skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yes, but do other places have the complication of having to replace systems that are sucking billions of dollars out of students to line the pockets of university presidents?

This is what makes me skeptical. A solution in the United States for our education, healthcare, or other problems has to involve removing the leeches from the system. But political bribery is legal in the US, and the leeches have more than enough money to bribe the politicians.

So insurance companies will keep existing. University presidents will keep taking home 7 figures. Turbotax won't go away anytime soon. You can either find a way to suck money away from the vulnerable, or you can be poor.
I always hate these discussions.

If you want to get paid, then create proprietary software and sell it, if you can. Nothing wrong with doig it.

But if you are developing something you call open source software and you use GNU/Linux for it, then how much money should GNU and Linus get for you doing that?

You could go with Windows insteand and pay the licensing fee.

Here we have people building things on a foundatino of free and open source software, and they feel that they should get paid for the slice that they built, but are they themselves paying every party that was resposible for creating the stack on which they are working? I think usually not.

Everyone is quite happy to accept the free work done by others but they miraculously expect to be the person getting paid.

Now RedHat took GNU/Linux and figured they ought to get paid for creating a packages, a bit of an eco system around their version and sell support and such. Was that fair?

AWS offering some service, are basically doing hosting and support on the product. A lot of people trust AWS/Google/Microsoft to run things in the cloud for them.

Nothing is stopping me from creating ThinkBeat Linux and
charge for support. Probably I would do very poorly because
people now trust RedHat or Linode, AWS to handle issues around Linux for them.

I dont think if you create a new database managment system that ou think is great, users will flock from Azure/AWS/GCP/Oracle/IBM to pay you for hosting it for them.
You are too small and too risky. Obiouvlsy some people will sign up and if you can earn money you need on that then good.
The LCHF diet is not only sustainable, it has changed the lives of many people I know, including people who claim
it has improved their mental states, emotional states, chronic pain, and weight gain.

I myself was pre-diabetic from the standard western diet of 2000kcal+ daily refined carbohydrates, and have pulled back from the brink by going LCHF.

Don’t dismiss it without a little bit of experience. It’s a growing movement, and it isn’t a fad. It has provided real results and real improvement to many, many people, and has spawned dozens or hundreds of successful small businesses.
> they're forced to do this

Figuratively speaking. None of the languages they test enforce any unit testing. What I'm suggesting is that since the Ruby community tends to be more obsessive about testing, that might lead to an improvement in code quality when comparing against other similar languages like PHP or JS which are less obsessive about testing. It's something you might have to control for to see the impact.

Type systems are a completely different factor; you'd have to control for that variable too to determine the impact of it. My experience with both systems makes me predict that static typing would improve code quality, but if you want to actually be scientific you'd want to add that factor to the statistical analysis to see if the data support that hypothesis. Anecdotes like personal experience don't count.
RES is on FireFox.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/reddit-enhanc...
Yes and no. It depends on who you're talking about and at what point in time. Swords were much more expensive than other weapons because they require more metal and are more time-consuming and labor-intensive to make, so your average viking couldn't necessarily afford to buy one. That's also why you tend to see swords buried with vikings: those who could afford or who warranted a fancy burial tended to be those who could afford to buy swords.

The prevalence of swords increased throughout the viking age (which ended roughly some time in the mid to late 1100's). That happened mainly for two reasons: One was that the Vikings were engaging in a lot more pitched battles against Anglo-Saxon and Frankish armies, who tended to carry swords. Of course they'd steal swords off dead soldiers, so the number of swords in circulation among vikings increased. Second, as viking power grew they were able to broker arms deals (occasionally as part of "tribute" payment) with Frankish rulers and with vikings who'd been gifted land in Normandy in exchange for warding off other vikings at the mouth of the Seine.

I'm not aware of anyone actually fighting with a hammer. Axes were very common because they were so cheap that virtually everyone had one- even farmers. Pikes were definitely used on occasion but were more special purpose tools for pitched battles. Bear in mind that vikings didn't really want to fight pitched battles at all if they could help it. They were raiders. The word viking ("wicing") is the Anglo-Saxon word for "pirate." The Codex Regius, which is the written source of most Norse mythology and thought to be written around the mid 1200's, is replete with references to both swords and axes. Otherwise, most of what we know about vikings and their weapons comes either from what the Anglo-Saxons wrote about them or archaeological studies.
"it would be incorrect to say that the bit has a value of, say, 0.5 during the transition."

In what sense? It has a <z>=0, meaning there's a statistically 50%/50% chance of measuring 1 or 0 but the system is in principle coherent.

This means that half way through the jump, if you rotated it 90 degrees, you'd measure a _definite_ z value of -1 or 1, or you'd measure a bit value of 0 or 1, depending on whether you twisted it clockwise or counterclockwise.
Unfortunately no audio of the drone itself so we can judge its noisiness.
I don't get how banning racist crap is a stepping stone to banning all speech. I just don't. I mean, it's not like racism is a subtle legal category that people can rule-lawyer you into. It's pretty clear when it happens, and it's bad, so it should be banned. Also, it's not like almost every European country has enacted laws against hate speech, Holocaust denial etc. and turned into a totalitarian hellhole decades after.

Also, Youtube is a private company, yes it's huge but no one is entitled to a huge audience, yadda yadda. The rest of your rant is hard to make sense of.
PHP? C?
Do any of those places host a substantial portion of the public political debate? If any of those places banned people, would that significantly reduce the ability of those people to meaningfully participated in the public political debate?
It's not that there aren't real issues, but the American attitude is strange due to Trump seeming mostly interested in political benefits at home, rather than actual economic gains.
It isn't sudden, there's a lot of verification work for Rust already going on, e.g. the Rust Belt Project.

I don't see how delaying would help in the long run.

(Full disclosure: I'm MD at Ferrous Systems)
If nothing happened, why censor it like crazy?
It might see a few of the existing flat earthers harden their view, but I suspect they'll gain fewer followers overall when hidden from mainstream content. What's interesting is that fracturing hateful communities does decrease the spread of their message[0]. I have to think that we could see similar trends with fringe theories, like the earth being flat, or bleach being a cure for autism. Which would in turn prevent users who might fall into the rabbit-hole that is the cesspool like communities among hate based groups, and the more fringe theories (again, flat earthers, anti-vax luancy, etc.)

0: https://medium.com/acm-cscw/you-cant-stay-here-the-efficacy-...
I think you know what's being discussed.

YouTube should actively try to prevent people from being drawn into racist rabbit holes. If your rabbit hole ends with "and that's why we should exterminate Jews", probably not a good idea to encourage viewers down that path.
That's an argument for active participation in the political process and an engaged electorate, not censorship. To default to the support of censorship of what you disagree with is simply laziness (and antithetical to the fundamental principals of a democratic society). If your government and society can't withstand the free expression and discussion of unpleasant ideas, you have problems with the current implementation of government and society (and the unpleasantness isn't at fault). Masking the symptom doesn't solve the root cause.

To your example, you put misplaced blame on a propaganda machine, not uneducated, unengaged, emotional citizen voters.
>Their non-profit status hasn't even done much to keep costs low, as they can just keep hiring tons of redundant administrators and have never-ending construction, thereby justifying higher tuitions as "operating costs".

Is there any evidence of non-profit universities doing that? Here's the best expenditure data I have from the Department of Education. Per-student real expenditures are up about 20% over 17 years. That doesn't seem like "hop(ping) on the gravy train".

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_334.30.a...
I meant lego duple games on phone or tablet. They are for that age range. One of them is about mama duck searching for 5 baby ducks. Another about rabit going to buy ice cream, yet another us train. Kind of adventure games for toddlers.

There are duple animals waving when you touch them and happy music.

The bricks assemble themselves in those games.
I'm not tracking anyone. But the majority of Firefox users aren't choosing it for privacy reasons, so these privacy-preserving features are not a good signal that the user actually wants that privacy.

It was worse for do-not-track, as all the major browsers enabled it by default, making it not at all a signal of user preference.
The time for moderation is over. Way over. If YouTube and Facebook has moderated in the beginning their would be no problem. That would just be the way it is.

But now? Too late.
The cynic in me thinks this is simply to have an excuse to recommend videos to people to change their views, only when it's in Google's interest.
The employer doesn't care about an employee's cost of living. The employer wants to pay as little as possible. The employee wants to make as much as his local market will allow. What the employee will accept is based on his other alternatives which is indirectly based on the cost of living.
Bikey, save 70% memory in double key Java Maps
The Atlantic have taken that principle & modernised it: every article ends not with a comments section, but an invitation to email them your thoughts; then they publish the cream of the crop on https://www.theatlantic.com/letters/.
Software Development with UML and Modern Java
I'm sure that Google has been waiting for a youtube media panic to pull the trigger on this for a while. They'd prefer to be an on-demand cable channel, and would love to remove any material controversial to anyone, but didn't want censorship to be the story (especially with antitrust stuff going around.)

Google isn't in the video business because it wants people to be able to share videos with each other. Google is in the video business to sell ads. Censoring the illiberal is the way to get to get liberals to support censorship. Announcing manual control over the suggestions is a way to justify steering viewers away from any content, starving it of revenue, and getting it off the platform.
Locks are always leases in a distributed system, at least in my experience (and for a sane system).
Strangely, I found reading the letters very entertaining, even though everybody was serious and they contained neither jokes nor irony.
It's not surprising there'd be groups advocating for that. They don't want to become a minority in their country, as both history and current events show that's a bad position to be in.
TBH, I wish there were more/better published information on where different clouds intersected for higher throughput and/or lower latency.

It could be very useful for planning on systems that run across multiple cloud providers.

For example, If I could run compute nodes on DO, but leverage another cloud's SaaS offering, etc.
The 1900s were deeply enmeshed with horses. The 1900s - 1950s with coal.

A house need not depend on oil - bricks can still be fired and glass made from carbon neutral electricity, pipes can be copper, and drainage use ceramic like was used until the 80s. Similar for transport, water treatment etc. Perhaps a few specialised uses of PVC and other plastics will remain and the rest go - regulated or priced from existence. Now 95% of coal and horses aren't around we still keep stables for fun, some still enjoy horse racing, steam trains run at weekends and museums run a few steam engines.

Thing is the assumption that the planet could take everything thrown at it used to work - now population has grown so much that no longer applies. JulianMorrison has a point that "it's useful" can no longer be enough - stuff isn't only used by a few wealthy types any more, on a planet with under 1bn, whilst most of those engage in agriculture. We have to learn to consider damage control and restriction far sooner than was necessary even in the 1930s.

My worry is the modern dogma to not want to impact business at all costs. Governments avoid strong regulation, requiring consideration of the land a business occupy, the pollution and waste they cause or the people whose needs they should serve. Essentially they became subservient to multinationals. It will make changing that much harder and fought against much more - not least by those oil interests.

Not easy, but not impossible either. There is precedent after all. :)
But this isn't a way to do a forensic analysis. You just clone the hard drive. Anything else should not be able to stand up in court.

Afaik it is practice in rule-of-law countries to hand a clone to each party in the case.
There's so many layers to that question. The major influencer though was most likely syndication.

Shows were designed to onboard viewers at any point in the series. This would enable shows to appear in random order across multiple networks and viewers would just accept them as they were.

Shows which juggled long term serial arcs while staying accessible to the random viewer seemed to be viewed retrospectively as the best of that era. Shows like X-Files, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Babylon 5, etc.

Shows which were purely episodic such as Star Trek: TNG or old Doctor Who don't hold up quite as well. They're still enjoyable episode to episode, but there's something missing that we've become accustomed to in modern television. Perhaps if you feel the rose colored glasses starting to slip into place in the future, you could look back on some of those shows that didn't age as well.

We've thrown out syndication as a concept, so what we're left with is almost lazy writing since they don't have to put a bow on every episode after exactly 46 minutes.

But ultimately I think there are those that feel that the 90's were the pinnacle of Hollywood. I recently read an article claiming '99 to be the best year in cinema. We're just living in a perpetual era of disruption and it's going to take a few more decades until people consistently figure out the new successful formulas that are unbeatable until the technology fundamentally shifts again.
Early look at Docker containers on RISC-V
Democracy and Technology (2017)
Better soundtrack here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TR9Z_w0nI74
How small? Most of my Amazon shipments could be carried by such drone.
> The dept of education needs to treat universities the same way Medicaid treats healthcare providers. Determine what it actually costs per student per year to run a university, and tell the schools "Accept $x or shove off". If they're going to benefit from gov backed loans, they should play by the govs rules.

This sounds appealing, but healthcare and education are different in some fundamental ways.

People (generally) don't end up in the hospital, on Medicaid, by choice. So there is a moral argument to be made in regulating pricing to avoid the exploitation of sick people who need medical care to survive, by capping prices for that care.

But people do choose to attend Masters degree programs -- they aren't forced to by circumstances outside their own control. The moral argument for preventing exploitation by capping price is much weaker compared with other avenues: transparency about outcomes, truth in advertising, required financial projections, etc. -- give people more data about what a Masters' degree is actually worth, and hopefully they'll make better choices. When you're in the back of an ambulance unconscious you are not able to make any choices, justifying societal intervention.

In education, limiting the amount of loans available / backed by the government for a single individual would do just as much as artificially capping prices. (From the article: "there are no hard caps on how much someone can borrow for graduate school".)

Let the crappy Masters' programs that aren't worth it get exposed and lose enrollment. By capping prices you're implicitly also saying that every Masters' program that charges this much is worth this much, an implication that is very much false. The value of a degree is not really correlated with the cost to provide it -- why base the price on cost rather than value? (Plus, how would you even "determine what it actually costs per student per year to run a university"? This probably depends on a zillion factors like endowment, cost of living, faculty salaries -- and their alternative job prospects -- availability of land and housing, etc. Would you average it across the country? Good luck running a school in NYC or SFBA, then.)

Telling a university how much it can charge for a Masters degree is like telling Tesla how much it can charge for the Model 3.
I think having a human take over via video for the last 30-60 seconds would work pretty well.

So the drone is automated for most of the time, but still uses manual for dropping off on doorstep.
>Covering up environmental compliance violations and falsifying training records is a much bigger deal than littering.

So it's not the littering/pollution that's the important crime, it's daring to lie to the government that's the important crime?

Yes, littering is bad and the fine is too small for a company this size but the fact that people see failing to <cartman>"respect my authority"</cartman> as the true crime here does not sit well with me.
Does pornography still drive the internet?
Bighoof
IOW, Google and its properties continue their slow suicide/slide into irrelevance.
Related discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20105903
Sort of?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-man-fine...
> but that they were forced to do it at all

I'd like to underline this. The Guardian co-workers were forced to perform the entire deletion _themselves_ (!!!)

It is almost like a combination of some kind of forced, unpaid employment (akin to "slavery"), shifting the blame ("you did it yourself"), or retribution ("you abused it, you take care of it"). Very twisted.
The vast majority of chats seem to take much more linear time than a 1:1 conversation. Multi-tasking them just means 5 people are tapping you on the shoulder within a near-timeframe. So 5X worse than an office? Slack is often the worst part of some email and forum hybrid.

I often wonder how many problems used to be resolved because people worked together in the same location vs now it feels like the 10 things I interact with in a week are broken or require finding a work-around. Many of the chats are "how do you get around this?"
One is about creating violence and hate against certain races, other is about reducing violence and hate against a race. They couldn't be more dissimilar.
> It is an ambitious undertaking, but strikes me more like a way to try to make more money off of Rust.

There is nothing wrong with making money off of Rust, and one of the goals of this standardization is to erase doubts that Rust is ready for commercial prime time.

The proposed specification and standardization effort is a enormous undertaking and asking for that effort to be payed for is fair (they even spell out the two funding alternatives).

If you are trying to say that this is a quick cash-grab by Ferrous Systems, you should also consider that their members have been doing a lot of upaid work for a _long_ time for Rust and its community and most of the time without direct monetary benefit.
How is he fearmongering? A white nationalist uprising is quite literally relatively recent European history, and resulted in the torture and slaughter of tens of millions.

Before Al Queda, the West's biggest fear was domestic white nationalist terrorists like Timothy McVeigh.

EDIT: It's very disturbing that so many people don't understand what the Nazi platform was all about. The supremacy of the "Aryan Race" was literally a platform of the Nazi party from the beginning. The subjugation of Jews was a part of the party platform from the beginning. The use of paramilitary squads to enforce ideological purity was a part of the party from the beginning. And it just got worse from there.
I was thinking about that the other day. The conspiracy theory I most want to be true is "global warming is a hoax". Nothing but upside there.
If you get high enough, you can learn about some “cool” things just by watching YouTube. You probably don’t want to tell your government employer about it, though.
xz-utils should implement parallel decompression already. pixz is doing it, but stock xz is not. Most end users benefit from faster decompression.
A decade and a half ago, I wrote an Oracle archived log that I had compressed with bzip2 to a DLT40 tape.

I recovered and uncompressed (without error) the log, then tried to apply it to a database recovery which rejected it as corrupt.

After several attempts to read the tape (amounting to dozens of hours), I finally put it in the original drive that wrote it and pulled the file to the remote recovery system - this worked.

I immediately began including PAR2 files on the tapes, so the restored contents could be verified and corrected.

I have my doubts that bzip2 is as sensitive to corruption as the author of asserts, but perhaps there have been improvements to the code since my misfortune.
Pan is playing with us.
Sorry to hear that you had a bad experience and left with a bad impression of that team. We have a number of data sciences efforts including in the core R&D group where we are growing and working to improve models in support of a number of fleet monitoring tasks
Figuratively speaking. None of the languages they test enforce any unit testing.

The trivial type-mistake "Unhandled Exceptions" in Smalltalk would leak out more often than was comfortable, if the project didn't have a good means of testing to catch those. I suspect that has something to do with the Ruby community being more obsessive about testing.
"less secure" nonsense is required for mutt as well.
SNL alumni of that era were pretty sharp