skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
These are extremely slow processes that take centuries to stop. Ever seen large ocean going tankers making turns? They need to start making their turn 15 minutes ahead of time, and once they finally start turning, you can't easily stop them anymore. They respond very slowly.

Our climate is like that: it takes ages to respond. We've been building up excess CO2 in the atmoisphere for over a century now, and we're finally starting to notice the effects. Even if we were to completely stop producing CO2 now, there's still enough CO2 in the atmosphere to continue to increase heat absorption. Even if we could remove all excess CO2 from the atmosphere somehow (we can't), it would still take time for the excess heat to disappear. (The quickest way to lose the excess heat is if we could somehow block the sun, which we can't and would be harmful in a dozen other ways.)

The problem is that this concept is really hard for most people to wrap their heads around, so people tend to simplify it in ways that emphasize the urgency but exaggerate the timeline of the effect, or at least sound like they do, because that's how most people tend to interpret that urgency.

So no, the Earth is not going to end in 4 years, but it will be 4 more years of accumulated damage that will have repercussions for centuries.
The US has 500,000 homeless people. Let's say it would cost about $1,500 per month to provide them with basic lodging and basic needs. That's $9 billion per year, or about $30 per citizen.

As a comparison: The F-35 fighter program is expected to cost $1.5 trillion over 55 years. That's $27 billion per year, or about three times as much as it would cost to fix homelessness.

Let's compare with what you're advocating, which appears to be the status quo. The existence of homeless people (not all of whom are drug addicts, by the way) shows that drug criminalisation doesn't work.

Homeless people don't need more suffering to finally get their act together. Life on the streets is plenty uncomfortable and dangerous, and nobody operating according to your simplistic model of sticks & carrots would chose it.

Further criminalising behaviour you don't like such as being badly dressed or prone to shouting random, schizophrenia-induced nonsense seems not just heartless, but rather close to dividing society into your kind and "subhumans" to be exterminated. Because if you don't think they deserve food or shelter, and you want to drive them out of cities (and, presumably, towns) where are they supposed to go? I want to be as charitable as possible here, but "push[ing] people out of the public sphere" seems to be a euphemism to bus them into the desert and not watch them die.

Being slightly annoyed by homeless people is also the least you can do if you actually believe in the "public sphere" as a community of citizens, and not just the place to get cheap takeout. If others' suffering cuts into your bliss, either through its annoying smells and sounds or because there are remnants of empathy in play, that should be motivation to solve the problem. There are many countries poorer than the US that have far smaller homeless populations, so it is entirely possible.
>So, what you’re saying is that a decision you make as, say, a 17 year old is one that you must stand by for the rest of your life?

Yes, that's why at ryanmercer.com I leave incredibly embarrassing LiveJournal posts up from high school in 2001.

That's who I was, in 2001, not necessarily now. Those are things I willingly and freely shared on the internet. Do they make me cringe... yes, do I wish I'd never have posted them... yes, but I did so they are there to document who I was, to document what a random teen thought during that period, if someone or a potential employer wants to old 2001 Ryan against 2019 Ryan then I don't want to have anything to do with them.
Because water is a tangible, physical natural resource, unlike bandwidth, and billing by zoning helps prevent environmental tragedy of the commons.
Why are people so paranoid about privacy? We want better services, well those services need to know what you like. It's just a bunch of computers trying to figure out what's trending and what you need. There's no human driven analytics team out there reading and sifting through your e-mails trying to figure out who you are.

I much rather be concerned about security than privacy.
I’ve hired a lot of people, I do a lot of networking and I work as an examiner for CS students, I’ve never seen someone who was self-educated remotely compare to someone with a degree. It just doesn’t happen in a country where anyone who wants to put in the work can get a degree.

Which was kind of my point. The people who failed to get a degree are typically the people who won’t become great when they are self-taught either.

I can see why you would chose not to get an education in a country like America, where it would be a huge financial burden to do so, but we literally pay people to attend their free education.
My non-citizen wife is a web designer for a minor department at the Smithsonian. They had to employ her through the non-profit, non-governmental side because the government side wouldn’t employ a non-citizen.
Rare Earth isn't rare. People just get things mixed up do the name.
What do you mean by this?

Are you saying that a phishing attack can be executed against U2F/WebAuthen if the attacker controls DNS?
I think the terms of service is probably just written that way to avoid liability.
Since I can't see this while it's being updated, question: Does it use the JsonResume standard? Even if there is an UI for building the resume, storing (and potentially allowing uploading of) the data in a standard that currently exists seems like a good idea.
I guess

1) they learn to have fun without the need to feel superiour (ball games need some supervision in that regard though)

2) they learn emotional intelligence, especially for activities that require collaboration (surfing not so much though)

people tend to miss, that in the early years many inner brain functions and predispositions, especially emotional regulation get tuned for the rest of the life...
It's a lack of focus on increasing sales throughput. They should have looked to resolve bottlenecks between when a lead first hits their website and when a sale is finalised.

There's always something along that process that is poor and holding back the rest of the process. An increase in throughput = increased sales.
The Meritocracy Is Under Siege
How is that harassment if people calling me about student loans I don't have isn't harassment?
Might be referring to this [1], but it concludes population sizes have gone down 60%, which doesn't sound good either, but is still a different story.

[1] https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/living-planet-report-2018
https://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm

I'll just leave this here.

Information Warfare and Perception Management is a real and valuable tool in manipulating world events, and collective awareness.

The more you're aware of this, the easier it is to start to make sense of things.

Happy browsing Not-so-Anon.
I don't get why ISPs are the only ones singled out for this. More or less everything on the internet is subsidized by data harvesting. What's so special about ISPs that it should be different?
> Whatever we think of the mainland Chinese justice system

Beijing just unilaterally broke the Hong Kong handover agreement. In that agreement, China explicitly agreed that there would be two systems within PRC territory [1]. There is no way to sue the CPC in a Chinese court to enforce Hong Kong’s rights under the treaty.

In Hong Kong (as in Taiwan, Japan, Britain and the U.S.) the government is answerable to the law. In China, it is not. That is the crux of the issue. The way Beijing is cramming down this legislation is, funnily enough, the argument against it.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handover_of_Hong_Kong
Building serverless event driven apps with Knative and Python
Thanks. I tend to think of most things in those terms. I think it's a failing of mine when it comes to discussions. If (a mean b) and (a), then (b)... no matter how much you don't want (b) to be true. My wife gets very frustrated with me when I point out logical consequences like the above. I have a hard time understanding the emotional argument.
Proper title should be "rediscovering", I think, because the author gets at that point in the text. If you can get past the politics it's a pretty apt description of what has happened: the predominantly white venture capitalist class has created a distributed pool of servant laborers and called it the gig economy.
Maybe facet the mirrors so that the reflections would flicker in some something like Morse code. I imagine it would be very difficult to decipher and could only convey a few bytes though.

Maybe just send a sealed capsule capable of re-entry into an orbit that would actually intersect earth in a few hundred thousand years. I doubt we're capable of that sort of precision though..
ddg'ing wundergound [zipcode] seems to be about perfect for me:

https://i.imgur.com/NfXUOf4.png
Yep. There's no excuse for that. It's actively bad front-end dev.
You can use a combination of a password to together with a key stored locally on all devices
The scale is different, and when it comes to societal acceptance, scale is everything.

“We need to stop all industry tomorrow or ice will melt!”

Vs

“Ice will melt. We need to close a few of the worst-impacting plants so it melts a bit slower and gives us time to figure out where we might need dams. Everybody else, as you were.”

The first proposition has no chance whatsoever to be taken seriously. I understand Overton but I admit a certain tiredness on this particular falling-sky topic.
only when maine users start being blocked from websites.
I tend to agree. As much as I love 1984, I tend to agree with some of the points Huxley made in his letter to Orwell in 1949.

"Whether in actual fact the policy of the boot-on-the-face can go on indefinitely seems doubtful. My own belief is that the ruling oligarchy will find less arduous and wasteful ways of governing and of satisfying its lust for power, and these ways will resemble those which I described in Brave New World."

The letter is very interesting and worth a read.

https://cognitive-liberty.online/orwell-versus-huxley/
Apparently the Supreme Court is interpreting the prohibition as only applying to punishment that is both cruel and unusual. Cruel alone or unusual alone is A-OK.
While I’m glad there is a major metro in the USA taking a compassionate approach, it is appalling and unfathomable to me that the idea of criminalizing addiction isn’t completely rejected outright by society.

The war on drugs has been beyond a failure. It has literally increased drug use (see DARE) in some of its efforts. It’s continued existence enriches some players, and exists as a mechanism for selective police enforcement (and abuse).

But you have to be a special kind of moron or bigot if in 2019 you still think we can fix a national drug problem by making desperate people’s lives worse.
> It's like they get pet projects in their head from reading an article in a magazine and get locked into it.

It's not like that, it's often exactly that.

I'm extremely fortunate in that while my boss sets the goals he never specifies how they should be achieved.

That means I get to implement them as we need them.

I'll never underestimate the value of smart management :).
Looks really nice. Which component is the line graph you have on the website?
Yikes. That is troubling. Thanks for the heads up.
I think the same people who are against the death penalty are probably largely the same people who want much more humane prisons.
Nice theory you have there. But is there any experimental evidence that free market environmentalism works?

In that case, in place of policy debates in parliament and election campaigns, you now have a big lawsuit going between Exxon and whoever owns the atmosphere, as well as everyone else with an economic stake in our current climate.

As bad as taxes and regulations are, is there any evidence that court battles and lawyers are more efficient? There isn't a nonzero transaction cost to resolving these things. Is it less costly than legislating a carbon tax?

Furthermore, judges and juries are going to be just as vulnerable to Exxon misinformation campaigns as politicians and voters are today. And with the owners of the atmosphere having a direct financial stake in showing that pollution is harmful to their interests, the research they fund would be even less credible than government funded research.

Does accurately estimating and doing the accounting for the externalities get easier or harder in that kind of a system?
That's almost good enough for me but the drilling for vias/through-holes kind of ruins it for me :/ There's no perfect home solution, so I make do with $10 JLCPCBs for now (which are cheap and fantastic quality, if you don't mind waiting).
They’re the same thing only if you ignore the differences between capitalism and feudalism.

I mean sure America isn’t some worker’s paradise where class has been abolished but at least the average Joe has a shot (not true in many other places in the world).
I wouldn't place bets on how "big" our "economy" is going to be once the serious destabilization starts happening. Sadly, at the moment humans are showing themselves more interested in viciously attacking each other to protect "what's theirs", rather than banding together to save us all. The standards being set by our current US government for how to help people in trouble globally are... terrifying. I'm not optimistic about what it's going to look like when the shit hits the fan. But yeah, that means our task now has to be trying to build cooperative and egalitarian power and attitude, it'll be too late when shit starts really turning upside down.
Keepass has templates for password generators. You can create custom templates as well. I've been using it since 2008 without any issue.
Anything in the service industry could be classified as servants. Programmers, some medium writers, anything.
It seems like with recent meta-material advances, you could create an object that was a hidden bug, without any hidden parts. Like if you tuned one of those metal concentric ring windchimes just right, it could modulate a radio signal based on acoustic vibrations.
That's fine. Not every conversation turns into friendship.

Most of mine I am trying to find similarities or learn new things.

After the conversation is over, it won't matter how you opened, it won't matter if the person felt suspicious. I can't control your upbringing or your day.

You either are friends, or you likely won't see them again.

No one died.
5-year anniversary of gfx-rs project: the portable graphics in Rust
> So, to me at least, your antagonism here is really you wanting to waste resources and/or not validate input. Neither are good signs.

No, I want you to give me properly challenging questions to prove you deserve to be my employer (as I will be doing the hard work to make you a gazillionaire). FizzBuzz tells me you read one article a few years ago, didn't think about it at all (why could that be a problem?), and now give it left and right to anyone that has the bad luck of interviewing with you. You are telling me you are arrogant, prideful and lazy.
Ongoing is as recent as it gets.
I'm sorry, but these kind of straw men are making discussions on the subject impossible. I argued that we shouldn't judge adults based on the stupid things they did as children.

> Do we really want to be haunted by our past in such a way?

To which my reply was: let's be mature about it and not care about trivialities from someone's past.

Now you change the subject to: "What if its you kid who's being bullied or who got bullied?". My kid being bullied "right now" is not the same as "my kid did some stupid shit 10 years ago and people are making fun of him now because of it". This is another problem with another solution, and it's not something I argued about.
There's probably an argument where archiving a particular site as a whole has some compelling public interest--say a politician's campaign site. But it seems unlikely that would extend to randomly archiving (and making available to the public) web sites in general.

I've always been told that fair use--as a defense against a copyright infringement claim--is very fact dependent.
Two things: Ajax is a good idea and I have no problem with it. CSR for updates is not an issue. My problem is with using it for whole pages that cannot render at all until a huge JS program has been run. When you're building a SPA, this is fine. But most web pages (like the original blog post here) shouldn't be SPAs.

Second, I didn't remember that clause from TBR's memo, so thanks for the reminder.
AQR: Can Machines “Learn” Finance? [pdf]
Paper is good at managing collaborative editing, but I find it awful as a general editor: instead of working with what the browser provides, it tries to be clever and implement most things from scratch, and like almost everything that ever takes that approach, fails painfully, sitting firmly in the uncanny valley. (It definitely has various nice features that ameliorate this pain, but I still don’t like it at all.) Over the last year or so I have reported I think five or six distinct bugs (in three messages, I think), mostly ones that are really annoying for me, and I have not heard back from them, nor, to the best of my knowledge, have any of them been fixed. The one I hit the most regularly is selecting text at the start of a paragraph, and starting typing; for example if capitalising a list that someone else typed in lowercase. What you type goes onto a new line, rather than the same line. (I do not recall any of the other bugs I’ve reported off-hand; because I don’t actually use Paper all that much.)

And ugh, hanging punctuation is just a bad novelty that is of dubious value in prose, and strongly negative value in other forms of content. I believe it has no place in something like Paper—it feels to me like one of the developers came across the concept and thought “that sounds cool, can I make it work in Paper?” (and did a decent, though not brilliant, job of it, I admit) without stopping and thinking whether they should do it.

Oh, and Paper is so slow to load, just like Dropbox is these days. I only open either when I have to, they’re so slow to load and resource-heavy.
You might be interested to check:

https://carrd.co/

Been here forever, fantastic to use with or without phone :).
This is one of the reasons why I think it's important we look to re-using computers, build computers with interchangeable components, and look towards designing p2p networks that replicate data around. Start designing software for newer protocols to run on low-powered machines. There are so many computers in the world it's incredible and yet they're practically built to be disposable. I don't think they can continue to increase in price forever when the network of supplies to manufacture them is so weak. And especially when climate events will be able to destroy vast quantities of them quickly.

It's surprising how much computing power is stuffed into consumer laptops these days and how people keep buying new ones when their existing ones work fine.
I felt similar and the price increase was last drop. I use it mostly to store originals of pictures and video however that also means that they are little bit forgotten.
Whole family is on iOS so after I found out that Apple Photos can merge raw and jpg into single item in their UI, it was no brainer to switch to iCloud and import all the images/videos into Photos and rest of the files into iCloud.
As a bonus I can share storage with whole family in iCloud, which is not possible with Dropbox.
It might be a cultural thing but yes, here in Europe I would be pretty suspicious of someone approaching me like that out of the blue. I mean, heck, that's none of your business!?
Yes let's chat!!! Send email to randypea at gmai!.c0M
I audibly "ughed" when they introduced that stupid dropbox floating action button in Office 365.
I retired my thunderbolt display and my new one doesn’t even come close. Something is always broken and I have to fiddle with it. I get no video on cold boots and type in my WDE password to a blank screen.
Maybe attracting homeless would be a better way of putting it. Homeless people aren't inherently irrational. Given an option, many of them will choose a place they like better than one they don't. Add in politicians who see a chance to solve the issue by encouraging the homeless to move somewhere better for them (which lets them even sell the measure as a benefit for the homeless), it means that places that make it much better to be homeless see homeless from other areas moving in.
Google really, really does not like people who use Firefox and/or a VPN.
Try this in the north east and see how quickly people think you're a weirdo or annoying
That was beautiful. Thank you for the good laugh
IC stands for Individual Contributor.
I really want to believe it's because HN is extremely supportive of the trans community and therefore wants OP to be treated like most comments invoking a female perspective, by downvoting it.
Using the wrong terminology for "people from the first world as seen from the point of view of people from the third world" does not make the author's point less valid.
> The prediction is that we're heading for catastrophe, something that we'll never be able to handle. It ignores the geologic temperature record (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/65

It is indeed a chart, but no one here is ignoring it. Is the argument, "Don't worry we could just trigger another ice age and after a few tens of thousands of years the fallen bodies of our families and plants will re-sequester an appropriate amount of carbon?"

That seems to be small comfort, and it further reinforces the idea that the only threat to the biosphere you're willing to consider is a movie-style asteroid impact or something else that would shatter or at least significantly deform the planet's shape, as opposed to a change in climate dramatic enough to cause massive problems for human society all over the world.

> You mention mass extinctions, but you don't mention that previous mass extinction events were due primarily to asteroid impacts and volcanic eruptions.

No, I didn't mention it because it wasn't in scope. You dodged my question and instead tried to introduce a bunch of chaff questions to raise the notion that maybe, just maybe the science hasn't come to a broad consensus about the bad outcomes we're facing.

But the consensus is obviously there. Hell, your own diagram is from an article about said consensus, debating the finer details within the parameters if said consensus.

Why? You obviously aren't stupid. Why do you cling to ideas that are so obviously and verifiably false? It's like talking to someone who believes the earth is flat, only instead of being able to be calm and detached about someone's curious religion I have to be terrified because they're advocating for practices that cause climate destruction.
When has the lack of info/knowledge ever stopped interviewers from asking such questions? ;-)