skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Upwork banned a Top Rated freelancer($50K,1000+h) for no justified reasons
I am not sure what “a physically separate network” means when it is used by the same computer. (Also, what about accessing your storage over WiFi? Or, you have to have cables strewn all over the place?)
They're proof of cowardice and intellectual dishonesty. That's enough.
To be honest I'm hesitant to respond to you because of the level of spittle-flecking you're doing in this thread but I would guess that, by virtue of bash being the standard Mac shell and zsh being a close-enough-but-better replacement, the necessary learning has already happened and overwhelmingly more Mac terminal users will be at least functional with it immediately.
Sounds amazing. If car companies will keep selling ICE cars that money should be used to subsidize companies that are trying.
The article authors didn’t understand peering agreements that have always been a thing. If one network receives more data than it sends there have always been price negotiations.
It's kind of an "on paper" crime, a la Al Capone. You'll get caught quicker if you have a manual audit after paying bribes. The IRS keeps your returns private, for the most part, and if you don't pay you could have 10 years tacked on.
Can people use or license Apple's version of DRM instead?
I don't need a job to give my life meaning. Thanks, but I already have friends, family, hobbies, etc. It's the need to have a job to pay my bills, that reduces the time I can actually spend with my friends, family, hobbies, etc.

So, the current system gives meaning to some, and takes meaning from some. I'd have to see some math first, in order to believe it is actually a net benefit on average.

> many craftspeople have notions of pride in their work

Yeah, the job keeps me advancing at my craft; I think alone I would be doing similar things anyway, but probably more slowly. At the same time, the job often forces me to cut corners; alone I would prefer to do things properly, rather than hurry up towards a bullshit deadline only to fix things later when they start falling apart. Again, the pride is both given and taken.

> I think people actually want to feel like they are contributing to society, like they are useful.

But that's quite different from having a job. With more free time, I could contribute to society in ways that are not predictably profitable (which is why I am not doing as a source of income now), but would probably have more meaning that what I am doing now.

> how do we make work more meaningful for people

If you make it voluntary, at least the smart people will have freedom to optimize it towards more meaning. Maybe stupid people will need more guidance. If so, let there be some provided, but again, make it a bit more voluntary than "obey or starve".
On the presentation they said it would be available on web and android.
Seems like more and more "content creators" are getting into the platforms business, and I genuinely don't think many, if any of them are going to succeed. If Legendary Pictures, with their Chinese government money and big acquisitions of Nerdist and Geek and Sundry couldn't make their subscription site work, what makes these guys think they'll be any different? As a consumer of content, I don't want dozens of different platforms, all taking a share of my wallet and attention, I want one single platform with all of the content.
The "joke", which is part of the headline but not in the submission, is that the new Mac Pro resembles a cheese grater, hence the shredding.
Net neutrality is not what most people are voting on.
How do drivers of cars deal with driving among trucks and buses?
It’s an argument in favour of ZSH over Fish. It will cause less disruption, while providing better features than the current default.
No need for whataboutism here, as no one is here to argue that Google’s competitors don’t engage in anti-competitive behavior. This is about how Google uses its open source products to shape web standards to their sole benefit, while using its “openness” to pretend otherwise. The author explicitly singles out Chrome, because it has a huge influence on the entire web despite the little attention it receives from consumers.

> The proof is in the pudding on Chrome's tangible open source impact

Yes, the more influence Chrome has, the better it is for Google.
That, and I'd still expect an RJ-45 port somewhere.
So the limit is increased to 1 minute? Is it possible to run a continuous task in the background (like foreground task in Android)?
No. Macs run macOS, iOS devices run iOS (and now, iPadOS), Apple Watches run watchOS, and Apple TVs run tvOS. They might have shared heritage but they are decidedly not the same platforms; these are not different form factors for the same thing (aside from iPhone/iPod touch and iPad), these are different platforms with different use cases, different capabilities, different sets of available frameworks including what languages are supported both in terms of compiled code and what can run as an interpreter on-device, different kinds of considerations for interaction, different userbases with different expectations.

This is not some far flung usage of the term 'cross-platform'.

Nobody would doubt that Windows 10 and Windows Mobile/Windows Phone are/were different platforms. Nobody would imagine a modern Linux distribution and Android were remotely the same thing, despite their shared heritage and the fact that Android can very happily run optimised for pretty much any form factor that an OEM decides.

It's merely because all of these different platforms are made by the same company that even the slightest bit of skepticism creeps into peoples' minds but make no mistake, they are different beasts with different needs. If they were as similar as people think they are, iOS developers wouldn't need something like Project Catalyst to bring their apps to the Mac, they'd already be doing it.
Please don't post unsubstantive comments or personal attacks here, regardless of how uninformed anyone else is.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Imagine the call fraud now. Hello Mrs Jones I’m calling about the labs you had done last month, CBC, cardiac panel etc., with Dr Bob. I was alerted to make the call because your values are out of normal range and there are critical things I need to review with you. Before we get in to the details I need to first confirm your identity.

—-
Or
—
Your insurance only covered part of the blood labs on the 12th. To release the results to you doctor I need to secure payment today for 189.74.
My understanding is all kids moved to Instagram / Snapchat as soon as parents started using Facebook too, and now parents are on Instagram too so I expect kids are already using something else.
Presumably it also truncates the password when doing sign-in?
Comprehensive explanation on how computer vision technology work in mobile AR
It still has the pre-1979 revolution bank notes for Iran. Not only has it not been in circulation or considered legal tender for decades, but also because of the inflation, the value of the note depicted is laughably low—like less than half a cent.
> In a lot of European countries, vehicles entering from the right (aka merging onto the highway) have the right of way

Really? In Ontario, entrance merge lanes are marked as if the opposite is true, with "lane ends 300 m" signs and painted lines all the way until it tapers off to nothing.

I'm not sure what the law says, but this creates the feeling that "you're lane is ending, not mine", and it's entirely up to entering traffic to match speed and find a gap. Basically, freeway traffic shouldn't adjust their speed unless it's the only way to let entering traffic enter (if there's no room).

In contrast, most US states seem to immediately merge the two lanes into one really wide lane that gradually (or rapidly) tapers down to normal width. Often without any warning signs for freeway traffic to expect merging traffic.

(Some US states also do this for exit ramps, which creates the dangerous situation where some drivers will accidentally take the exit at freeway speeds. This happened to me once at night, and I had to slam on the brakes before running the stop sign at the end.)
as far as i know !! does not work on fish, which means it's dead in the water (had to) as far as i'm concerned.
Thanks. I had not noticed even though I scrolled to the bottom
Can't both of those things be true?
I'm very conflicted about this. I feel like it gets to the core of what makes Apple so difficult, actually: it's good. It's a user-positive move that puts privacy back into users hands in an easy to use way.

But it's also an operating system manufacturer exercising an extraordinary amount of control over their platform. It makes me very uncomfortable.
Correct. BUT, I've found this level of detail is often too much for a 5 to 6th grade level audience.

So I usually start with "what if the back rotors go a little faster?": it tips it forward, beginning a series of operations leading forward motion (like turning the wheel of a car away from center -- what happens if you keep it turned?)

I've also found that words matter: "attitude", "differential", "pitch", "velocity", "acceleration", etc. -- may be hard to access, and simpler terms like "faster", "slower", "speed", "tipped" are usually more broadly understood.
I do not understand this positive excitement. The market price for the performance they offer is a fraction of what they ask. Why not build your Xeon system for fraction of the price? Or buy workstation from small builders, more expensive, but hassle-free and still fraction of the cost.
Maybe I'm missing something, but based on skimming, I wouldn't say that. Keep in mind though that we don't read every thread, or every comment in any thread. There's too much content.

Also, we're looking at account histories, not just isolated comments, when we ban someone.
Apparently it is because "They like it that way". Pretty wild if you ask me.
> Seems pretty unlikely

Why? The example from Piskvorrr is textbook violation of 18 U.S.C. 473: (paraphrasing here) Handing out fake money with the intent that it believed to be real is a crime.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/473
For those wondering why Apple is allergic to GPLv3 code: there is a clause in the license requiring you provide a way to run modified version of the software which would require Apple to let users self sign executables.
>In math, a “singularity” is a function that takes on an infinite value, usually to the detriment of an equation’s sense and sensibility. In physics, the term usually refers...

The dictionary defines "singularity" as...

>...you will find a challenge, if not a beauty; and that you will proceed in your own way after all, since in casting off man, man will save himself.”

In short, the future is a land of contrasts.
To be clear, it's illegal for corporations to give money directly to federal candidates. This is a tally of donations from employees of those companies, which makes this a function of workforce ideological leanings more than anything else.
It took my 3yo niece about a week to learn how to escape guided access. At that point it became more of a hassle then a help. It might be fine for toddlers but for any kids over 2 you need a fully sandboxed profile if you’re not handing them a dedicated tablet.
It's the most expensive cheese grater I've ever seen
I'd much prefer some code with a license that doesn't make looking at it a hazard for writing (A)GPL later, than to have to read the paper many times until I figure out how they meant to combine loads of prior research that is only mentioned to exist on the side, without any info on whether it was used in this or not.

Being able to compile in some way and, possibly after some bug-fixing/compiler-pleasing yielding useful results that approach/relate to those in the paper, greatly increases my confidence in the researcher and his work.
Pretty code is nice, but it's weighed separately, not affecting the appreciation for the original research work itself. Only the existence of code with an AGPL or less restricted license affects how I perceive the paper/original research.
Theorem | Software Engineers, Solutions Architect, Product Managers and more. | USA, Central and South America, Europe | REMOTE | https://theorem.co/

We are a diverse team of talented engineers, designers, and product managers from 10+ countries and five continents around the world. United in our passion for creating outcome-focused software solutions, we build products for business, many Fortune 500, as if they were our own.

If you're interested in working on a variety of real-world problems from great companies all over the world, I encourage you to learn more. Ideal candidates are located within GMT-10 to GMT+2, have some consulting experience and are comfortable working remotely.

All Open Positions: https://theorem.co/careers

If you find a role that you think may be a great fit, email your resume directly to joshua.mcginnis@theorem.co and I'll make sure it is reviewed by the correct manager.
Tab autocompletion, especially for command-line flags, is great. Try it out with 'ls -<TAB>' and you'll see all the options and a description. The z command to cd to common directories without typing the full path seems useful, but I've never gotten it to work.
>for movie studios

You have to wonder how many you could reasonably expect to sell that way, though. Everyone in this thread is talking about some upper-elite of pro computer users (above your ordinary multi-six-figure developer salary on HN), but at only $6k per, that's not any way to make money. If that's really the target market, I would worry about making my design money back, let alone making a profit.

So I have to assume that that's not quite true: it's a computer targeted at studios, other million dollar a year creative professionals, and (the largest market) relatively rich folks who want to play at being creative professionals. Nothing else makes sense: it's not a computer for enthusiasts, because it's at least 50% overpriced for the market, it's not for developers, as this thread amply illustrates. Consumers are far more likely to buy an iMac than a Mac Pro if they have a desktop at all. The only major market left are people with enough disposable income to buy products because of their branding and because they know it's what the fancy creatives are buying. Buying a Mac Pro will make you feel like a multimillionaire creative - that's the selling point.

It's really the same principle as in digital cameras. Pricey full frame SLRs like the Canon 5D mk.IV are great cameras that are essential to photography professionals, but the vast majority of the market for these cameras is wealthy people who want to buy the expensive model from a recognizable name brand because "it's what the pros use".

Edit: perhaps those who disagree with this could provide their own breakdown of who they think is the target market for these, and how many Apple can expect to sell to each.
The ability to run on my phone seems like an important feature.
From my perspective, the message that "we don't care about work-life balance" is equivalent to "we expect you to prioritize your job over your physical, mental, and emotional health".

That, to me, is a really big red flag. The founders are making it clear that they care more about their bottom line than they do about their future employees. I think this is an immature and problematic way of going about business.
It makes some laws impossible to enforce. Why even make enviromental regulations when everyone will just bribe their way out of them?
A mini can be all of that, minus the ECC memory. 6/8 core CPU, 64GB RAM, external SSD (at 3000MB/s if you need that), external GPU. That's a beast machine for less than $2000.

I wouldn't recommend it for gaming as it doesn't shed heat fast enough. You can build a separate really good gaming PC for ~$1000 and still be far off from even the iMac Pro.
> You are. Retail price is adjusted to account for interchange which is adjusted to account for risk. Merchants can offer cash discounts.

That's not moving the liability the buyer, that's just part of the insurance cost. It doesn't cause the buyer to be less careless or care more about security. And there is still currently no plausible cash-equivalent over the internet.

> Again processors make money when transaction volume is higher. If this reduced transaction volume why would they do it?

Insurance companies make more money when everybody has to buy insurance. How is that an argument for forcing everybody to buy insurance? "Middlemen make more profit" is an argument against.

> Average merchant interchange is around 3% and there are 2% cash back cards, so it’s 1% net, meaning I’d be out $2000, so break even.

You're using peak cash back and average interchange fees. The cards with 2% cash back aren't the cards with 3% interchange fees. And you're not accounting for the merchant losses from the chargeback itself which causes them to have to charge higher prices. Meanwhile a legitimate $2000 chargeback is atypically large.

Those numbers go even further south for people with bad credit who can't get a cash back card and then have to shop at low income merchants who suffer a high customer fraud rate, meanwhile they won't be making a large legitimate chargeback because they can't afford purchases that large to begin with.

> Not to mention the interest-free one month loans, car rental insurance, loss insurance, warranty extensions and so on.

Marketing gimmicks that purposely sound valuable but aren't worth very much in practice.

> So you’re speculating in spite of the fact interests are currently aligned.

You're asking for data so I'm asking to run the experiment. How else do you get better data?

And your claim that the interests are aligned ignores the cost of the insurance. If you can get a discount for waiving your right to a chargeback for a merchant you trust, it's basically free money, and your interests are both aligned in not paying for insurance you don't need. If the fee is then high to have a right to do a chargeback against the shady merchant you don't trust, maybe there is good reason for that.

> And setting aside that the choice specifically exists for all brick and mortar merchants - so is there some reason they’re a poor sample?

The sample is confounded because many merchants don't offer a cash discount but many credit cards still offer cash back, and cash is slower, so many customers prefer credit cards for reasons outside of the ability to refuse charges later.

But even then, many people nonetheless pay cash, especially when the discount actually exists. If the value of being able to do a chargeback was so great, why would anybody ever do that? More importantly, why shouldn't they be able to, including over the internet?
Honestly, just using the basics of "responsive web design" (search phrase) is most of it. That is, implementing your site using CSS media queries to adapt your layout across multiple device sizes. Contrast that to using hacky device detection to deliver some entirely separate and "mobile-specific" site. One anti-pattern that often happens is the "mobile" detection is wrong, and delivers some phone-sized UI to a tablet. Instead just leverage CSS to make your site look good at the user's current display width, whatever that is, without having to know anything about the device. This is also great for desktop users, e.g. who might have your site in a browser side-by-side with something else, or similar.

All of the "evergreen" browsers have a mobile design view built into their dev tools these days. You can enable that, switch between specific device screen profiles, and continuously drag the "screen size" handles to watch your site's behavior at different sizes. This is great for development, since your web inspector view stays at full size.

Combining CSS media queries with CSS flexbox is a hugely powerful way customize the end-user experience for different devices. Flexbox not only makes basic layout adaptations straightforward (or free!), it lets you handle some otherwise tricky cases using tools like reordering support.

It's probably also worth searching for "mobile first web design" for further resources.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but we've almost immediately started down the road that HN user fyoving is cautioning us against. The idea that our government is going to go after financial firms is a bit fanciful. (In all honesty, legally speaking, fyoving is even correct in asserting that they aren't even going after tech firms.)

When you're getting people's hopes up by making them think that something is going to happen, and then nothing happens. People immediately blame big banking, big finance, big tech, corrupt politicians, corruption in general, etc etc. Which is entirely understandable. People get upset at dashed hopes. They look for something or someone to blame. And to be fair, sometimes it's even true that corruption is part of the reason.

But this time I have a strong suspicion fyoving is likely correct for a more systemic reason. Any sort of action against a lot of these companies, tech or finance, won't pass muster with the courts. It's not corruption, it's just the law. Which we can change, but it's really hard to do so because there are good reasons for some of these laws. (One way to address that problem though is to add new laws instead of changing the current ones, but there is going to be natural resistance against that too.)

I suspect that's the entire reason a certain segment of politicians are trying to bring action against the tech giants within the parameters of current law. Because they know it won't work already. They know how the supremes will rule on any such actions. (Rulings the supremes won't even have to hand down because the agencies in question will probably decide against wasting the time taking any actions in the first place.)

It's terrible. A likely diversion of 10 years minimum, during which no one will actually be able to gain any traction towards changing the laws because these elites will be wagging the dog making people think something is going to happen under current law. We should have pushed for changes in the law first. Then gone after the big businesses. But that was probably just a pipe dream of mine anyway. It was never gonna happen.
By far, the biggest source of disinformation in Taiwan is the taiwanese government and their state affiliated public/private institutions. This is the same in China, Russia, EU, US, etc. But we can pretend and even praise this attempt at "combatting disinformation", but that in and of itself is disinformation.

Isn't it funny how every country from EU countries to China to Russia to Taiwan and even in the US are trying to "combat disinformation"?

And isn't it funny how so many comments are praising it when one side does it and bashes it when the other side does it?

Look at the comments praising taiwan and even tang. Those comments are themselves disinformation. But it's the disinformation we like I guess.

It is government disinformation that leads to genocides, illegal wars, devastation, etc. But we are to believe that the government is interested in "combatting disinformation"? The article itself is disinformation.

From the tang's wiki:

"Tang was quoted saying, "My existence is not to become a minister for a certain group, nor to broadcast government propaganda. Instead, it is to become a "channel" to allow greater combinations of intelligence and strength to come together."

Tang's assertion is itself disinformation. Tang's action and tang's assertion are contradictory so tang's assertion is a lie ( disinformation ). Government disinformation actually since tang is part of the government.
I'm not a frontend dev, so when my kids came home from school and showed me this trick they'd learned, even I was impressed!
This is abundant all over the USA. I've driven all around the USA and hugging the left lane is a universal trait among the incompetent and oblivious drivers we have. (And we have many!)