skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You just literally proposed to dig a 5-6m deep hole and assumed that would be enough...not even salt mines are enough. See Germany where there is suddenly groundwater seeking into a salt mine full of radioactive waste. A salt mine that was considered safe once. Now they are looking for years now to find a new safe spot and Germany stopped producing new waste. Still they have those problems. Tax payers are paying for this search. They'll also pay for the retrieval and they are paying for pumping out of the water.

There are many issues there obviously. This is not some easy thing you try to dig in there. It'll be there for a very long time.
Then you might be interested in this book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Engineering_of_Consent

The advertising industry comes from war propaganda from what I understand. So using advertising to sell goods is actually much more recent than using these methods to manipulate political views...
>"Say a soldier who committed war crimes and, after serving his sentence, refuses to testify against their partners. Would you still grant them a right to refusal on these grounds?"

Other than asking them, there is no moral way to compel someone to testify if they do not want to speak. Jailing them repeatedly one question at a time is clearly abusive.

edit - this isn't difficult ethically. Unless you construct some imminent scenario (puppy trapped down well, etc.), you are locking someone up purely to know more. They aren't themselves depriving you directly of anything other than their perspective on events.
Maybe it's not legally prescribed as medication in his country? I might be wrong though.
historically all democracies deteriorate towards non-existence over time. it's just a matter of how long for particular cases
> What I don't understand is why this is so controversial

The amount of CO2 is not controversial. What's controversial is what we should change.

There are tons of people who fully believe in climate change but vehemently disagree on what we should do about it.

There are also those who don't think it's a reason to worry so much or panic.

All of those people get reworked by the controversy hungry Media and converted into climate change deniers, and the result is the political world we live in right now.

If we could disentangle all those things it would help a lot. But instead we get believers and deniers, i.e. basically religion.

There are also those who believe that exaggerating the problem is the best way to get people to do something. In my opinion that has backfired majorly.
Rainbow Canyon (California)
This one is great to me, less formula and more drawings :)

https://www.bzarg.com/p/how-a-kalman-filter-works-in-picture...
> Put 100 foreign kids age 12 in Japanese schools and they will all learn good Japanese by age 18. Plus they will pass for a native speaker.

Ummmm, I know people that moved to New Zealand younger than 12 that just don't sound native. Many people retain accent issues, although usually end up with a normal spread of proficiencies at grammar.
You are correct but infinite resources of universe are out of our reach at the moment and if we will not work smart with Earth local resources we may never reach a level at which we will be able to benefit from resources outside of our planet.
> I don't understand why we're not in full-on panic mode yet. It makes me scared. Really scared. As in I've never been so scared in my life.

I am completely with your mindset here. However, I think it is rather trivial to explain why we are not in full on panic mode.

Short-term profit and power games are more relevant to sociopathic and psychopathic individuals such as Mitch McConnell, Bolsonaro and tens of thousands of others in leadership positions. Marketing, political campaigns and propaganda smearing do the rest.

In Germany, the conservative party (CDU) as well as the "social" democrats (SPD) are in power and absolutely refuse to phase out coal as quickly as they did nuclear because of a few thousand coal jobs. The target is 2038 - as long as it fits their bill. Neither is willing to do the right thing because short term it might lose them voters.

Yes you heard that right - they will lose voters. Demographics in Germany shows us, that Germany is old and continues to age. Nothing but immigration will stop this.

Young people who care are simply overpowered at the ballot. This can sometimes feel schizophrenic as the vocal voices online are part of the group that votes less...
You can see their point though right? We can use Nuclear power but have to except every 30 years or so an accident will happen causing a massive exclusion zone and clean up op.

Doesn't sound like a fair price to pay to me (and a lot of others).
I don't think you can account anywhere near 100% of China's increased emissions by what the USA "outsourced" in shifting its manufacturing there.

China is developing into a first-world nation with over a billion people. That's a lot of manufacturing and infrastructure development for purely domestic purposes. Building cities, streets, highways, railways, automobiles, that's a huge amount of metal and cement production.

If you want to blame the USA and other China-product-consuming countries for China's emissions, it's more for sending so much money in their direction on goods to fund all this large-scale development.
Mach Loop
wasn't it obama who said that just by checking our tire pressure we would save fuel and co2? and checking tire pressure is something so so easy to do...
Growth is fine, really. I'd start worrying when our economy starts to expand at a noticeable fraction of the speed of light.

The problem is sustainable growth. The path we're on isn't sustainable, unless we hit some scientific and political miracles in the next years. Sustainable growth is unfortunately slower than unsustainable one, so it loses out in competitive environment. Still, I don't think we should focus on attacking growth in general - just the type we have now. Done right, economic growth may yet save us.
Also stop procreating. What we really need is a global one-child policy.
It's important to uderstand that what's required is a collective action, and probably an unprecedented one. If yourself and a handful (let's say 1 million) of friends opt out of society, go off grid and eat pine trees like beevers, it will make exactly zero impact on CO2 emission. Plus we'll lose your voices in the actions we do need which are of a more political type.
https://www.kane.co.uk/knowledge-centre/what-are-safe-levels...
Yeah right, how much does it cost to ship 1kg in space again ?

Do we even have the raw resources on earth / the tech to move everyone to a new planet and terraform it before we're all toast ?

Even if we do what's your moral standpoint on the fact that humanity destroyed 3+ billion years of evolution on earth in a few hundred years ?

Who in their right mind think that terraforming a planet is easier than just stopping destroying our home planet ?

Even if we do move to a new planet, in what kind of conditions will we live, I doubt we'd have even 10% f the comfort we have today. So why not scale down here, on earth, in the first place ?
What I don't understand is why this is so controversial.

Meticulously planned political & media interference campaigns run by fossil fuel companies and related think tanks. They understood the implications of climate change by the late 1970's and knew the writing was on the wall. They executed plans to delay political action for as long as possible in exactly the same way corporations had done with regard to tobacco regulation since the 1950s. These conspiracies against science and the public interest were remarkably successful. In some cases (eg. Heartland Institute) the very same organisations were involved in both campaigns.
It is the approach in Spain at least, where I live.
This analogy is faulty. Assange is not a fellow soldier; he is a journalist operating outside USA. Therefore he has a completely different set of responsibilities, while a "war crime partner" would not.

Also the grand jury is only partly about Assange, whom they already know they won't get extradited from UK. It's also about engineering a perjury trap to punish Manning for a few more decades. She has no reason to trust the "justice" system and she might prefer contempt to the likely alternative.
Uber's business plan under Kalanick was to flout the law and use VC money to subsidize until some future time when it would be a monopoly.

It assumed that the market would not react or it assumed that the VCs would keep funneling cash to keep it going.

Uber's business "model" always was unsustainable and the IPO and subsequent drop is entirely realistic as people realize that.

Uber Eats and some airy-fairy driverless vehicle models will not sustain it.

Currently Uber does not fund its vehicles, how does it think that the capital cost of running a driverless taxi fleet in a city will somehow be cheaper than the current cost of driver+car?

Uber doesn't have the capital to actually replace its current business model with one that is capital intensive and it will be eaten alive by existing fleet logistics and car manufacturers. It has no distinct advantage when operating a driverless fleet than Fedex or UPS or the equivalent operators.
Are you sure you aren't just in a bubble? After talking to more people it seems like the general public really is like this.
What's ICE?
The Bible gives man dominion over the Earth. Presumably, that’s a license to do whatever we want with it without consequence. The Bible predicts an apocolypse driven by supernatural forces, not one of man’s making. There’s no room for both, therefore the one in the Bible is true and the one predicted by heathens is false. This is why Christians, specifically, tend to dismiss man-made global warming.

Also, there’s a lot of fear out there that renewable energy means less jobs, especially across the entire coal mining supply chain. There’s a fear that transitioning to a renewable energy economy means a transition from dumb jobs to smart jobs.
for the foreseeable future we're planning on mining asteroids and the having a base on the moon... so i don't understand your point.
Agree. Personal responsibility ALONE will not fix the problem. But it's not either/or. While I applaud activism movements like Sunrise, I believe personal lifestyle adjustments are indispensable. After all, in any scenario, the systemic changes we are talking about will have to include (mandated) reduction in consumption. We might as well start now voluntarily, and think about how to keep our lives fun and enjoyable while consuming less.
Unless we make a breakthrough in physics (which is pretty unlikely to be possible in our current understanding), the universe will be limited to us. The best we can do is a sphere of human economy expanding its radius at near the speed of light. That still leaves out a good chunk of universe forever inaccessible to us. Physics does seem to put a limit on growth.
Internal Combustion Engines
I'm no expert on climate-change denial, but the general idea I gathered is that they consider "green energy" one or more of:

- an expensive solution to a non-existing problem, for the profit of a few

- a plot to undermine Western countries (or the US in particular), reducing its competitiveness

- a geopolitical attack on oil-producing countries
How people use devices in the real world
> Even if we do what's your moral standpoint on the fact that humanity destroyed 3+ billion years of evolution on earth in a few hundred years ?

didn't the earth go thru numerous planet-wide extinction events? and those were much much faster than a few hundred years.
Great UX, great product design: a user research adventure on how different devices are used in 2019 by different user groups.
Internal Combustion Engine. AKA. the thing powering our cars, planes, and whole lot of other machinery.
No, our environment is Earth, and only because we evolved to its conditions, and only by a very much luck that had them be in a very narrow zone that was good for life (and even Earth could not care less about us).

Our immediate environment aside from Earth is the vastness of the solar system, in planets totally unsuitable to support us, and with extreme costs to even get us to the nearest one, and with vast expanses of space and radiation to go through to get to the next.

We got humans to the closest rock for a few years, on a huge cost and effort, and with big risks (and some casualties), based on the competition of 2 superpowers. Since then, not only we haven't established any "base", but we haven't even been there for 48+ years (almost half a century)...

And even if by a very slim chance (which people who view technological progress as some kind of boundless Paolo Coelio fairy tale take for granted) we manage to do something in those planets, the next step (some earth like habitable planet elsewhere) is extremely more challenging, and speed of light limits would apply (of course people who view technological progress as some kind of boundless Paolo Coelio fairy tale bypass them with exotic contraptions that have us riding wormholes and what have you...).

And that's if war and climate mayhem doesn't have us concentrate all our efforts here...

Some food for though: don't concentrate on the pedantic details, but the high level arguments:

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/11/the_myth...

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the_high...
I'm sorry to hear that but just because someone diagnosed you at 6 doesn't mean I believe it's right to medicate a child that early.

If you could do it all over again, would you have waited until you were grown before you took medication?
I agree and feel the same about many mental illnesses or traits (intelligence in that regard seems close to attention span).

In the end, some with higher impulses and inner trouble still manage to have more control and lead a successful life when others with little disabilities are overwhelmed.

What awes me the most is how one can be willing to mess with his brain chemistry with drugs rather than arrange one's life around his traits. There are so many tools now that I can't accept "forgetting appointments" is a disability necessiting drugs.
Even if ADHD were part of the natural variation of different personality types, or if it were only manifested as a disorder in modern society, that would not be mutually exclusive with it being a genuine neurodevelopmental (not mental) disorder.

Whether the behaviours and feelings that we define as ADHD are natural or not has no bearing on the fact that people who present them can be very adversely affected as individuals. Good health is best defined in terms of adaptation to one's environment; if modern society has been built by and for the 90-95% of humans with no ADHD symptoms and that has a detrimental effect on the 5-10% of those who we define as having ADHD, then it is a legitimate and genuine disorder.

We can theorise all we want about the evolutionary origins of ADHD or whether a different society might ameliorate or eliminate the symptoms of the disorder, but people with ADHD who are born today into this society deserve the chance to live a healthy and productive life like anyone else. The fact that certain medications and therapeutic interventions are so demonstrably effective at improving the quality of life for people with ADHD means that refusing to recognise it as a genuine disorder is actively damaging to them.
> many people convince themselves that "Science" will save us

Why won't it? The main issue is where we get our energy from. There are working methods that are CO2 neutral. I'm firmly in the "only science will save us" camp.

> It's like when you move form a basic 40sq meter flat to a fancy 250sq meter house, going back is very hard.

I believe this is view harmful to the cause because it will only result in pushback, and rightfully so. Only excess wealth creates the spare capacity to care for the environment.
Our current environment and resource reach only extends to low earth orbit.

Even the moon which is the closest stable near earth resource is at least a couple of decades away from any practical use.

Chances are that the climate of earth will become more unstable before any kind of space based economy can really be taken seriously.
> Governments and politicians have failed to act.

They have not failed to act. Rather there is no action they can take. Not a single one of your suggestions, even all together, will make any meaningful difference.

> I am tired of waiting for systemic change. I am tired of waiting for technological breakthrough.

You're going to have to keep waiting because that is the only solution. There's simply is no other solution.

As proof for what I say, think about the ozone hole and freon. There was a problem, but in that case there actually was a solution. And the solution was implemented even though it was hard.

If there was a solution here, i.e. a new energy source, it would be implemented. And no, wind and solar as they exist today are not that solution although they are incremental help, and they are being installed incrementally, which makes sense.
Not to the degree people with ADHD seem to have this problem. A recent study looked at whether people with ADHD were more likely to repeat a grade. Here's what they found:

>28% of individuals with ADHD repeated a grade compared with 7% of controls (p< .001).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23382575/

You can find many such studies about ADHD that find that people with ADHD just do worse in situations that require sustained attention and persistence.
This is how we use it:

https://www.mono-project.com/news/2019/02/13/plastic-scm-a-f...
You’re talking about changing most of the world’s diet. Good luck with that.
No. I think that it’s a condition that isn’t yet treated effectively and perhaps shouldn’t treated as much as it is in adolescence in the US, but it’s a very real condition with very real effects on work, relationships - everything that you do.
I'm really depressed about climate change. There is no way to fix this from an individual point of view. Society is impossibly reliant on fossil fuels. Individuals going vegan, reducing consumption etc will have negligible effect. The only possible solution to all this is a technological solution that requires zero sacrifice from individuals. Technology got us into this mess, If we don't find a technological solution to this issue then all is lost.

A true tragedy of the commons.
I'm increasingly starting to agree. "The genpop can't all possibly think like that" is how you get blindsided by surprising outcomes of elections.
Nobody is saying it's 100%
Sweden reopens Julian Assange rape investigation
> it may be good to know that it is not fully rigorous

What is the problem with A|B=b being a random variable? (Apart from you unfamiliarity with the concept, I mean.)

Edit: I don’t say there are no problems, I ask what do you think the problem is? There is no problem in the discrete case. In the continuous setting things are indeed more complicated (but if the limiting process is well defined there are no issues).

Note that the same lack of rigour that you find in conditional ramdom variables affects conditional probabilities. If you can accept the latter there is no reason to reject the former.
So many patently false claims here.

First, julia has it's own IR (comparable to swift IR as mentioned by Chris), which is used to great effect in the autodiff packages to allow for compile time zero overhead gradients. The flexibility is actually the other way around, Julia's compiler allows these sort of compile time initiatives to be built in Julia rather than hacked into C++ like swift.

Regarding the duck typing vs type checking bit, that's a matter of tooling. It's much harder to replicate Julia's combination of speed and dynamism (for example to do flexible multistage programming) than to capitalize on Julia's the compile time information to build type checking (which are planned)

The compiler lag is going to be gone soon from two ends: more dynamic (interpreting code that doesn't need to be compiled, this is pretty much there already) and more static: Compiling and caching entire Julia programs. There are already fantastic improvements to this situation in 1.2

That leaves the error messages and stack traces, which ...well what's the last version you have tried? I find them to be ok, but they can and will be improved.

Regarding general purpose packages in Julia: check out http://genieframework.com/ as an example.

Julia's multimethods are awesome and a clear advantage over swift's methods. A protocol abstraction is similiar to julia's facility for traits, will at some point will be likely baked into the language (but even now allows for compile time resolution of methods just through multi dispatch abstraction , which again, is only one step away from building type check abstractions!).

If you want to know more about Julia's plans and philosophy in the regards, see: https://github.com/FluxML/Flux.jl/issues/614
Before you must know, what is the chat application & How it works?

Build application like Slack, Hipchat(Server-side database):

where the messages sent are stored in the server database. This results in the storage of a vast amount of data in the server-side data storage.

On the other hand,

Build Application like Whatsapp, Viber(Client-side database):

It is quite effective in minimizing the data stored in the database by holding the data within the device & diminishing the queuing of messages and consumption of data.

For more: https://blog.mirrorfly.com/real-time-chat-server-database-fo...
Logging in with @cyphar:cyphar.com works for me. I host my own homeserver so I did have to set it up, but if you are using someone else's homeserver that is all you need to do. The homeserver and identity server information is all provided with the new .well-known/matrix/client support.
So you've never had lemon pepper wings either i'm guessing? try some, it'll change your life
You may buy only clothes that you need and that's great but I'm almost sure that you know someone who buys dress for a one night out. Media and celebrities are always showing on the red carpet in new clothes and you never see them in the same clothes again. It is encourage to buy more and more clothes that very often are getting worn couple times and left in the closet forever. Some countries are better or worst at this. Here where I live, a walk-in closets are pretty rare, in USA they seems to be pretty much a standard. Why would you need a closet the size of a small room just to put there clothes of one or two people?
Those are all much better arguments than your previous one. Be careful about doing a "motte and bailey", even if inadvertently.
> I don't see why we shouldn't transition to renewable energy asap anyway

I am no expert, and I think neither are you, so we are just making some small talk here, but: I think we don't have the tech to go all in on renewable. Solar is cool and all, but where do we store the energy? Batteries don't scale at a global level (for now). I mean look at Germany: they tried. They got off nuclear and now they emit more CO2 than when they started because they had to revert back to coal.

I see no easy solution to this. Not for now. And for sure it's not something like "let's just switch to wind and solar and we are good".
In 1998 here in Sweden kids were joining the Skunk network, a very early social network. I guess it sort of exploded around that time so it's hard to backup a statement like "the first online social network".
The programmer should make sure that an integer is within the range of a byte before assigning it to a byte variable. It's no more complicated than that.
I was thinking of cables like NorNed for moving surplusses around. Especially if such a cable runs east-west and can ease some of the temporal effects due to both people's living pattern, and solar intensity.