skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This is a really neat product I will add the following.

Years ago when I wrote algorithms to optimize inventory for consumer package goods companies I regularly heard a particular saying.

“Getting I’m to Walmart is easy staying in at Walmart is hard”

Large companies like Walmart experiment with products all the time. They are also masters at squeezing their suppliers to minimize cost and force the speed of delivery into their supply chain. People are generally surprised to realize how easy it might be to land a 10,000$ plus contract with Walmart. The real measurement within the industry is to ask how many re-orders have you been able to support while still maintaining a profitable business.

A follow up to this article a couple years from now will be really fascinating.
I think the issue is premise 2. Real things implies it is possible for it to exist.

The moment you can concieve of a thing which can't be real, 2 is invalid.
>This form of "copy thy neighbor" just happened with something like three major R&D products/features, one of which was cancelled and another leaked in the tech press.

I don't keep up with tech press leaks. What products/features were they?
Privacy group challenges $5B Facebook settlement
Can you do something about duplicate questions?
Actually, I don't use a car. (Also, I still use a bank account when dealing with the government, but that is all I use it for.)
How exclusive is the Tesla charging network? Is it available to use for other brands of electric car?
We do have mechanisms that deter us from committing suicide like fear and pain.

The good thing about fear and pain is that they are universally useful, e.g. both when we are on the verge of being reckless and suicidal.
Why not grab a bite when being paid next to nothing? Not too surprising, and rather practical thinking - since this way one can safe on expenses for food.

Containers should be sealed - I always found it interesting that that isn't the case anywhere.
No competing battery chemistry has been proven to work at scale. Plenty of research in the pipline, but no breakthroughs that scale so far.
Did you try Firefox?
Lein, boot, and clj are simple tools. Choosing one does not tie you to any other particular choice.

You could pick one and switch to the other after 15 minutes reading.
I don't have the IEEE 754 specification in front of me to verify, but the usual descriptions of floating point comparison considers it to be a 4-value (<, =, >, unordered), with 16 different operators defining for which of those values the comparison returns true. So an ordered equals returns true only when the result is =, but an unordered equals returns true if the result is = or unordered. The unordered operation is returned if either operand is unordered, which makes the comparison non-reflexive.

Note that floating point is already weird, because most languages make == reflect the ordered equals, not the unordered equals, and so the primitive equality for floats violates the reflexive principle (i.e., x == x returns false).
I may then be more likely to use a digital transaction for some cases, although still I would prefer to use cash as much as possible. (For one thing, it doesn't fail in the way that digital systems do. And, it can be used without a computer. There are other advantages too.)
RAD is big business these days, there are whole quadrants of gartner and forester specialized in what RAD is called today: low-code
But China doesn't have control of the lithium market.
It isn't necessarily crazy to want your suffering to end and to believe death is the only solution. This is why we have the right to die movement.
Stack Overflow Community Reacts Against Stack Overflow Company
Why are people so against burning plastic? It's easily the most environmentally friendly option.

Plastic has a lot of energy, burn it and use that energy. Then you don't need to dispose of it, and you can pump slightly less oil.
Guns? Why not arm them with EMP weapons? It's not beneficial to blow things in orbit to smithereens. Just keep'em in one piece if your country wants to be able to operate satellites in the future.

Also, good luck cooling a gun barrel in space.
In science, the credit goes to the man who convinces the world, not to whom the idea first occurs.
- Francis Darwin.
To sum up Chuck Moore's quotations: you write code that takes all of the machine, and you got to write all of the code. If you have this, you can squash out all abstraction and build the ideal solution directly.

This may hold true for small-scale hardware like controllers. They have a well-defined set of tasks, small enough to fit in your head.

This means that you have a certain trouble sharing the code with your colleagues, making the bus factor of your project closer to 1, and lowering the usefulness of code reviews.

This means that you have trouble sharing code with yourself in your next project.

You become tightly coupled do the machine. This is, on one hand, liberating, you can do anything easily. But this is also limiting, because you spend your mental resources on optimizing for this particular machine.

I personally think that deep optimization is something that the machine should do, they are better than humans at this most of the time. And humans should do want machines currently can't.
500%? I don't think you can compare percentiles like that.

Let's say someone estimates his percentile to be the 3rd percentile (aka 97% of people are better) and in reality he's in the 1st percentile (99% of people are better). Did he overestimate his ability by 200%? I wouldn't say so, I would say he was very very close.

Even at non-extreme percentiles I don't think such a comparison works. For example in some area it might be that people at the 10th percentile know nearly the same amount as people at the 50th percentile. If it's some area that most people know little about. So the abilities of someone at the 10th percentile would be nearly the same as the abilities of someone at the 50th percentile. So overestimating your percentile by a lot is not the same as overestimating your abilities by a lot.
Jack Ma’s $290B loan machine is changing Chinese banking
Daily News: Preventing Image Loads With, Lighthouse Third-Party Audit
Our society needs you to still care. It's this exact attitude that has ceded so much control to the government where there is little oversight.

It's not fair to put the burden on young people, and apathy is no excuse.
Very rarely does that translate into meaningful venture capital funding and make no mistake, it will take hundreds of millions of upfront investment.
Not understanding Java at all would seem to limit your choice of libraries, understanding of performance, and even usage of language features that directly rely on calling Java.

In theory you could but your experience won't be optimal.
It's explained in the article:

> We also use the traditional security programs to measure missed bugs (that is, the vulnerabilities for which there is a Zoncolan category), but the tool failed to report them. To date, we have had about 11 missed bugs, some of them caused by a bug in the tool or incomplete modeling.

A missed bug is presumably one that the tool is designed to spot, but which it didn't during the period in which it has been running.
I have been semi-diligently (4-5 hours/week as adult life allows) following this approach coupled with working my way through math texts. Although I zero problem grasping concepts and parsing propositions and examples, I find it very difficult to solve end-of-chapter problems. No more than 4 or 5 problems a week, and hence my advancement is agonizingly slow.

I started with Spivak & Apostol but reverted to Riley and Hobson's Foundations text because I was struggling too much with the A&S's problems. Given that I did very well on symbolic-logic proofs in an undergrad course, I figured it would be easy enough to get into math if I had diligence and sincere interest. After having been a 'D' student, my recognition of arithmetic and algebraic expressions and manipulations is hopelessly sub-par. Even many of the R&H problems are beyond my grasp.

My approach has been informed by a sincere desire to engage with mathematics (one I unfortunately did not have through my formal education) as well as several "How do I self-teach maths" threads on HN, Reddit, and /sci/. Previously I had chalked up my poor grades to an undisciplined, unmotivated youth. Now I'm beginning to suspect I may simply not have the requisite intelligence, or am at least outside the age where I had enough time and neuroplasticity to pick math up in earnest.
Ref: https://github.com/topics/clojure
Pretty disappointing to see such a poor article making it to the top of HN. I’m sure a company with 10k amazing engineers and infinite money cannot come up with the Libra ideas, but it needs to steal it from a random Joe
How do you measure risk? Done consistently over a long period, driving a car instead of riding a bike if possible will make you fat and age quicker.

I swapped jobs so that I could ditch the car and am slowly reversing the damage.
Due to Dunning-Kruger, I don't know if I understand Dunning-Kruger so well or not.
We never know the people that commit the perfect murder because no one even knows a murder has taken place. I would guess that there multiple perfect murders every year but the number is impossible to know! But I agree with her advice, only do it once if you want to get away with it.
My DK assumption/bias is that people who tout their “multiple cloud certifications” are likely more wrong than average engineers.

Would be interesting to find out how wrong I actually here...
You can just put the flags in a set and test for set equality.
Italian too
Makes you ask just one question: why? Why is the architecture not controlled by a redundant master system and a bunch of microcontrollers that act as glorified relays.
>With APT, you get a single version of each package, so it's all or nothing.

It's definitely not used as often as in npm packages, but you can use =version after your package name to apt install a particular version, or apt pinning for more complex setups.
It sounds (from the article) like they have some sort of heuristic for determining potential severity, and they're ok with more false-positives in areas where the potential damage from a false-negative is very high.
This is just like when Google stole my idea to run fiber optic internet to people's houses. I totally had that idea a long time ago when I was trying to download a gif with a 28.8 modem. I'm not sure which of the neighborhood kids told Google about my idea but they sure screwed me over.
> dumb people always think they're smarter than they actually are

This is a really bad summary of the original D/K paper, both misleading and incorrect. Maybe this illustrates nicely why the article was needed. They didn't knowingly test any dumb people; it wasn't a random population sample, it was all Cornell undergrads volunteering for extra credit. The results are relative, not absolute, they were being asked to rate themselves against the population (their classmates), not actually rate their ability. That involves guessing how good others are. We don't know how good they all were in absolute terms, only their relative scores. The results did not conclude anything close to "always", it only showed an average bias. The results show that, on the tasks they tested, the people with the best skills under-estimated their scores relative to their peers.
I'm not aware of any working demos. In terms of the weighting, your intuition is correct, there's a way how a machine learning algorithm can learn which tokens (what you call morphemes) are of significance automatically. That's called an attention mechanism. It learns what tokens are important and then passes that into a "context vector" of sorts, which is then passed into the generator network (which is some form of recurrent network).

The disadvantage of using only token-based attention is that it's still not enough context for large spans of text (> 1000 tokens), and I'm actually having this issue now in my work. That's where things like applying attention to chunks of text is helpful.

I'm still trying to fully understand attention mechanisms, so I hope this comment made sense.
How do you know that you don't recognize the achievments of assholes because you dont like them?

I mean, I find it very natural that one would overestimate the qualities of the people he likes, und understimate those of who he dislikes.
1. "This style" is kind of hard to pin down. If you mean Chuck Moore's dramatic minimalism, then, yes, but it won't resemble what most people in computing expect from a browser or photo editor. If you mean expressing the abstractions you want directly in the primitives you have without bothering about layers or even accepting the idea of higher vs lower levels, then, yes, certainly. It requires a lot of unlearning, though.

2. Sourceless programming was something Chuck Moore tried for a while where he designed a machine that was the virtual machine he wanted to program, implemented it in hardware, and then edited byte code directly for it. Later he stepped back and went to colorForth, which has the source/binary separation we are all accustomed to.
Yes, but it sounds like Harry Garrood doesn't have enough evidence to outright accuse shinnn of lying, and the NPM team also is acting as if shinnn isn't lying.

So instead of going on a lone and not-fully-backed-up crusade accusing shinnn of lying that could wind up in a he-said-she-said situation with negative fallout, Harry instead decided to use shinnn's words for his own benefit, and hype it up as a serious NPM account hacker inserting malicious code.
Nobody owns ideas.
I'm liking it so far. Doesn't bother me about being marked wrong when right. It's not like it's for anyone else. Getting some good lessons and refreshes, and works great on Firefox on my phone. Thank you very much for making it.
I'd fear for my life if I took you up on your offer but thanks anyway. I'm not surprised others haven't taken you up on it. You advocate for citizens not to be let into the US due to their opinions and you call me unamerican (not to mention the threats in the other thread). Lol. I guess in your America, only people who share your beliefs are welcome. If that is what America is, then it is, as the current president called it, a shithole and the reason for that is people like you. You can call me a wimp or any other names while pretending not to call me names in two consecutive sentences. In my America, we have freedom of speech still, one of the few freedoms that still exist, so that's fine (not so much on hn, but that's another issue). I expect that from people with as much hate as you espouse here. But god forbid you help a person that's dying by supporting a proper healthcare system. That would be antithetical to everything you stand for, wouldn't it?
I'm working on a game. I have a templated 2D vector implementation. Tile positions use Vector2<int>, entity positions and such use Vector2<float>.

I wanted a map from tile position to something else. I found that I had to implement operator<, because std::map uses operator<. That's an issue, because:

1. I didn't want to implement every single possible comparison operator just to put vectors in an array, but also didn't want to arbitrarily make `foo < bar` legal but `foo > bar` illegal.

2. What does it even mean for one vector to be "bigger than" another vector? For vector math purposes, I'd maybe expect operator< to compare magnitudes, but that would be absolutely terrible for std::map. Not everything has an unambiguous concept of "smaller than".

In the end I just made a std::map<std::pair<int, int>> and added an implicit conversion from Vector2<T> to std::pair<T, T>.
if you shoot for a satellite you best not miss or make a mess.

Using a submachine gun in space is ww3 territory.
I'm very tired of people demanding that I believe obvious nonsense like this claim that differences in skill don't exist or that differences in skill don't affect material outcomes. I get that you don't like meritocracy, but I'm not going to accept claims that it's some kind of myth. Hard work and talent leads to success.
Write Your Own Proof-of-Work Blockchain
From what I heard it’s largely due to a concern that admitting recycling doesn’t work would make it extremely difficult to get it back up and working again once the issues have been addressed.

Likewise a lot is the “sorting” people do when they throw out their trash is pretty bad. For example, a plastic bottle the cap on can’t be properly cleaned so it doesn’t get recycled. A pizza box in a stack of cardboard ruins the entire batch.

Planet Money did a really interesting two episode series on recycling. That goes into why things are ending up in landfills and why we continue to practice the ritual of splitting our trash.

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/12/741283641/episode-926-so-shou...
If only more people understood this. Not only does nobody own an idea, but we really don't want to live in a world where the opposite is true.
I meant in the US. In comparison all Tesla models sold 192K last year, for a marketshare of a whopping 1.1% (information is also from carsalesbase). It's funny that you're comparing US sales for Rav4 (just one of half a dozen popular Toyota models), with worldwide sales of electrics, and then extrapolate Tesla figures even though we're in the middle of the year.

Out in the real world very few people can afford a $45k+ car.
I did that too and learned backslashing the space is another way. Next time I'll do it that way and win the sweet green.
It explicitly covers accrued payments for services where the total cash transaction is higher than the cash limit.

3) An entity commits an offence if:

a) [payments are made]

b) the payment is part of a series of payments …

c) [in cash]

d) as a result of the payment, the total value of all amounts of cash included in the payments in the series equals or exceeds the cash payment limit
Ask HN: How have you achieved your goals?
I've never really had a consistent or a long term goal until recently, when I did try writing something down, breaking it into small bits, and following through everyday. Surprisingly, it worked! So much so I even built an app for it. But just being curious, do you all set goals often? If yes, how have you managed to consistently set and achieve them?
Google+? Personal assistants? Self driving vehicles? Cargo drones?
I got hit by auto correct on my phone and answered like this:

Question: Write the command that clears the terminal-command line screen and shows it as new
Your answer:Clear
Correct answer:clear
Not all digital systems fail similarly, consider some sort of distributed hub and spoke system that could arbitrate transactions; thus mitigating a single point of failure.
Also consider how much of everything we purchase today is entirely reliant on our digital infrastructure, if there were some calamity that entirely halted our networks I don't think legal tender would be any use.
Only 1% of Australians are fully excluded from financial services (no transaction account, no credit card, no general insurance)[1]. I doubt this law will have much of an impact on that small population.

[1]According to this report from 2013/2014: https://www.nab.com.au/content/dam/nabrwd/documents/reports/...
`for ... of` only iterate over objects that implement `Symbol.iterator`. Native objects don’t do that by default, so `_.forEach` is more useful the `for ... of` even if you are only targeting modern browsers and not compiling the code down to an earlier version of the spec.

That said, you can use `Object.keys`, `Object.values`, or `Object.entries` if you want to iterate over objects that don’t implement `Symbol.iterator`, so if you only need `_.forEach` there is no reason to pull in any libraries.

Object.entries(object).forEach(([key, value]) => {
// ...
});
To enforce correctness, you'd need to demand proofs. I think the most common approach for this is dependent types. I think you'll have to wait another 20 years before they become mainstream.
Oh, that is simple: in associative containers, you can pass an external comparator as additional template parameter. Use that. Don't implicitly convert, it will bite you.
>The drivers for third-party delivery services have deeper gripes, according to the research. Their top complaint, shared by 60% of that community, is getting a lousy tip or no gratuity at all.

So maybe ... they should be getting paid a fair wage then? If literally our only human interaction is you handing over a box, what am I tipping for?
$10k limit also applies to a series of transactions covering supply. Section 3 of the proposed legislation.
The company has to spend at least $1 billion on cybersecurity measures over the next five years.
Wow, built in 1941, still going.
I think you're misunderstanding "changing" here. It is being applied to the object of change, not the subject that is effecting the change.

Whatever is changing is being changed by another. God is not changing, therefore does not need to be changed by another. Immutability is one of the Divine Attributes (Aquinas talks about this as well).
I think Web killed Hypercard. Hypercards were kind of components and that was their power. Create onbe card at a time then connect them together. But so were/are web-pages.

But you could not connect a hyper-card to another card created by another author executing on another machine. That was the mind-blowing concept of web and it quickly became clear that that is what we wanted to do, not dabble with our own stack of "hyper" cards.

For one thing web was not tied to Apple hardware
Practices that can help you become an Activist Developer
I wouldn't say that curiosity is a common driver for suicide attempts, or did I misread what you're saying?
It's funny how Concepts are not mentioned at all. Given that they are the C++ equivalent of type classes and a common example is the "EqualityConstraint", I can't believe there isn't some interplay. Concepts are also in C++20.
I might be biased, but I've never seen these systems work well in practice. Some 15-17 years ago Microsoft depoloyed a system called PreFix which would find genuine, hard to find bugs, but then bury them under a mountain of false positives, so few teams ran it, and even fewer looked at the results. I like what LLVM did in this area. Its SCA is not very comprehensive (so it can't be relied upon for deep analysis), but when it does find something it's usually a legit issue.

But the balance of deep analysis and low false positives remains elusive. I'd be really stunned if FB really achieved a breakthrough in this area.

I do want to be wrong about this.
This is very interesting to me. An Aunt of mine is a professional Rolfer, and from what I understand the Rolf system heavily emphasizes the existence of non-blood fluid in the body and the importance of moving/loosening it. Perhaps there’s more to it than I had thought.
You don't need to wait to verify that something is done properly. We can verify that a building is built properly without waiting to see if it falls, for instance. There is solid engineering behind modern landfills, even though the popular opinion is they are terrible things.