skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Imagine Toyota makes a faulty truck, and then they issue a recall, and there's headline news about the danger this issue poses, and truck drivers all over Twitter are pleading for people to fix their trucks, but you nevertheless continue driving around for 799 days without fixing it, and then your truck explodes. I know who I'm blaming.
> It's quite incredible this received as much attention as it did.

Almost any piece of western media tries to paint higher classes negatively, so no, it's the opposite of incredible.
It's actually much cheaper than cloud. It doesn't have the scaling flexibility, but that is partially compensated for by running faster, lower latency, etc. Lots of people use Cloudfront etc but still host on their own bare metal.
This one's for the multi monitor devs using macOS.

macOS regularly forgets my pixel perfectly aligned monitor layout. I wrote displayplacer so that I could describe and apply monitor layouts (resolution/orientation/positioning) through the terminal. Now, upon plugging in, if my displays are all mixed up I hit a hotkey mapped through BetterTouchTool to apply a displayplacer profile.

Under the hood this is using Quartz Display Services to manipulate the displays. Let me know if this is useful and if there's any feedback.
The fact that all these databases were disconnected arguably gave you much more privacy than can be achieved now.
Which society "with high technological development but no democratic tradition" witnesses a "demise of traditional channels of media in favour of social media?"
I'm struggling to understand why getting catcalled is specific to San Francisco. If you walked down Miami, Atlanta, New York, etc., you feel you wouldn't be catcalled? Why does San Francisco yield a higher catcalling rate?
Pretty sure my mum would disagree.
OK, I'm not sure why you're not convinced. It seems to me that at the heart of it, if we massively increase atmospheric CO2, we know that atmospheric CO2 causes a greenhouse effect, and we do indeed see temperatures rising, then by far the most likely explanation is that the CO2 is causing the warming. We should require good evidence to the contrary to not accept that as at least a working theory. What's more, reducing the atmospheric CO2 will decrease warming, even if there is some other, unknown factor that is also contributing. And given that just a couple degrees of warming will cause mass extinction as well as likely significant human suffering, it would be prudent to act to counter it, even if it were actually unlikely that humans were the cause (which again, I have no reason to suspect).

So, as someone who seems eloquent and informed, your position is truly perplexing to me. The only explanation I can think of is that you have some vested interest in believing as you do, be it conscious or otherwise. Do you feel that accepting human-caused climate change would be betraying your political affiliations? Or is your livelihood, or those of close friends or family tightly coupled to the fossil fuel industry? Do you tend to distrust scientific evidence in other areas?

You don't need to answer these questions, but maybe ask yourself if there might be another reason why you're resistant to the most likely explanation here.
It is exactly about protection from the law. I think you should reread my last sentence. You are making the ends justify the means argument, that always ends up in a police state.

Warrants require probable cause. Without post review accountably we can not be certain that all parties are acting properly. On occasions warrants and the evidence collected will be tossed out during trial. Is our law enforcement held accountable for that? My research says no, they are shielded from it and thus there is no downside for bad warrants.

Consider one of your friends maybe a drug dealer and you don't know it. The police find records connecting you to them. Now you're under investigation, and crimes will be found if they want thento be found, and you're sucked in to a very expensive legal defence. Consider the more money the state spends on an investigation the more pressure there is to indict people regardless of actual crimes. Here is a prime example of this kind of crazy overreach.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial

Yes, he's a drug dealer and people should not break the law, but as you begin to investigate everything, everyone is a criminal.
He is referring to increasing economic inequality. This information inequality helps the rich get richer.
Isn’t that kind of the point of both the article and what I was saying? Reports are that many of the kids didn’t know that their parents were bribing colleges. They actually thought that they got into prestigious colleges because of their own “capabilities”.

And general intergenerational income mobility isn’t that high. Also, statistically (and no fault of their own), English as a second language students don’t do as well as native born speakers (https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/02/23/512451228/5-milli...) so I fail to see the relevant of bringing up recent immigrants.
previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19945452
I keep hearing this, but does Ubiquiti actually provide good speeds?

I got an Asus AC 5300, it works great. I can get 450 Mbps downloads and uploads easily, and get good coverage.

I've also installed the Linksys Velop mesh system for a number of people now, and I can crank out similar speeds with that.

The speed ratings I have seen for the Ubiquiti products are half that, at best.

Here's another thread which mentions this issue: https://community.ubnt.com/t5/UniFi-Wireless/UniFi-AP-AC-LR-...
I would assume the same holds true for the AntiVax movements. While I constantly hear about it online, I don't know a single parent with that mindset.
Actually, more and more municipalities are buying back their grids and making them public. It’s a slow movement but more places see that’s its better to put their utilities in public hands. There are some 30 some odd small cities and counties in the voting process as of earlier this year. I read an article about it... can’t remember where. I think a mix in the chain is really good. Some parts private, some public. The problem is management. Where private does excel better than public is foresight as long as the numbers justify it. Gov doesn’t like admitting problems until they happen. Private will circumvent a problem if the catastrophe is more expensive than the fix. Usually, not always. But no one celebrates a plane landing, except for the passengers. We all just talk about the crashes.
Is there PoC website where I can get hacked via JavaScript exploiting those side-channel vulnerabilities? For me it sounds too theoretical.
6'9" guy checking in, thankfully just a tourist to the town for a week - it was always leg day when I was on the tube.
> Why are you constantly arguing in bad faith?

I've been wondering the same about you.

> "For their own benefit" means literally what the words say -- something that benefits them.

You have to admit that "it means not willingly hitting yourself in the face with a hammer." and "Nobody but an idiot does things that are purely destructive to themselves and everyone around them." is not the clearest way of expressing that. "Not actively harming everyone" is not the same as "doing things for your own benefit".

> Your wrong assumption is that socially beneficial acts can't benefit individuals.

That would be a wrong assumption indeed, considering society consists of individuals.

(I'm tempted to write more, but I've already spent more than enough time telling people they're wrong on the internet today)

> That's something we can argue about

Even if we actually disagreed on that point: It looks like there's something about us that means that no, we can't argue.

> but you don't have to be a self-righteous jerk about everything.

That is true. But when I perceive someone as arguing in bad faith, then it's hard to resist – even if they aren't and we're just misunderstanding each other.

When you wrote that you believe that Google does not violate the GDPR, to me it was like arguing that the moon does not exist because it would rip apart the earth. That might be an interesting intellectual exercise but I don't have to analyze your theory to know that it's wrong. The GDPR plainly says that you cannot force your users to consent. Google does. Easy to verify from Europe. Case closed.
I hope that explains why I refused to debate that topic.
> Hanlon’s razor only applies to individual persons, never to corporations or groups.

Why?

Do you think that the only reason for applying Hanlon's razor is some sort of moral principle (that only applies to individuals)?

I think the reason to apply Hanlon's razor is that stupidity is far more widespread than malice, and so that should be my prior. This is a purely epistemic argument, with no moral component.

I also think that larger groups always contain more stupidity than smaller groups, and I think it grows super-linearly. On the other hand, the effect of group size on malice (and on benevolence) is very complicated and unpredictable. Do you disagree with one of these beliefs?

If you agree that groups are almost always stupider than people but only sometimes more malicious, I think it's clear that I should be at least as eager to apply the razor to groups as to people.

In conclusion, an apposite quotation:

> Moloch! Nightmare of Moloch! Moloch the loveless!
This is exactly what "Never Split the Difference" is advocating.
I have a mechanical wristwatch, and love it. Scenario: I want to know how long something lasts (e.g. lunch)

Wristwatch:

1) raise arm
2) pop crown
3) twist crown to align hands at 12:00
4) push crown
5) twist crown to wind

And now I can view at a glance how long it's been since I set it.

Same function with my smartphone:

1) dig smartphone out of pocket
2) press power button to activate screen
3) swipe my unlock figure (sometimes twice because it doesn't register correctly)
4) tap clock app icon
5) tap timer tab icon (out of three extremely similar-looking icons, sometimes tap wrong one)
6) tap 'reset' then start icon
7) press power button to deactivate screen
8) put smartphone back into pocket
and everytime I want to check that timer:
9) dig smartphone out of pocket
10) press power button to activate screen
and the timer's displayed.

Twice the effort, thrice the hassle.
Why do you need Spectre for that? Just install backdoor. It's not like someone runs npm from restricted user.
> if it wasn't this exploit, it'd be a different one --- will be a different one

It has been the go-to argument against regulations by the weapon industry that if we don't produce and sell the weapons then countries will just buy it from someone else. War and conflict will happen regardless where the purchased weapon was produced.

Bad actors will have a slight harder time if fewer people produced exploits and keep known vulnerabilities secret. If fewer people produce weapon the cost of war increase. Producing exploit will always have the cost of making it slightly easier for criminals to comit crime.
More than half the NSA's actual, chartered job, and the part of NSA's job that precedes every other job to which it has been assigned, is to collect signals intelligence from foreign states. Modern SIGINT involves exploits. Publishing exploits, even after you're done using them, harms that mission. Does that appropriately answer the "what for???" question?

A reasonable complaint about NSA is that the IAD (defensive) mission doesn't belong in the same agency as SIGINT or TAO or whatever they're calling it now. But that doesn't have much to do with this story; the SIGINT mission of any major government is going to (1) collect exploits and (2) almost never publish them, because that's how SIGINT is done.

NSA collecting exploits doesn't prevent anyone else from discovering and reporting the same vulnerabilities. So maybe your complaint is that we're not funding enough defensive vulnerability research?
I’m saying that if you happen to grow up in a more affluent environment and/or with parents that have the right connections of course you will have better outcomes. But too many people who have had those advantages think they are “self made”.
Companies cut corners all the time, but then pay the price later through refunds or lawsuits or reduced sales or higher costs.

But Intel cut corners and offloaded most of the downside onto their customers and partners while pocketing the upside for themselves.
Whenever I read the word unhackable my neck hairs stand right up.
A great sales book is The Ultimate Sales Machine. Here's a summary:

https://capitalandgrowth.org/articles/893/book-summary-the-u...
Interesting that they measure FPS instead of frametime. FPS doesn't scale linearly, but frametime does.
> they die for ideals

Sometimes. This is not something generally expected of people, and newsworthy when it happens. Not all ideals are also selfless - some, like loyalty to one's God in expectation of an afterlife, is directly selfish.

> work their whole lives to give their children a better future

A combination of biological imperative and social pressure older than civilization; also pretty selfish.

> save for retirement

Most people can't really do that, especially not when living paycheck-to-paycheck. That's why retirement funds tend to be done in opt-out and usually socialized fashion.

> produce research on subjects that will only achieve tangible outcomes in the distant future

Even ignoring the status seekers, pure intellectual curiosity gives short-term emotional rewards. I doubt most researchers would be able to sustain their efforts if they didn't feel at least some immediate intellectual reward that outweighed their lowered (or sometimes non-existent) salaries.

My point isn't that individuals aren't capable of putting long-term benefits in front of their short-term interests. My point is that they aren't capable of doing it at scale, in a coordinated fashion. A lot of this boils down to coordination problems - when personal sacrifice has low marginal utility (i.e. you need to get a lot of people on-board to materialize the benefits) and high immediate cost, few people will choose the sacrifice, and even if a small group coordinates on this, the first person to defect will destroy it all.
Thunderf00t had me convinced years ago.

Cheap tunnel debunked:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ezF7NmwQZs

Hyperloop debunked:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNFesa01llk
I landed an ML job at a unicorn
Should we also abandon the regulation on not stealing things? It makes my startup idea much more difficult too.

Individuals' rights over their data should just be another human right like property rights and not being harmed by others.
For 10-15% FPS I'd take any vulnerability any day of the week. I'd easily accept wiping my machine every night and never browsing the web on the same machine if that's what's required. I can just get another machine for whatever other task I have and it's pocket change compared to the gaming machine.
It's funny I feel the opposite.

I feel Go's 'opinionated' language design insults my intelligence.
You're missing my point (and maybe Smollett's a bad example as we didn't learn the truth for a few weeks; I see the same mob mentality in similar stories). I'm saying they shouldn't jump on the mob mentality without identifying the context of the situation (for example, the case in the article, where we learn the patrons had a history of stealing meals). When someone is joining the mob without stopping to investigate, and it's someone I know to brilliant otherwise, it's very disheartening. Moreover, the emotional knee-jerking that happens has very real consequences, and when it turns out the indignation was misplaced, I see too much dismissing of the harm done as merely unfortunate collateral damage.

In other words, learn to think for yourself, and chill out on Twitter, at least until you have more information than a 30-seconds news bite. The initial response is usually not much different than what I saw in the Smollett case, so that should be an example that causes everyone to wait before grabbing the pitchforks in the future.
There aren't that many public diagrams, so I whipped up a quick example of spec and diagram here: https://gist.github.com/hwayne/2619df2dd7055a57de96f8769c37f....
And to think, all we ask in return is that the United States cease doing computer-based signals intelligence, while the rest of the world continues to do it. A small price to pay for making it slightly harder for criminals to commit crime!
That’s exactly what I’m saying - that he had a better outcome not because of any innate capabilities but because he had parents who could afford to give him that advantage.

And I had the most “intense” help you could have - a parent who had all of the know how and resources to ensure her child did well in school and on the SAT. How many kids struggling in Calculus or Trig can get as much help at home as they could possibly need. Did I mention that I had an aunt that taught science at my school and that one of my math teachers were taught by my mom?
so... I'm with this, but... I know the results my logs would be.

I want to work out and be in great shape. Run, stretch, weights, yada yada.

I can log all day. It won't change the fact that I'm lazy/just don't have the work ethic to actually do it.
I imagine the anti-GDPR-folks might argue that overly onerous restrictions have been harmful to smaller players. Temperature requirements effectively made Peking duck illegal in California, until a lawmaker representing the Chinatown area proposed a law specifically exempting it: https://www.sgvtribune.com/2015/08/22/peking-duck-is-so-impo...
9/11 was an exceptional circumstance. You could try and replicate that study again, some time after it - e.g. now. If the study still won't replicate, that's evidence for it being bogus. Single replication failure isn't necessarily damning for a study, much less the entire field. But if most studies keep on not replicating, then you have a problem.
But, exploits being produced or not doesn't change the fact that exploitable bugs exist in the first place. I would say it's preferable to have people making exploits so these bugs get patched sooner or later.
All this bullshit could of been avoided if they remove IME
https://web.archive.org/web/20090320104608if_/http://www.neu...

optimistic prediction at current usage pin peak uranium around 270yr without breeding.

now add 70x more reactor and that's that.

if we ever get to thorium breeders we get a chance of sustaining society for 120years, so 3-5 generation down the road.. and every year of 70x nuclear without breeders we lose a fifth of that.
120 ye with recycling
Canva usernames and email addresses compromised
Don't forget about the boy and his clock down here in Texas a few years ago.
Here is the IPCCs detail of ghg gas emissions [1]

The gross global warming effect of pollutants that you are mentioning is low compared to CO2. Methane emissions amount to around 16% of CO2(e) emissions, and NOx emissions amount to around half of methanes. Refrigerants and others about 2% so far, though they could get worse if not better controlled (which seems to be drawdowns case).

The IPCC highlights CO2 because it is the main problem which has to be dealt with.

[1] https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SPM.02_rev1-...
Accuracy stats? This seems like an anti-feature to me, and a little paradoxical to collect tons of data to exclude others from data selection. I'm sure it could work, but it seems like there could easily be a couple years standard deviation which would lead to many false positives.
Send an email to yourself? CC your accountant/company secretary.
> Wrong, false, liable, limited set of privacy related information should be correctable, removable

Which is exactly what the law is for.

The examples in the article were deceptively reported. For example, the doctor who asked The Guardian to take down articles about her suspension: she had successfully appealed that case, and a judge overturned her suspension and ordered the record expunged: her name was dragged through the mud on bad information.

Compare that to the US where any kind of accusation, even if it turns out to be false, can easily permanently ruin someone's job, career prospects, or life.
How are you getting $1500 for a car that needs $1000 worth of transmission work?

That only works if you can see into the future and know that you will need transmission work soon, and then it requires you to find a buyer who doesn't share that opinion. Essentially, you have to screw someone over.

Otherwise, if the transmission is already broken, the situation is that you either pay $1000 and get a working car (ie. repair the transmission) or sell your car for $500 and then buy a new one.
Yeah. I also miss that one HNer who repeatedly pasted "so you want to help fight climate change?" comments with news on the cleantech space under each climate thread some time ago.

EDIT: found it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15127154
I'm pretty sure that the type of person who is bothered by this isn't bothered specifically by brand names being spelled incorrectly, but is bothered just as much by e.g. "TeX" not having the final X capitalized. (And are still actually bothered by "TeX" because the E is supposed to be capitalized and subscript but not smaller than the T or the X, and that isn't possible to express in Unicode plaintext [or most things besides TeX itself.])
The first benefit was directly as a result of the second. It was the hyperloop concept that afforded the option of a smaller diameter tunnel; switching to a more traditional transportation method would mean concessions all around if you want to still stick to the smaller diameter.
Why Fiction Beats Truth
"But then, one of my attorneys advised me against this. Basically, the concern was that if I publish something publicly about my understanding of GDPR, and it contains an error of understanding (after all, IANAL), then I could be held accountable for that. That felt really crappy to me -- after all, I'm just doing the best I can, and it seems like there's a lot of misinformation about GDPR out there on the web. Does anyone know anything much about this? To what degree can a company executive get him or herself in trouble for publishing a document that summarizes his or her own understanding of the effect of regulation, if the executive's company is potentially affected by said regulation?"

To me this sounds like typical lawyer paranoia. In what way could you be held accountable for publish your interpretation? You are not giving legal advice.
You're basically describing the black swan problem [1], but I'm not sure what your argument has to do with the premise of the article, which I understood as "tracking your life in a mechanical manner allows you to make better, more objective decisions."

Are you saying we shouldn't track aspects of our lives because that could lead to essentially "overfitting" decisions based on personal data? I don't think the data or the collection of the data is the problem - it's ignoring black swans.

I'd argue that our decisions are always influenced by our personal, recent past. If it's not explicitly written down in a spreadsheet, it's imprinted on our subconscious and associated with related emotions.

At least spreadsheets/journals allow us insight into details that we're likely to forget in our day-to-day lives. I think personal tracking is a net positive for anyone.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Swan:_The_Impact_of_...
> More machines means more power to cool them

That doesn't sound right. A large number of weak computers, should be easier to cool. A cluster of smartphones can get by with passive cooling, but my laptop cannot.

Apart from cooling, I'm not an expert on this but I don't know that performance-per-watt has to improve as overall power increases. Going with my idea you'll need to power more motherboards, but they'll be less powerful motherboards. (The total number of CPU cores being powered remains the same. Same goes for RAM modules.)