skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The new wsl, along with VS Code's new remote development extension, could make Windows an interesting beast with two identities: a primary host for regular business and consumer software, and a linux client for development.

I did use Windows & wsl for development for much of 2018, and (coming from a mac) found it surprisingly usable. The separate filesystem hierarchies was a bit of a pest, and I reverted to Linux for the first time in some years. But that has plenty of its own annoyances, and I'll be interested to check out wsl 2.
Duplicate and not the original source.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19842969

https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2019/05/06/protect...
> I feel like part of the problem is that people don't consider "party" drugs like acid or MDMA as particularly harmful or addictive, so they're less aware when they start to use them in harmful ways. At least with benzos (Xanax, Valium) or amphetamines, people are usually aware that they're addictive and harmful when overdone.

If someone considers powerful psychedelics to be party drugs, they're already making a grave mistake.

I disagree about benzos or amphetamines, I have had to force wean many people off of both classes of drugs after developing nasty addictions that their rewired brains would easily write off as benign.

Acid and many other psychs, unlike benzos or amphetamines, are not chemically addictive. It's entirely psychological. Their addiction profile in general is much better than most other classes of psychoactive drugs.

I would wait a few more months for your friend's brain to finish reregulating itself now that it's not receiving daily blasts of serotonin. Simarly to SSRIs which inhibit the reuptake of serotonin, which doctors generally recommend an adjustment period of a few months when beginning or ending a prescription. He could get 100% better. Or at least 99%. Psychologically he may have made some permanent changes to the way he thinks about the world. But his memory and all that should come back OK.

That said... a few tabs a day for months is crazy and we've never done any research outside of maybe MKUltra which has tested the effects of such a long and intense daily regiment. This really needs to be done so that everyone can be more safe.
Also you can go the other way. I've been running on Linux with a seemless VirtualBox window for Outlook.
And here I thought it was interesting from the opposite side. Mike made a choice that was within the rules of the game but not the spirit of the game, which already existed within morally dubious territory, and was punished with a lifetime of regret, even though he won the prize. I don’t even remember the name of the other character.
I might have misunderstood your point, but I believe alcohol is commonly used as a fuel in Brazil, where most cars are capable of using it directly.
I fully agree, but the tooling is super immature. I think there's going to be incredible opportunity for engineers to build tools for doing ML in a very efficient and scientifically rigorous way.

For instance, Jupyter is the best thing we have to an IDE for science. It is an incredibly innovative project, but it is not what we need. We need a Photoshop, a Visual Studio, a Final Cut Pro for doing ML.

There are a lot of interesting projects out there solving some of these problems. My favorite ones are Prodigy (by Explosion AI), Pachyderm, Paperspace to name a few. But it'll be a decade I think until we get to a serious place with it as an industry.

I myself have found the process of understanding models after training is incredibly difficult. I'm talking analyzing misclassifications, visualizing embeddings, and looking at saliency maps. We just don't know enough about how models work, and when we do it's only after great effort that most small shops don't have the resources for. This was true when I was trying to get my last company off the ground and is still true now that I'm running ML at my current company. There is a pretty big opportunity especially given that most cloud ML companies seem to focus on just training and deployment. Thinking about trying to start this myself actually given how much of a pain point it is for me today.
With the new WSL2, you can run Docker natively!
Thanks! Warms my heart that someone is willing to subscribe :)

I've been meaning to add it. I'm currently switching out some of the tech infrastructure to improve readability and improve search and then will get to this, promise!
What if they also forked Wine and replaced its COM server and libraries with their own from Windows?

Whatever approach they choose, I'm confident they have the ability to ship a Linux distro that runs Windows apps well. It would certainly be a lot easier than going the other direction (Linux compatibility in Windows).
We expect to be able to compete with fossil fuels on price as we push the price down to get more market share. The process of extracting oil and refining it to gasoline is not inexpensive or easy. By comparison, making fuel on site that doesn't need refining is potentially much less difficult and costly.
C'mon, that's complete bullshit. Linux is very hostile to the everyday user, you can't expect a large majority of users to have to fiddle as much as it's necessary to get a barely passable desktop experience on Linux. You buy a Windows or Mac computer and you're going in 10 minutes. There's no combination of distro or hardware where that's true for Linux.
I'm one of those weird data horders that still buys high capacity drives. I take a lot of RAW photos and videos and I prefer to buy and not rent a license to my music (and I like using sites like Bandcamp to support independent artists). I recently got a 14TB as a new primary, 10TB secondary, along with similar capacity backup drives.

I hope this trend doesn't mean consumer hard drives are going to get more expensive going forward. I keep reading about people predicting SSDs are going to hit the same price/capacity as spinning disks, but I just don't see it with the large >10TB volumes any time soon.
Yes, and politics are always more complicated than our group homogenization bias suggests.

Until recently it was pretty hard to find any politician outside of the libertarian party who would even go on the record as being pro cannabis, though former house Speaker Boehner now works for the industry. But if you look at public intellectuals, there have been lots of conservatives opposed to both abortion on demand and drug prohibition. As far as I know both have been the editorial position of National Review for decades, and William F Buckley was quite vocal on the moral failings of the war on some drugs.

Theocons like Pat Robertson have been calling for cannabis to be regulated like alcohol for over a decade.

The Mercer family, who were the primary funders of Trump and Bannon-era Breitbart are certainly pro-life. They also are the single largest donors to MAPS in support of the FDA trials on MDMA therapy for PTSD.
> This is already the case; all keywords in Rust are reserved keywords, not contextual keywords, so you already can't have a field named, say, `return`, despite the fact that a hypothetical `foo.return` would otherwise be unambiguous. Further, with the Edition system and rustfmt, reserving keywords in this manner shouldn't be disruptive.

Well, the keyword could instead be "@await" instead of "await" meaning that no regressions would be introduced with field names, either now or in the future, right? Unless I'm mistaken, the '@' character isn't a valid prefix for an identifier.

> The paragraph at the end of the OP suggests that the language team is seeking to propose allowing certain other keywords (specifically those that can return useful values) to be used in postfix position (which implies that `await` could then be used in prefix position as well), which could e.g. (I'm spitballing here) replace the `.for_each()` method on iterators with just `.for`.

That's fine, I guess, but then we'd have yet more keywords we can't use. However, "@for" would not break anything. FWIW the way I read that section, the proposal enjoys little support.
> Only welfare that you can collect while employed. I personally feel that the welfare costs incurred by any employed person should be billed back to their employer (except in some special cases like otherwise unemployable disabled people).

The other option would be a UBI, which would still remove any argument for minimum compensation but then wouldn't be conditional on working.

> It is, though I think welfare solutions become taxation problems, and the people who should pay the most tax also those who are most sophisticated at avoiding it.

That's a separate problem. If you have a minimum wage it ends up being paid mostly by the poor through higher prices. If you have a UBI or similar, the rich may not be paying the 35% they're "supposed" to pay, but the 15% or so they actually pay sure is a lot more than the almost nothing they pay in the alternative.

Also, there are pretty well known solutions to making international corporations pay for stuff, like replacing corporate income tax with VAT or DBCFT.
> cars will switch to electric

Even once cars are all electric, I can’t see gas turbine engines in planes, trains and ships being replaced in a hurry.

And rockets are never going to be electric. I assume you can make RP-1 with this process.

I can imagine hydrocarbons being produced where electricity is cheap and practical, and being shipped to where it is expensive and impractical.

In theory if it was efficient enough, you could even use it to store electricity, (e.g. in the summer) and burn it again in the winter.
My guess is that demand for hard drives less than 3TB+ is going to dry up and production will end. There isn't much point in small hard drives any more; at the same price people would rather cope with less flash storage than more HDD.
> Not regressive if the poor are earning more because of a widely deployed wage floor

It's a leaky system because the unemployed (as well as minors and retirees) don't benefit from this and still end up paying higher prices. Wouldn't it be more effective (not to mention simpler) to let the market drive down the cost of labor to its minimum possible price, and then letting richer people subsidize poorer people through progressive taxation and redistributive welfare?
Yes, and that's just until now. Anyone want to bet that we've hit rock bottom in terms of prices, efficiencies, and economies of scale? Or are we going to see another 10x? 0.17$/gallon. 20x?, 0.09$/gallon (rounding up because I'm lazy).

My view is that is more a question of when than if and that the point where it stops mattering relative to the comparison to fossil fuels depending on your point may already be quite near or even in the past.

Some places are still getting expensive solar, some places are bidding at 0.025/kwh. It doesn't really matter. What matters is what the bids will be ten years or so from now, which is when realistically this could start becoming operational at a meaningful scale.

It's 2019. Ramping up production for something like this takes some time. A decade can fly by for a startup like this. Doing the math with 2019 prices and efficiencies means you get a very conservative view of what would be possible now with today's level of technology at today's scale.

However, an investor needs to look a decade ahead. Or longer and assign some probabilities to likely outcomes. The outcome where there's no progress whatsoever in making clean energy tech better in the next ten years seems unlikely. So, betting on < 1$/gallon as a feasible goal in 1-2 decades seems like a reasonable bet. If the rest of the technology works as advertised (room temperature synthesis and extraction of alcohols) and the technology can be scaled at reasonable cost, that ought to be basically a money printing machine. The lower that price drops, the better. As long as oil remains the primary source, you can pocket the difference as profit.
As the other reply pointed out, without a huge(like 5x) improvement in energy density (specific energy, actually) of batteries, this is physically impossible. Even with improvements, it would still be inefficient as batteries don't lose mass as they are used up - airliners can't even land with full fuel, they have to use it up, or dump it in an emergency situation.

Using a process like this would essentially make the fuel simply a much better battery for airplanes than our batteries today.
One can get alcohol out of water at room temperature (28 degrees Celsius) by using pressure. Dr. Carl Jung used the distillation under pressure in 1908 to get alcohol out of wine and get alcohol-free wine. Wouldn't the same process work here?
Yep, and in fact async lambdas are already a thing on nightly. But, while I may just be nitpicking, `.map(async |f| f.await)` wouldn't do anything useful. Applied to an Iterator of Futures, it would be a no-op, kind of like (since you mentioned `?`) `.map(|x| Ok(x?)). Instead you'd probably want some combinator to turn it into whatever "Iterator but async" trait Rust eventually standardizes on – futures-rs has Stream for this purpose, but std doesn't have anything yet. That trait would have its own collect() method which would return a Future<Output=Vec<T>>, and you'd then await on that.

Yeah, I guess I'm nitpicking.
> return (a - b)

That will overflow if a & b are longs.
I'm considering adding a chat option to my site but am wondering how to decide when to make myself available as a solo founder. That is, I don't want my phone buzzing at me whenever I'm awake, as that would drive me (and more importantly, my wife) crazy.

How do folks decide when to have these chat options available, to balance growth/customer support with having a life?
It throws an error if you try to plot more than 5000 datapoints by default, internally altair produces a JSON representation (vega-lite) that is larger than the data you plot (because it contains the data you plot, plus formatting information). If you save this output, for example in an ipython notebook, it gets phat pretty quickly.

Altair is still great though, but this issue makes it occasionally annoying.
There's a lot to unpack here and honestly I've got stuff to do right now so I can't get into it. But I will mention one thing...

> We would have to spend $1.4 trillion more annually to match Germany’s public spending as a percentage of GDP. And there is no reason to believe we’d be able to implement a European-style welfare state any more efficiently than Germany.

The efficacy of social programs doesn't scale linearly with funding. That's not how you do the math. Each dollar spent has cumulative power. In truth we wouldn't need to come anywhere close to $1.4 trillion to match the impact of Germany's social programs.
Back when BMI charts mapped to 99% of the population.
In Perl6 <= is equivalent to ≤

say 4 ≤ 5; # True
say 4 ≤ 4; # True
say 4 ≤ 3; # False

say 4 <= 5; # True
say 4 <= 4; # True
say 4 <= 3; # False

Specifically they are the exact same subroutine.
(The normal operators are just subroutines with a special name.)

say &infix:« ≤ » =:= &infix:« <= »; # True

(The =:= operator is basically the same as pointer equivalence.)

The line which creates this equivalence is the following:

my constant &infix:<≤> := &infix:«<=»;

https://github.com/rakudo/rakudo/blob/b0dd44b006dc44da5695b2...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but planes look like a bad target for this fuel substitute : for 1 kg of CO2 emitted, estimates give a ~2 (or worse, 2.7 - 4) factor of radiative forcing (the potential for climate warming), due to the water vapor released at high altitudes.

You'd have to capture 2 or 3 times more fuel that you'd burn in the sky for this to be "net zero climate", which is a better metric than "net zero carbon".
To truly solve the dandelion problem the robot first needs to convince your permaculturing european girlfriend that dandelions are weeds.
The parent mentioned specifically wanting a Surface device, on which surely Windows would work better?

As another osx refugee, I've spent time on both Windows and Linux. There's no "just" Linux, it has plenty of its own annoyances - to be honest it's a bit of a wash between it and Windows for me. WSL 2 could push me back.
I see, in other words, you have a method of capturing the externality costs, and using them to protect this fledgling enterprise. Look, I understand externalities. I understand 415ppm. I live in Hollywood, FL, and see flooding at high tides, with my own eyes. But the proposition here is to turn solar electricity into combustible fuel. And waste at least half of this energy in practice, because we have some "valuable" investment in fossil fuels infrastructure. Again, are you kidding me?
Even if this is legal, schools have taken a strong stance against it, although one could argue that the legacy admissions process or any athletic scholarships are in the grey area.
Epic 'Does the Dirty' Games
Well then, I'd like to place an order for all of them.

On a serious note though, that does present a novel use for these membranes within that industry. I imagine that optimizing the distillation phase for lower energy use and/or the possibility of distinct flavor characteristics that might coincide with alternate distillation techniques could be very compelling. Freeze-distillation has its own unique characteristics, I'd be surprised if this didn't also have some of its own.
California has higher gas taxes. Our gas is currently about $3.70 a gallon where I live.
The 2-rider break are at a massive disadvantage compared to the riders in the peloton doing far less work and getting a much better draft, conserving far more energy.

Of course, at some point, some riders may choose to try to bridge the gap, which is difficult.

But typically, breakaways get swallowed up by the much more efficient peloton.
Wine nowdays can run most apps flawlessly, same thing for wsl, so the end user decision depends on os specific apps ratio and how bad is the windows ui for him
PS and also maybe antivirus tolerances, since there is no need for antivirus on windows.
This would only work in a sparse dance-floor. I thought this project somehow magically solved the problem that I immediately thought of upon seeing it, but no. It's literally just blasting a laser across the floor. Step into the beam, and it's blocked to everything behind you.
I would say your comment, and the first reply, both demonstrate quite effectively why JMAP is probably a better choice for email.

> It may or may not (yet?) be as efficient for synchronization as JMAP, but it's definitely designed for all types of objects

If we hypothetically allow for equal adoption & mindshare of both, and assume both are non-terrible designs, I'd guess the one designed for "all types of objects" is less likely to ever be as efficient as the one designed with a single use-case in mind.

And narrow focus is not only good for optimising specific use-cases, it's also good for adoption as people immediately understand what your protocol is for and how to use it when it has a single purpose and a single source of truth for reference spec, rather than a series of disparate links and vague all-encompassing use-cases.

Solid has brilliant people behind it, but it's too broad, too ambitious, and very much lacks focus, and that will impair adoption because it isn't the "one solution" for anyone's "one problem".

--

To take another perspective on this, there are other commenters in this thread bemoaning the loss of non-HTTP-based protocols. Funnily enough, HTTP itself is a broadly used, broadly useful protocol than can be used for pretty much anything (and had TBL behind it also). The big difference was that Tim wasn't proposing that HTTP be the solution to all our internet problems and needs in 1989—it was just for hypertext documents. It's only now, post-adoption, that it is used for so much more than that.
Of course that should be the goal.

But of course that isn't the goal - the goal is maintaining privilege and prestige, and enforcing economic segregation.

There is no sense in which any of this is about genuine meritocracy, or is likely to be about meritocracy any time soon - because genuine meritocracy would be incredibly threatening politically, culturally, and financially.
Well, there is research suggesting that a minimum wage has unexpected effects. The economics 101 take is that raising the minimum wage will increase unemployment, but that theoretical view is not well supported empirically.
As a person with a background in Environmental Studies, a c o2 to fuel conversion technology such as this sounds revolutionary! I am most curious about the fundementals.

Can you give us more specifics on the process such as;

1. What is the scale of the operation? Does this process need to be done at a large scale to work out economically?
2. Take a Boeing 737 for example which has a fuel capacity of ~6,875 Gallons. How much would it cost to build a C02 refinery that could produce that much fuel daily?

3. How much does it cost at a small scale? Say you have a miminal viable product that can refine 100 gallons of gasoline per day. What is the cost of that production in USD?

4.How many KWh of electricity would be required to refine 1 gallon of fuel using your current prototype?

I would love to hear / see data your numbers.

Thanks, 01
I'm pretty sure we're not supposed to admit that, but I agree. Of course, if somebody asks me in person, I agree that team work makes the dream work and there is no I in team and we're all better together and the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. If there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe anything you tell me.
I honestly think that following current events -- whether that means technical news via HN, or more mainstream events covered by traditional media -- is the best thing you can do to stay up-to-date on what people are thinking about. Take analysis with a grain of salt. Look at breaches and ask yourself how they could have been prevented (or perpetrated!)

Attend community events and conferences. There are local "Bsides" conferences in most cities, and the big conferences (DEF CON, Black Hat, ShmooCon, etc.) are great too. I haven't been to Summercon or Hushcon East, but I've heard that they're both great NYC conferences. When you're at these things, don't just go to the talks (you can see them on YouTube later), but talk to people in the hallways/bars/parties and find out what kind of challenges they're facing.

Attend local meetups. See what people are talking about. Be involved with the community.

If you do these things, I can guarantee you'll stay current -- and hopefully, it will keep your interest in security going strong :)
I would second uBlock Origin too! Been using it for 3 or 4 years I think and works great on Chrome and Safari too. Make sure it's "uBlock Origin" and not uBlock only. You can read up on difference between "uBlock Origin" and "uBlock".
So this is what you ultimately resorted to? Pettiness? Way to make your stance look even worse.
Yes, the CNT membranes will improve the efficiency of biofuels, but Prometheus won't do that. My previous company Mattershift makes the membranes and will sell them for other uses.
If they're paying people to develop tools for solving general purpose computing problems and presenting those tools out in the open, then they are doing something that is good for everyone.
Very nice! For comparison, here is a Prolog program that uses CLP(ℤ), constraint logic programming over integers, to search for solutions:

solution(Options, Vs) :-
A^5 + B^5 + C^5 + D^5 #= E^5,
Vs = [A,B,C,D,E],
A #>= B, B #>= C, C #>= D,
length(_, Exp),
Upper #= 2^Exp,
portray_clause(Upper),
Vs ins 1..Upper,
labeling(Options, Vs).

The speed of this program depends a lot on the Prolog implementation, and also on the options that are used to specify the search strategy.

With this program, one can find a solution within one minute even with rather slow Prolog systems on (current) commodity machines:

?- time(solution([bisect], Vs)).
1.
2.
4.
8.
16.
32.
64.
128.
256.
% 609,346,692 inferences, 57.855 CPU in 58.197 seconds (99% CPU, 10532282 Lips)
Vs = [133, 110, 84, 27, 144] .