skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's a complex issue, Brasil is doing what the US and Europe did 150 years ago: burning down the forest and taking advantage of natural resources until a large percentage of the country is covered by agricultural fields.

We did so why can't they? I think they shouldn't because of global warming and what science tell us, but there should be some compensation given under the form of a tax to keep the forest alive, I don't think that would be ecological blackmail at all.

The biggest export of Brasil is soy beans (27 billion market) mostly to China - https://oec.world/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/export/bra/show..., but of course its much more complicated then that.

The China demand has increased recently due to the US trade wars, so that plays a role too.

There are tens of different crops used for all sorts of products, like palm oil used in doughnuts, kids cereals etc.

For example, leather is exported to China, that produces clothes that are sold globally a lot of it to the west, but not only.

The Amazon basin has a huge concentration of cattle in the world (200 million heads), and is a huge exporter of soy beans (27 billion market).

Pasture land and cattle feed crops are the main driver of the deforestation, so reducing global meat comsumption is the only way to stop the economic incentive to tear down the rainforest.

Brasil by itself has no interest in tearing down the forest to feed their population, this level of agriculture is for exporting and for feeding a highly resource intensive and environmental impactful process: meat production.

Its a global problem, maybe threatening the trade deal with Brasil is an effective short term solution to put some brakes on at least some of the damage, but without a global change of common habits like eating too much meat, the deforestation is not going to slow down anytime soon, by the contrary.
The example given by the person you're replying to seems, to be understated about it, to be in a bit more complicated of an area than "just don't talk about it and things will be fine." If Bob and Alice have significant disagreements about health care policy and taxation, they can probably still get along by just not talking about it. If Bob believes Alice should be put to death because she's a transwoman, that could, you know, lead to a bit of workplace tension even if they don't have casual conversations at the La Croix cooler over how he thinks she should be stoned and she thinks she shouldn't.
I'm from FL and I remember houses used to be built to help with the heat. It was still hot, but you'd have porches and eaves to block the sun and windows situated such that you could open them to create airflow through the house. Now, everything is a sealed box so AC is absolutely necessary.
The richer ones did as a hedge, the poorer ones not really. There were more than a few economic immigrants from HK in the 60s, 70s and even 80s, but the jobs they could get were the ones we typically associate with economic immigrants (think Bruce Lee washing dishes at a restaurant, and the old China town feel). I’m not sure if that is very viable today.
So only leftist politics are allowed to be discussed openly?

That sounds like a rather discriminating and polarising policy.

And are we allowed to discuss that (clearly leftist) policy?
We're currently migrating all of our mercurial repos to git. The migration is trivial and retains the full history.

After working with mercurial for the last four years, I don't think it offers anything that git doesn't. I've found that mercurial works fine, though simple things like lightweight branching require extensions and goofy workflows (the evolve extension, topics). Integration with third-party tools and services is nonexistent. The move to git is allowing us to leverage a world of tools, as well as allowing us to skip bringing every new developer up to speed with mercurial.
If this is the case, seeing that there are lots of people around the world who are sympathizing with Hong Kong protesters, shouldn't the security directive also apply to every airline worldwide that have mainland Chinese among their passengers?
Pro-skub or anti-skub?

https://pbfcomics.com/comics/skub/
So much fun!

At first glance, only feature requests I might have added when I did this sort of work would be in for audio spectrographs in the multimedia section. Useful for finding stego, embedded thumbnails, hidden channels etc, and a generalized malicious ZIP parser that deals with the myriad of nasties packers can use.

The demand to scale this capability within an agency like that makes it worth while to build tools like this, wonder whatother easter eggs are in there beyond alert msgs.

Brits, so cheeky.
On my new Samsung tv, the Netflix app also has a SUPER annoying auto play trailer feature THAT YOU CANNOT DISABLE. I am just trying to scroll through the list and literally everything I stop on immediately starts playing audio/video content. Absolutely horrible design that has greatly diminished my experience to the point where I almost don't want to use it anymore. The only way I've managed to cope is to keep the TV muted until I actually select something and try to avoid looking at the video preview that often contains spoilers.
I'm guessing you've never worked in a restaurant...
Cheap toys are generally worrying. Unrelated to Amazon specifically, but to get an idea, you can also take a look at this EU site listing some products which have been banned/recalled:

https://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumers_safety/safety_produ...

Just scroll down a little and click on the weekly reports. The amount of kids toys being recalled every week for containing high amounts of harmful chemicals and other hazards is worrying.
But you can't tell people not to talk about anything anymore at work.
> but he was required to pick a Republican for the slot

How was he required to?
BFloat16: High Performance on Cloud TPUs
What would be a use case for lead paint that isn't satisfied by other options and isn't used somewhere people will be exposed to it? It's not just kids & through eating it that it can be absorbed. Being around it throughout normal environmental wear & tear is enough for exposure, enough that pregnant women are advised against any exposure at all. As for the general topic of harmful chemicals, it isn't a choice between proactive prevention and after-the-fact punishment. There can be both, working in concert.
> It’s bad to question (without evidence) the legitimacy of an election you lose.

With the "(without evidence)" part of this, I agree. I think "question" may be too strong a word - "challenge", perhaps. It's certainly bad to challenge election results without evidence of malfeasance.

> It’s bad to question the legitimacy when you win.

I wholeheartedly disagree here. If Trump believes that the election was unfair in some way or that there were attempts to illegally influence it, then he absolutely should question in. Since he won, it would be reasonable for him to have ordered an investigation into it.

> It’s bad to state in advance that you’ll only accept the results if you win.

I think that's certainly boorish, but the action isn't necessarily bad. The man obviously believed he would be a good and faithful President, and apparently believed that Clinton would make a poor President. Why would he challenge the result upon winning, and risk putting someone he believed to be unfit into office?
Good. Work should not be a debating society.
> I haven't seen clear, unambiguous cases of abuse beyond that.

That's the power of these things. Would you know you're reading a social media comment generated by something akin to this? No, at best it would be ambiguous.

There is no way for an everyday person to tell how much of their life is impacted by ML at this point.
The consequences of climate change are here and have been for years. In Hawaii >50% of coral reefs died off in 2015 [1], including my favorite fishing spots. Three years later most of this eroded habitat was then destroyed by winter swells. These reefs had never bleached in modern history. I saw a coral colony the size of a small house (100s of years old) flipped over and crushed. It was so sad that it was a major contributor to me deciding to leave the state.

Many coastal communities are dealing with more serious problems.

[1] https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/reefresponse/files/2016/09/WHI-Coral...
Air China owns 30%.
Help me out here.

Do you mean "internal political" as "Oh man Jimmy is in charge of gmail now!" (just a made up example of internal politics there) or "Can you belive what the POTUS did!?!?!"?

If the latter, I'm a bit surprised ... I can't imagine having that kind of conversation at work. That is absolutely a NO GO zone for me at work.
Not disagreeing with the idea that people shouldn't express hatred.

However I'm very nervous at some of the Orwellian redefinitions of words like hatred, racism, sexism, white supremacy and so forth.

Sometimes when you scratch under the surface of an accusation, you get a string. If you tug the string, it turns into a complex worldview, and it turns out the thing is a straw man used against political opponents. One red flag for this is when someone starts by saying, "So, you're really saying..." or, "The logical conclusion of your argument is..."

I was told recently that Louis CK's joke (recent underground taping that ended up on YouTube) was transphobic. I then listened to the joke and didn't come to that conclusion. Who's correct?

I read on HN someone coming out supporting law enforcement in the US. Someone responded that that made them racist, due to the history and the logic of institutional racism.

Be careful when you hear accusations.
Basically:
One person: smart.
A lot of people: dumbass idiots.
I think we pigeonhole "things that most people are too stupid and childish to discuss without losing their minds" as politics. There're a million critically important things that government does that people don't tie their identities to that we don't really count as "political discussions".
It's funny looking at some of the contributors to this. Some of the accounts seem to be vague, single-duty accounts made for the express purpose of contributing code to CyberChef and nothing else. I admire their OPSEC

(From: https://github.com/gchq/CyberChef/graphs/contributors)

https://github.com/n1474335

https://github.com/j433866

https://github.com/d98762625

https://github.com/s2224834

https://github.com/GCHQ77703
for comparison:

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145464/fires-in-bra...

interestingly nasa says there is nothing unusual about the fires, while it is brazil's space agency that the mainstream news is quoting. which reference is trusted just seems to depend on which will get the most clicks?
There have been people interested in spread misinformation. But until WhatsApp, YouTube, and Facebook, which rely on and encourage oversharing, they didn't have the means to do it cheaply. They had do it the old-fashioned way by reaching people via publications or organizations. It used to take decades to build a misinformation campaign, now it takes weeks or months.
Being difficult shouldn't make something a virtue.
Speaking for myself here.

Yes and no. Ranking by definition means not being neutral, it's just that society has decided that it's acceptable to rank spam lower than other content. Neutrality looks a lot like bias from the perspective of spammers.

When you're dealing with more complex signals at scale there are so many second and third order effects that are hard or impossible to predict.

For example, the conservative bias everyone's talking about doesn't seem to me to be literal bias against the right, but bias in favour of mainstream news sources which are overwhelmingly left-wing.

I'm sure there are many issues in Search like the one I just described, and being able to have these conversations is what makes it possible for Googlers to spot these issues, decide if it's even an issue and fix it. If you ban a certain type of conversation, you'll change how people think about a potential issue.
Software engineering is easy. Most people are familiar with it as an aspect of canned design principles to ensure safety and scalability. You can read about it all in books or internet articles and come up with it on your own.

Have unit testing, have integration testing... make it modular... SOLID, write layers, yada yada yada also very easy.

I always hear people say that Computer science != software engineering but really it's the same thing at the upper echelons. Rather than using your gut and all these anecdotal "principles" spewed out by people like Martin Fowler, design pattern books, or books on testing and agile you can actually use theory and science to guide your software engineering decisions.

Let's put it this way. Software engineering is the only engineering discipline where people can get away with not knowing science and mathematics and still build systems that can run. The effective and elite software engineer lets theory and science guide his decisions as well to make systems that are better.

I do agree with you that fizzbuzz is missing something.
Marting Luther King would give up if he witnesed the current political debate.
> If Bob believes Alice should be put to death because she's a transwoman

That’s clearly a straw man. Nobody is having that discussion at work.

And death threats are not politics, they are matters which should be reported to the police.
@Pinboard's politics are... not secret.
Just FYI for anyone reading the above comment, "regressive left" and "classical liberal" are right wing dog whistles used by the likes of Dave Rubin/Ben Shapiro/Steven Crowder/Tucker Carlson/etc, to co-opt the word "liberal" and pretend being right is also being liberal and to cast a broad net over anything left of center right Democrats.

Additionally, emotionality being cast in a disparaging light is another tactic used by the right to paint people left of themselves as "hysterical" and therefore wrong, which is logically fallacious. You can both be emotional and correct.

Google's culture always was, and always has been to hire people to generate profit, as all for profit businesses (and I'm not assigning a moral judgement on profit, profit is fine). Having a collegiate and ostensibly intelligent atmosphere was for hiring PR.

More people have more access to more information and unfortunately a lot of that information is cherry picked and provides confirmation bias. Kids these days haven't gotten dumber at Google, technology has changed, and the political discourse has changed.

The person who commented has demonstrated himself to be logically fallacious, ill tempered and steeped in culturally right talking points, and this is the same person saying that Googlers these days are less intelligent and hysterical.
well, even writing software for domains like healthcare does not seem that meaningful any more with the ecological collapse rolling out around us. I'm probably fooling myself with the idea that I need to earn some more money to put it into conservation efforts...
> What seems to be happening a lot lately is that politics are spilling over into large, global mailing lists

Interestingly there are people in this very thread claiming "everything is politics."
Many women don't want people with penises in their change rooms.

Others believe this is hatred.

Google provides onsite gyms at many locations, which have change rooms. In this case, that discussion will likely have to take place at work.
To these people it must. They are aware they're disrupting the workplace but they do it because they have a sense of urgency and responsibility. They are willing to break ties with their fellow coworkers because they carry a larger social mission.
Tolerance of someone who wants to deny your whole existence is not something anyone should ever tolerate. That‘s not a virtue, that‘s madness and potentially suicidal.
There is also a shared understanding that you don't debate politics with family, which would also be a pretty big block of time for many. Perhaps the forum isn't the problem, its that a good deal of people feel uncomfortable with politics and choose to not engage. I guess what's pretty funny here is we all have a shared understanding that there are problems in politics and the cultural landscape, but also there's a lot of common sense that keeping your feelings bottled up isn't good for anyone.
Are you really trying to argue that companies which for example use Slack (or a similar service) are "not professional"?
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
Well that is pretty dubious. That completely changes the metric of how much money and how difficult this costs. (And I definitely believe you because there's several other comments with that same number). Could be a typo? But I feel like that's something you'd say. Then again, these are masters students.
Linux relies on a concoction of properly-configured kernel subsystems to provide some level of isolation for containerized processes, and systems like LXD and Docker try to patch up the gaps.

The cgroups interfaces don't offer much security stuff directly -- they're mainly about containing groups of process within certain resource consumption quotas, and afaik, don't really attempt to contemplate secure isolation directly.

LXD approaches this by adding a uid/gid translation layer, so that the uid/gid for anything within an unprivileged container will be offset by a specified value, e.g., calls with user ID 1000 in a container are made to present to the host as user ID 1000000. This comes with its own host of issues which LXD tries to hide.

The short answer is that if security is any type of priority for the system in question and you want to run containerized processes, you should use an OS that implements container security directly in the kernel, like FreeBSD with jails or illumos with Zones, instead of depending on getting exactly the right configuration between all the moving pieces in the Linux container stack.
Common Design Patterns in Distributed Architectures
I think you should not discuss politics at work. Unfortunately I agree with you: this will lead to only feelgood (i.e. leftist) politics being talked about.
> When you make your living doing a thing it's far more lucrative to do things right than to do them wrong.

If this were true, no professional would ever do something wrong, cut corners, etc. Which would be nice. It's a nice picture of how things should work. But they don't.
As someone from the North who considers themself ‘British’ rather than Scottish or English, I've always viewed Yorkshire as the ‘midlands’ :)

Joking aside, if Britain is every to grow beyond being quite so London-centric, we do really have to focus on the belt from Manchester to Hull more, North East too.
A small group of people always ruin these things for everyone else.

ie, the people who can't handle politics and think the worlds constantly on fire so they think they're justified in ignoring social grace and time/place taboos. The internet news machines have generated many thousands of these people.

I feel like they are becoming more popular and giving even less of a shit that other people don't want to be forced to listen to their politics at work or in other forced proximity environments. And then there's the people who judge you for not talking or 'resisting', as if not being politically engaged is equivalent to supporting the 'other side'. Then there's the overly-excited drunken political rants at parties, that's when they really let loose! /rant
Honestly, this shouldn't surprise anyone.
The family / next of kin gets the body back after it has been used, normally cremated.
Exactly.

Those people blaming the current president doesn't understand that this is not a new problem. They're doing this only because the president is not who they want. I never saw the world saying anything when the Left was in the government and this same thing happen.
Is what sense is Qt "native"?
> It isn't a separate thing that can be divorced from what it's about, i.e. everything.

I'm having a hard time finding politics in: "Hey $COWORKER, how's that REST endpoint coming along?"
The China Dream: Great Power Thinking and Strategic Posture in the Post-American Era

https://www.amazon.com/China-Dream-Thinking-Strategic-Post-A...

On China by Henry Kissinger:

https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/on-china_henry-kissinger/26645...

Destined for War - Graham Allison:

https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/destined-for-war_graham-alliso...

Lee Kuan Yew: The Grand Master's Insights on China, the United States, and the World:

https://www.amazon.com/Lee-Kuan-Yew-Insights-international/d...

See China with your own eyes!

I also recommend traveling to China. I found this to be very eye opening, and to be honest, despite all of our great problems it made me so thankful to live in a free country.
Go Scan 3D – Handheld 3D Scanner
You're absolutely right! Being difficult does not in any way make something a virtue. However, in cultural terms we generally don't aspire to traits that are trivially achievable (example: having skin).

I would say difficulty is a neccessary, but as you so right point out, woefully insufficient condition.
The book 'the big sort' by bill bishop goes into this phenomenon in further detail.
not being tracked.
I think I can agree in the affirmative with the first sentence, not so much the second one, with the context of my original comment in mind. If your company is demonstrably involved in issues that affect global, heck or even local politics, speaking to those affairs is an imperative.

Whether or not people enter those conversations with the intent on solving problems and actually discussing in earnest is where things get weird, admittedly.
Lets be honest here: having a florest jsut for having a florest, does no good. The amazon needs to be exploited for its natural resources, otherwise may as well not exist, but if gonna do it, we need to do it rigth.

And burning the florest to plant soil or grazing land is a shit way to do it.

And in the end, if having a florest in place helps people make money, they will start working harder in preserving it.

Is like legal elephant hunting. My looks barbaric to some (i really dislike it), but is the only reason that there still elephants today, and people who used to hunt them for the preys, now help preserve because they make more money of rich tourist that pay big bucks to shoot an animal.
Perfect~
fascinated work
If you company has an anti-discrimination policy that includes gender identity (most do including places like Google) you should report them to HR for creating a hostile work environment. HR usually has an anonymous way of reporting things to investigate such as a phone number you can call.
Signal has spoken [1] at length about the issues of private contact discovery, and the many [2] solutions they've employed to minimize the amount of information that gets leaked. There's this intractable problem of requiring a social graph for easy discovery and for trust, and Signal's found one of the better solutions (though I'm sure we'll discover better ones yet).

[1] https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/
[2] https://signal.org/blog/contact-discovery/
I'm not going to wade into the muddy waters of trying to argue that Communism doesn't work at all, but rather to point out that a) the CIA doesn't have 'trillions' of dollars to throw around, and b) the American embargo doesn't prevent Cuba from making trade deals with other nations. It just prevents them from drinking from the teat of American foreign aid and access to limitless American markets and investment.

The US has enough soft power to make Cuba's life difficult on the international plane but it can't render Cuba impotent. If Cubans need to flee to the US for a chance at a better life that's the fault of Cuba's atrocious institutions and politics making opportunity impossible to find.

The CIA is an organization with tens of thousands of people in it and Cuba is a country with millions. The CIA has to spread its 15 billion dollar budget all over the world, while Cuba is free to spend its 50 billion dollar revenues on whatever she wants.