'm actually tracking precisely this sort of question, as well as similar social-structural considerations like "can you create generic models for rampup and dropoff of notable event discussion proliferation/viral events."

Obviously I know the r/bitcoin and friends, but I also know they're broadly gutted whenever they're mentioned in polite company. What would you list as representative or reliable sources of crypto news?
each ES shard is actually a lucene index, and it uses memory... why would anyone need thousand of indices on a single node?
RocksDB: Embeddable, persistent key-value store for fast storage
"Python isn't Haskell."

Not sure exactly what you're saying there? Haskell strikes me as far more likely to define an operator for that.

Although Haskell will define something other than /, which unless you jump through some hoops is going to be the fractional division operator [1]. You'd have to be crazy to try to give a "path" an instance of Fractional, though I'd be intrigued to hear someone's definition of the "reciprocal" of a path.

[1]: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.12.0.0/docs/Prelu...
EDIT: Oops, there's only one trim motor on the NG. Both trim switches must be actuated on the yoke switches though. But the input cutoff switches still work the same way I originally stated.

Not sure about the Max's # of trim motors, but the Max definitely doesn't have input source cutoff switches.
That sounds really good, I don't think I ever read Tristan and Iseult.

I'd have slotted Sir Gawain and the Green Knight in with Beowulf in the "medieval" part of the literary canon but I could be off-base there. I remember reading Beowulf in high school but not the other. That might be a function of which one I found more interesting at the time, I'm not sure.
> Either that or I've completely missed the point.

"We believe that, just as structured programming did years ago, this regularized programming model will lead to massively improved developer productivity, increased software quality, and enable a second golden age of developments in compilers and developer tooling."

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/regular...
In a Standard, "implementation-defined" is much more specific. It means the implementation is required to provide documentation of its definition, so that a user writing deliberately non-portable code can rely on a behavior.

As a matter of standardization, it is almost always a mistake to make anything implementation-defined. It is a common mistake among beginners writing their first proposal (don't be "that beginner"!) and inexperienced committee members who think it would resolve an impasse. Typically, when you find ID in a standard, it is because nobody cared enough to bother getting it right.

The definition an implementation provides for an ID thing may just say "undefined".

A comment below says that "undefined" doesn't mean "not defined". But it really does. Anything a standard does not define is undefined, and if you step in it, anything may happen, up to and including launching the missiles.

Implementations are allowed to provide their own definition for almost anything left undefined by a standard. Often they define things according to another published standard, and point there. For example, "#include <unistd.h>" is UB in ISO C, but implementations often defer to POSIX, another ISO Standard, there.

Sometimes a Standard will leave something undefined, but warn that they plan to define it later. Usually this is expressed as "reserve".
this will never happen because it is a literal job killer. Instagram is a business for all of its power users and the visible likes are absolutely essential for denoting 'success'.
Very very few customers actually have 921 indices in production. That is an insane amount.. by a large factor.
My only complaint with ThinkPads is that they are ugly as hell and I'm not an Apple fanboy. A device should look beautiful, clean and simple that you are looking at all day.
...or a modified hosts file.
You know, I feel like the perfect person to answer this. I used to be a sysadmin, then a devops engineer, then a "VP of Infrastructure", and I'm currently doing some hands on work again as a "lead devops engineer".

Like you, I used to be frustrated at my inability to program, and I felt like I could never make sense of any of it. I spent years in my earlier career sticking to "sysadmin things" because of that limitation.

Eventually, as automation hit the industry, I started writing more and more ruby code (we were Puppet users) and eventually I took a full time job for a year writing ruby code.

It was never an inability, it was always a confidence thing. I was scared to try and fail. By taking a full time position as a developer I -had- to succeed, and I like to think I did. I found it's not nearly as hard as I imagined, and the fact I did not have sysadmin duties competing made a HUGE difference. I was able to dedicate all day to what I was doing, not fit it into the corners of my life.

From what you wrote above, it's pretty clear that your personality woes (anxiety probably is the big one here) is convincing you that you can't do this.

I wasted years convinced that it was "too hard", but in reality I just didn't have the motivation to push through my discomfort. I don't actually write a lot of code these days, but I'm no longer afraid to pick up some code and modify it if I need to because I know it's just a matter of being patient and figuring things out as I go.
I have a bit of repetitive strain injury so I try to use a mechanical keyboard with light force requirement and not bottom out the keys. Reducing travel and force when typing seems to help. I also like the butterfly keyboard a lot, so it probably works great for light typers.
At least LFLs don't have vagrants and homeless lousing up the place like public libraries do.
Are there are any structures for large
numbers of people to live on the ocean
that are actually.... practical?

Would an oil rig count? Some of them have 150 berths - although presumably if you're rich enough to think this is a good idea, you'd want more than a bunk in a shared room.
Exactly. The AD says that the plane can be flown once the part is replaced.
A guarantee, as in we will stand behind this product until X date. You wouldn't necessarily expect to have no problems with a car in the warranty period, you would expect any problems that arise within the warranty period to be sorted.

I would expect bread consumed before the best before date not to be stale, if it was I would expect to be able to get my money back, I wouldn't expect the same after the best before.
Many Worlds still owes us an explanation of the apparently huge difference between this, the actual, world and all the other apparently not quite so actual ones, does it not?

The two most promising ideas (IMO) are the idea that the "wave function collapse" is a non-physical event describing a change in our knowledge, the quantum informatics approach as per Philip Ball's recent RI lecture,[1] and the "Relational" interpretation[2] which observes that a measurement always entangles the measuring system with the measured system, and is best treated as such - i.e. as an entanglement relationship; though it seems that this leads to an "entanglements all the way down" view in which these relationships are the ultimate physical reality, rather than the conventional picture of the relationships being secondary to the things which are so related.

The "measurement as entanglement" view is, I know, notably supported by at least one HN poster[3], who I hope will be on hand to correct my no-doubt erroneous rendition :)

1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7v5NtV8v6I

2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics

3: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12657447
He’s homeless because he’s probably a drug addict or mentally ill, in which case he wouldn’t have lasted very long as Charlemagne
Deflation is not why bitcoin didn't become a currency; transaction fees had a huge role in it. Imagine having currency but needing to spend $15, $25, $35 per transaction. That was the reality last year. This coupled with the insane hype that bitcoin received (to the point that random people in my friend circles were discussing it), caused people to not use it as a currency at all, but as a hoard.

Now with fees back to normal, time will tell if bitcoin will gain adoption as a currency or if it's too late.
SQLite's FTS5 module works surprisingly well on that number of documents, and stores the search index on disk instead of RAM.
This X 2. I feel all these people who feel anything else is a viable alternative to Elasticsearch have a dumb, simple, small-scale use case, where even full-text search over Postgres would suffice.
What are the charger requirements? Mine doesn't charge with the 60W provided by my monitor.
The $249 TV brought a billion Asians and Latinos out of extreme poverty. If you can afford the TV, you are the 1%.
No, I asked a quite reasonable question:

> Ok, now explain why I should trust a bank with my money, but not $any-internet-company with my personal info.

Instead of a good faith response, like, for example "money and personal information differ, here's why", you said

> Trust is an emotion, I won't rationalize it for you. You can distract yourself and others with math and rules and sturdy construction, but there's always sidechannels.

Which is mostly meaningless to me, and I'm quite confident completely meaningless to someone who isn't familiar with security.
Everything can be "very different" when you ignore all the things that are the same.
Play Dota 2 with OpenAI Five – Games Are Live Now Until Sunday April 21 11:59PM
And if you care about mushiness the TPU ones are great compared to the silicone ones. example [1].

Yeah, I don't understand this whole, "my expensive computer isn't bulletproof sentiment". One of the things I was stoked about and ultimately a major factor that won me over when I bought my personal MacBook Pro back in late 2013 was that you could buy a matte screen protector and keyboard cover that fit like a glove. I had a friend with a 2009 MBP that was in amazing condition despite being his only machine when he was in high school, living by the couch and frequently being the entertainment source while eating. He had promptly put it in a case and put a keyboard cover on after receiving it.

I agree with sentiment that some laptops are going to get eaten over, but I don't think it's the manufacturer's job to make sure that it can tolerate that. Some people are never going to eat over their laptop. Like I don't bring food near my. I can tell you from experience that if I want full power on my MBP I need to take it out of its plastic case and definitely take off the keyboard cover. And I do do this when the task at hand warrants it, but most of the time I keep the cover on, and I appreciate the flexibility.

[1] I recently replaced my old one and bought this; I'd recommend it.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00AQFFSAG
>>Everyone was fighting over wealth and money.

The evidence shows that after the war, the Allies gave lots of money to their defeated enemies.
Unpopular opinion here...

Investors and Technologists are always chasing after solutions that will drop the barrier between hard tech things and "normal" people. Think wix, squarespace, salesforce, etc.

...But the uncomfortable truth is that code isn't that barrier. Most Devs lego-piece projects together from open source repos that are fairly easy to configure and use IDEs that code-complete A TON of our work for us. The hard part isn't the code, it is the way that we approach problem solving, the way that we put projects together... its the way that we think about "hard tech things". Low code doesn't make that part any easier.

So do I appreciate or trust low code platforms? Sort of... mainly because it gets people started in our world.
The Logistics of Girl Scout Cookies: Suitcases, Pallets, Mom’s Garage
I too assumed this was going to be about the ZFS Intent Log.
Oh fuck me, I didn't even realize they used a single instance (node).

To expand a little bit, the whole point of using multiple shards per index in an ES cluster is so that the shards spread across multiple nodes (servers) and distribute the load (disk i/o) and handle redundancy. ES automatically scales and reshuffles its shards across multiple nodes in the cluster to handle fault-tolerance as well. If one or more nodes go down, the cluster still has all of the data through replica shards etc...

Either way, in this particular case, the data is so small, having 5 shards per index with 50k indices results in 250k shards for 5GBs of data.

5GB / 250k shards = 20kb per shard.

You have shards of size ~ 20kb ... total cluster misconfiguration.
>Are there are any structures for large numbers of people to live on the ocean that are actually.... practical?

Oil drilling platforms have refined the concept pretty well.

1. Replace the drilling stuff with a casino to make money.

2. Park it somewhere nobody cares about.

3. "Import" your groceries.

4. ?????

5. Live peaceably in your utopia.
_bong_ is considered drug slang, water pipe is not.
Is there any documentation on how they measure it? If they're running tests from data centers / peering points or testing things which are highly-likely to be cached the results are going to be harder to generalize to normal usage.
That has no value at all. Nobody cares that it took "so much energy" to mine that bitcoin block, otherwise bitcoin value would rise infinitely as the mining difficulty increases.

Bitcoin has no inherent value. None. Zilch. Nada. We assign it value completely arbitrarily, hence it going from pennies per bitcoin, to $20k, to $4k.
> A few 10 ms makes no difference.

About a 1-2% difference per 100 ms seems well supported (e.g. [1]), at least if your page load time is already low enough. 7% is very high, but some effect is expected.

1: https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/performance/w...
The reason why IF Games are so focused on puzzles is that they essential can't do anything else. Even dialogs are either about solving a puzzle or choosing a branch in the story.

The point about AI in IF would be to break that mold. Dialogs can be more challenging, for example you could make a game about interrogating people. Or you could tell NPCs to do certain stuff for you. Or these NPCs could have some advanced planning or decision making.

To make IF more interesting, especially for those outside a very narrow niche, you would need them to be a lot easier to navigate, and offer more challenges that don't look like puzzles and don't hit you with a brain-twister at every turn.
Does furiously bobbing one’s knee prevent this at all?
I'm not on Thailand's side here WRT punishment, that seems a bit ridiculous.

That said, 'international waters' are not the place to build semi-permanent housing. If everyone did that, where/how would ships even operate? How long until Somali pirates show up, murder you, and take all your possessions with no 'government' to protect you? I tend to side with Thailand basically telling them to sod off, just not with the threat of death/imprisonment.
Does your workplace have accommodations for taking a nap?
United Therapeutics is accused of unfairly blocking generic rival
MWI is what happens when you don't require the existence of anything extra (collapse phenomenon). It's like how <the way sound emitters change pitch when the observer is moving> isn't an unexplained phenomenon--it results from the evolution of the observer's perspective. In MWI there is no event corresponding to collapse for the same reason that Gallileo's model doesn't have any correlate of epicycles.
I like it too (2019 version). I hated it the first three weeks, but now it's great and I prefer it to my old 2012 MacBook Pro keyboard. Maybe I'll hate it again in six months or a year if it dies like many other people's have, but for now it's great, at least.
Medicare for All Is Costing Wall Street Money but They're Not Worried at All
US economy is at an amazing position currently. Even though it has a smaller share of the global economy than 1960s (40% then vs 22% now), the 60s was an anomaly as most of Europe and Asia's economies were decimated from the war - the jump in worldwide prosperity is a lot better for the human species. US economy is the biggest in the world, twice as big as the next country, and 5 times bigger than Japan, and 6 times bigger than Germany. It has survived stagflation and oil crisis in the 70s, and globalization in the 80s and 90s. The US economy is much diversified - from tech in Silicon Valley, entertainment in Hollywood, oil and gas in Texas, tourism in Florida, finance and fashion in NY, agriculture, manufacturing, services, etc - and safer from systemic shocks from a loss of one particular industry. Capital is freely flowing into US - and away from emerging countries. US growth is in the 3%, while Japan/Germany is close to recession, and China is experiencing its own great depression.
Less than 5s across all 240K+ global servers
> Macroscopic objects are quantum objects. But when the mass is big enough, the position and momentum can be defined simultaneously with an error that is so small that you can just ignore the uncertainty and approximate them as classical objects.

Exactly. And, due to quantum tunnelling, there's a teeny tiny chance I could walk through a wall, but because there are a lot of particles in me that all have to tunnel a relatively large distance, and the probability of even one of my particles tunnelling that far is so tiny, it won't happen.

Intuitively, the difference between quantum and classical objects is a lot like the central limit theorem. Add up a bunch of uncertainties, all of which have similar distributions, and you're going to get something with a very small variance (uncertainty).
"just" is not the word to associate with "get up and walk around" on an airplane. Unless you have an aisle seat it's a notable hassle.
Quantum mechanics is also totally consistent for materials science problems, astrophysical problems (pending gravity), chemical problems (including human beings), and so on. It's really the philosophy that has a quantum mechanics problem. ;)
(define (get) (get1 (quote ()) (read)))(define (get1 b r) (if (eof-object? r) (reverse b) (get1 (cons r b) (read))))(define (put) (put1 (quote ()) (read-char)))(define (put1 b r) (if (eof-object? r) (list->string (reverse b)) (if (char=? #\) r) (put1 (cons #\. (cons #\. (cons r b))) (read-char)) (put1 (cons r b) (read-char)))))(define (final lis) (if (null? lis) lis (final1 (car lis) (cdr lis))))(define (final1 f r) (if (and (pair? f) (pair? (cdr f)) (eqv? (quote quote) (car f))) (cons f (final (cdr r))) (if (list? f) (final2 f (gather (count (car r)) (cons (quote ()) (final (cdr r))))) (if (or (vector? f) (pair? f) (eq? #\) f)) (cons f (final (cdr r))) (cons f (final r))))))(define (final2 f g) (cons (append (final f) (car g)) (cdr g)))(define (count s) (- (string-length (symbol->string s)) 2))(define (gather c lis) (if (= c 0) (cons (reverse (car lis)) (cdr lis)) (gather (- c 1) (cons (cons (cadr lis) (car lis)) (cddr lis)))))(for-each write (final (with-input-from-string (put) get)))
i’m outraged people are trying to dismantle our civilization and take away people’s first amendment rights. sorry if that’s hateful
“It’s a sword. They’re not meant to be safe.”

Probably be a really useful piece of industrial equipment, not just a really strange weapon.
What is the mass of the helmet?