skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I would disagree with the "they don't need to be" stmt. Many photographers and artist have legit gripes in the lengthy time many filters and transforms take in post processing. Many of these are recipes that are applied en-masse to all files in a directory.
Really like that last paragraph, toally agree. I'm not sure I agree about the clear progress on reduction of greenhouse gases thou. Expanding consumerism and population in a carbon economy would seem to preclude this. Can you explain your thinking?
> I've had people tell me all of the extra bloat/slowness in modern software is because it has more features

Lately I've been making something of a hobby of replacing big scale-out Apache Spark ETL jobs with stuff that was hand-coded to use something other than Spark. Generally I'm finding that, with a little care, I can get a lot of these jobs done in less time on a single machine than I can running it on the Spark cluster. (Using code that's easier to reason about, too.) And even when I can't, I'm not sure it's enough slower to warrant the use of the cluster, on the principle that using half a rack worth of compute resources to get the job done in 45 minutes when you could do it in 60 on a single box isn't really a good tradeoff.

All that long-windedness by way of saying, these big data tools are kind of slow and bloated. They're slow and bloated precisely because they have more features. All the extra work they need to do to achieve reliability when you're scaling out has a cost. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the cost is justifiable.

A box truck is more capable for running errands than my Kia Soul, because I can fit half the grocery store in it. But I think we'd all agree that it would be an obscene waste of money to default to using a box truck to buy groceries and make Ikea runs, and justify that decision by pointing out that some small fraction of the time I'll need to transport more stuff than will fit in a Kia Soul, and it's better to standardize on a single model of car. In a computing setting, though, we do that sort of thing all the time.
Anecdotally: MB is a very useful, extremely high level abstraction (and thus can only be so accurate) of real cognitive behavior.

I reject the notion that it's just like a horoscope. I've routinely tested as INFP, leaning towards an INTP (based on their cognitive stack, a grey area between the two makes perfect sense), and reading about the two feels like reading a very accurate blueprint of my brain, whereas reading, say, an ESFP, feels totally foreign. Even something that's apparently "close," such as an INFJ, still feels totally wrong, like a shirt that fits well except for being too tight across the chest. If it were really like a horoscope, I could pick any of them out of a hat and find something to relate to, but -- I mean, I guess you've gotta trust me here -- that simply is not the case.

Perhaps I'm the "time at which the broken clock is stuck" and am benefitting from an accidentally correct explanation, but learning about and deeply understanding my "cognitive function stack" has allowed me deeper insight into my strengths and weakness (not what they are -- I already know that -- but why, and how they manifest in ways I don't always readily see), and has genuinely made my life better -- more so than any therapy sessions, and that's saying something, as I easily count seeing a therapist as one of my best decisions in life.

I suppose that my type more or less predicts that I'm the kind of person who would find value in tests precisely like these, and my test always has the "-T" flag (for "turbulent," meaning "not secure in oneself"), so it's certainly a chicken and egg problem. I take it with more than a grain of salt, but not a mountain.

I'm also not a "personality test" junkie at all. I remember a decade ago I tried a few random ones, and they were clearly all bullshit, more along the lines of a horoscope. MB is a different beast.

Furthermore, I later learned that I'm actually friends with the types of friends I'm "supposed" to be friends with, and in hindsight, we had bonded precisely the way the test had predicted. Same for who I'm attracted to, and who I'm repulsed by. It's not like I go around asking about peoples' types, but the handful of times I have, the conversation has been pretty eye-opening.

All I'm saying is: don't totally discount it just because you heard someone compare it to a horoscope once. There are a lot of flaws -- the most obvious one being that its accuracy depends upon the ability of the person taking it to answer authentically and truthfully, rather than what they wish they were like.

But my gut tells me that it's a good direction for science to go. Are there probably too few many types? Absolutely. But like I said, it appears to be an extremely high level abstraction of actual psychology, just as so much in psychology is (Jung's Archetypes come to mind).
all I know is that I bought one of those thundershirts for my pom and he loves it. and yes, it has helped with his anxiety during storms. same concept as a weighted blanket I guess.
> (if you believe otherwise, I have some retina scanners to sell you...)

MFA with a U2F token would go a long long way. Even softU2F as github built might prevent this.
As opposed to all the recessions/crises before indexing where stocks didn't go down? Sharp people will scoop up great names at a discount just like always.
LoopBack 4 August 2019 Milestone Update
Mobile phone screws up your productivity
The Patrick Henry quote seems pretty clear to me. He says every man, not every militia man so I'm inclined to believe the direct quote unless you have evidence to the contrary.

Also, He is speaking against congress limiting it. The following two paragraphs in that citation are talking about how men in government can't be trusted to keep their word not to infringe / create tyranny.

> And even here the caveat "peaceable" is thrown in, which is a loophole big enough to throw a whole busload of bans through.

While "peaceable" isn't defined in stone here, I would take it to mean a person who hasn't been convicted of violent crimes or has intent to commit such crimes. That wouldn't really open the floodgates to bans other than ones we already have for criminals / people making threats. It could possibly justify red flag laws though.

> If courts rules that it was illegal to restrict the ownership or bearing of arms in any way

I don't think that would happen and it wouldn't be what they wanted back then either. Several other quotes mention peaceful men bearing arms which I think would keep the no felons can buy guns laws.
The thing that makes the thing I want IS the language simply put.

More completely it's the environment, architecture, language, requirements, customer, experience and team.

I've rarely found a need for a generator that wouldn't be more simply and universally solved via a configuration pattern.
I've forgotten it's title, but there was a performance comparison between Linux and MkLinux (with the OSF/Mach microkernel) in the one and only FSF free software conference. It had my favorite chart: a barchart showing the relative performance. The top half was 1:1; the bottom half was 1:2 or so.

The top half was Dhrystones (CPU integer performance), the bottom was various syscalls.
You'll certainly get downvotes if you ask for them. That aside, what makes Bitcoin an investment? It's certainly outside the normal financial system, but what's the reason to expect it to retain or gain value?
This falls under the, "Do I have enough capital to make the purchase?" question. And if the company fails, you get to write all this off at the previously taxed price.

Definitely a factor to consider, but not dispositive.
^ commenter is a security researcher who works for Google.

This whole area of research seems like it exists as a way to rationalize wide-scale data collection. Rather than focusing on the collective rights of all people being tracked, it focuses on the risk that any individual person faces from an attacker.
Not having ground is pretty dang tough. And Venus, since it doesn't have a very accessible ground, doesn't have many natural resources at all: only what the atmosphere provides. Nitrogen, CO2, maybe some hydrogen if you can wrench it from sulfuric acid.

Mars has/had a hydrological cycle and thus not only has accessible raw minerals, but many are concentrated to a useful degree. There's water ice, gypsum, salts, metals, clays, etc. Mars has abundant iron-nickel meteorites on its surface.

As far as landing a long lasting robot on Venus, ABSOLUTELY it's easier to do it on Mars. Every robot landed on Venus has died within a couple hours because the heat is so great. You need an insane power source whose cold side is hot enough to melt lead and glow a dull red in order to produce enough energy to refrigerate your vehicle. This is possible but extremely difficult to do. There aren't a lot of materials that work at the 450 Celsius. VERY few plastics (Kapton for short duration), and even a lot of metals have problems. And the pressure is insane, too. It's like being in a supercritical CO2 autoclave. And on the surface, there's almost no sunlight and the windspeed is very low. The only feasible powersource really is nuclear (radioisotope and fission) for long-term use to run a refrigeration cycle. It's possible to use high temperature electronics, but the power requirements for those are extremely high and you're stuck with extremely simple digital circuits. Think 1940s/1950s electronics.

Mars is just fantastically easier.

Floating in the clouds of Venus isn't so bad, but again, no ground.

I love the idea of sending a lot more stuff to Venus. But Venus is a hellscape on the surface and so you're stuck floating or flying indefinitely for long-duration things unless you pay a really high engineering price.
Indeed, "but" the minimum token you can create is one that allows its wielder to edit a whole zone's DNS, not just (say) one specific record.
Which is why lobbying needs to be tightly regulated and the relevant numbers made public. Democracy is about equal rights, not extra rights for the rich.
My Electric Guitar History
I haven't specifically tried different types of audiobooks to see if there's some preferred category.

With movies I don't bother with them unless they have descriptive audio, at which point you've got music, sound effects, and two somewhat parallel speech streams going on. That's high informational content.

I did an entire CS degree at 800 words a minute. I program in any programming language you care to name (including the initial learning) at that speed as well. For more complicated concepts I stay at that speed, but pause after every paragraph or so to chunk the content as needed. I'm doing this thread at that speed. Pretty much the only time I slow it down is pleasure reading or sometimes articles when i want to go off and do chores while I listen, but even then it's still faster than human speech.

In general i think answering these sorts of questions needs research that we don't have to my knowledge. Nothing in my personal experience or background really allows me to give you good definitive answers. The sample size to work with is pretty small and in all honesty there's not a lot of good research around blindness day-to-day in the first place.
OK, but in that case is there a distinction between index funds and actively managed funds? Is this a risk that index funds are uniquely exposed to?

Also, another thing to keep in mind is that this only affects people who are trying to sell at the bottom. Buy and hold investors care little for liquidity issues during a crash.
I don't see why shadow profiles couldn't use the same ID system. why not?

For the parent comment saying they were in the data set: My initial interpretation was they meant if one Facebook user had done so, and you were also a Facebook user, whether or not you had provided your #, it was now associate with you. Your interpretation might be correct though.
Yes and hedgefunds play this game for example M&S getting dumped from the FTSE 100
New DSLs/notations aren't conceptually different or more difficult than different libraries with differing APIs. In fact, each time you're coding to an API of a library, you are coding to a DSL - the API is the language. Writing real DSLs via code transformators/generators (e.g. macros in Lisp) just removes the noise caused by the mismatch between the API and the language syntax, making things potentially cleaner once you understand the API.

Documentation is still crucial, whether you're dealing with a library or a DSL.
Ask HN: Any Tips on Building a Network in the Tech/Entrepreneurship Industry
I am not talking about networking in the sleazy salesman way. I wanna meet fellow Entrepreneurs like myself and I wanna build a big network around the world.

Any tips on how to do it?
I believe this is related to the rise in buybacks where price fundamentals no longer matter, only goal for companies is to get the largest market cap as possible ignoring long term risks in order to attract an increasing flow of passive money being poured into the markets.
Something that always bothered me when I read posts on Google's blogs: why is it that it's always authored by a PM? Why can't perhaps a senior engineer also write an announcement post occasionally?

Yes, the names of the engineers on the team are present in the acknowledgement section: but, this is a single line at the bottom of the post, whereas the name of the PM and the fact that he is the author is featured prominently below the title. This pattern is common across many product/OSS library announcements.

Sure, one could argue that the PM has a holistic view of the product or library being announced, and that developing this perspective is in fact their job. But surely a sufficiently senior engineer can (and often does) have an equally holistic, or perhaps even more insightful overview. At least sometimes. Even if this were not the case, why not acknowledge everyone's contributions at the same place in the article?

I think this is symptomatic of the ubiquitous class divide between the "suits" and "nerds" in the corporate world.
A high percentage of firearms restrictive ex parte orders are overturned when the restricted party has a chance to defend themselves in court.

2-3mm restraining/protection order requests are made per year in the US (often as boilerplate in divorce filings). Many are bogus.
I thought until now it was Apple who was legitimizing Differential Privacy
If the company fails, I get to write the taxed valuation off as a loss on my future taxes.

So this comes down to "Do I have enough capital and time to see it through?"
Show HN: Rezi – Resumes for Large Companies
Yup. I did some work on that for a Venus lander when I was an intern, which is published here: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20150002090
As the parent of a Lego-consuming youngster I have to agree - but it's also interesting to watch Lego try to create lines that fail to thrive (compare Chima to Ninjago, both started at about the same time, only one remains...) Partly that seems to be about story-telling, maybe ninjas just easier to work with.
I agree with you. I'm in my 20s, and I know a lot of people who still use Facebook -- Although my little sister may have something different to say (she's 17).
Are We Wrong About Black Holes?
> How do you manage the "forever" part with a cloud service that could go away?

It's software that you run, on your hardware. Currently there's a desktop installer for win/mac/linux (so people can try it out easily on their laptop or whatever), but I'm building a multiarch Docker image that runs on a droplet/ec2 micro/NAS/raspberry pi.

I run it for my family off of a rpi 4 sitting in an external 10tb USB drive, plugged into my router.

The external drive gets grabbed in case of fire/earthquake, but also gets backed up to backblaze for offsite backup.

> How is this not just "dropbox, but only for photos"?

Dropbox is a file synchronization service.

* You view your files by folder

* Files can only live in one folder

* There's no automatic organization of your files

PhotoStructure is designed to make browsing millions of photos and videos fun and easy, and effortless.

* Best-of-class metadata extraction and inference

* Automatic organization and tagging of your photos and videos based on that metadata

* Hierarchical tagging, with random "tastes" of what's in that tag (or child tags)

* Automatic, best-of-class "asset variation" merging (so when you have a RAW and JPEG version of an image, along with a Apple Photos resized preview, and a Google Photos takeout, they all are considered to be variants of the same asset).

* Cross-platform, cross-file-system support (so if you plug in an external hard drive and it automatically mounts to a different path, the files on that volume are considered equivalent).

* All viewed through a webapp and image delivery system that's built to be delightful and responsive even on low-powered servers and low-powered mobile devices
Traffic cameras can read and track license plate numbers, how is that private?
From the buzzfeedNews article, apparently they are proposing the lease of vehicles to their contractors

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolineodonovan/amazon...
i would use a lighter term to describe rotting baskets. words have meanings and "fascist" means something else.
> the big 5 personality test is more scientific and reproducible and reports along dimensions in percentiles.

It's also pretty useless for genuinely understanding people because it's claims are so shallow. You like talking to people, therefore you are extraverted, which means you like talking people. Brilliant.

The equivalent claim in Myers-Briggs on the other hand is something more akin to "you like talking to people", therefore you are extraverted which means that your mental processes are tuned to process a high quantity of external input, which you can then use to make predictions well outside of the domain of talking to people.

> personality types as pseudoscience, astrology, Barnum effect etc

Personality types at least have a plausible mechanism - different processes in the brain. If you think about it, the idea that people have different mental processes is actually a more sensible starting point than the idea that everybody thinks in the same way.
Healthy lifestyle: 5 keys to a longer life
I think perhaps you've misunderstood the article. If I understand it correctly, human centered design as it is currently employed is only concerned with enabling transactions, whether it is Amazon's 1-click purchase button, or Uber making it easy to get a ride without trying to find a taxi. Negative externalities like Amazon and Uber causing increased traffic and pollution when its customers use their services.

The article makes the argument that it is the anthropocentricity of human centered design that allows these companies to completely ignore the impacts on the environment and, in the long run, ironically, on the humans the design is supposed to focus on. I think it is probably an unnecessary part of the argument, as capitalism itself is quite good at incentivizing companies to ignore pesky negative externalities as long as they can get away with it.

Sorry, I don't understand your example. Actually, toilet paper does not improve things for humans, other than the act of using it for its purpose (which if you have a bidet, you don't need toilet paper). Toilet paper causes a great deal of environmental damage, from destroying Canadian forests [1] to, of course, climate change. [2]

1. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/01/canada-boreal-...

2. https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/toilet-paper-enviro...
OkCupid's "hide my profile from straight people" feature is fantastic for exactly this reason. Pity the site's fallen out of favor, it's the one dating app I felt comfortable with.
Young people still have Instagram, so I guess Instadate would have been better :)
Considering you know enough to know about the cognitive stack (more than most who take those awful online quizzes), you also should know that INFP and INFJ aren't close at all. It's a complete mirror of the entire stack :)
They're harsh. But you get used to it in about a week. Espeak is an atypically bad example, which is why NVDA experimented with a fork (and maybe one day the NVDA work will make it upstream). part of what allows them to stay intelligible is the harshness. I've never tried passing one through an EQ but there are already pitch settings and similar to play with, and given that even not wearing headphones slows me down I expect that an EQ would probably be bad for it.

But more to the point there is nowhere to really plug that in to a screen reader, so we can't try it anyway. The audio subsystems of most screen readers are much less advanced than you'd think.
The Bloomberg article mixed Bury's words and the author's words quite a bit, and I'm beginning to wonder if the whole reason we're having this discussion is because some important nuance was lost.

It's hard to see why Mom and Pop buy and hold index investors should care about the liquidity risk Bury talks about...market cap weighted funds will be fine in the long run because the ratio of each underlying stock to a fund share will be constant through the temporary price fluctuations...so no money is lost if the price crashes and then comes back to the same sport shortly after.

Perhaps there are other market participants who are leveraged and would find themselves insolvent if indexes cause a liquidity problem? I just don't see how the fund investors themselves would be hurt if underlying stock prices went out of whack for an afternoon.
Deceiving sky reveals how China steals tech secrets
It sounds to me like a primary use case of this would be... cheating...

Unlike other dating platforms, this one is integrated with your supposedly up to date profile. Being able to set up a low risk secret crush with a known friend seems likely to be popular to those interested in doing so.

That is to say, a person who wants to cheat has no problem having a Facebook profile, so there’s not a need for anonymity against being found by known acquaintances like you might expect on other platforms.
Will the Long-Term Stock Exchange Make a Difference?
Have you run a test recently?

Trivial mach IPC round-trip (same process) seems to be about ~8.5µs in my test, so around 4µs per call. I'm sure if you transferred port rights, memory, etc the cost would go up.

edit: I would advise anyone to run your own tests. Anecdotes aren't data and some things like syscalls are not nearly as expensive on modern hardware as they once were.

Sometimes things can get ridiculously faster than you remember. For example the original iPhone took nearly 200ns to do objc_msgSend() [1]. In 2016 modern hardware did the same thing in 2.6ns [2]. That's two orders of magnitude improvement. So saying "message passing is slow" is not a correct statement... it's almost as cheap as a C++ virtual method call.

[1] https://www.mikeash.com/pyblog/friday-qa-2016-04-15-performa...
[2] https://www.mikeash.com/pyblog/friday-qa-2016-04-15-performa...
Personally I have few problems with the self-checkout system, but I'm inevitably behind a knot of people who do have problems.
Here's our first response:

https://search-guard.com/search-guard-elastic/

Jochen Kressin
I think this idea of an index fund bubble makes a lot of sense in terms of metrics like economic efficiency. Investors are paying more money to buy stocks which provide less economic value per dollar invested... but low productivity and economic inefficiency doesn't mean low profits.
Indexed companies often have monopolies in their fields and can derive profits from rent seeking activities and lobbying for beneficial regulations so they don't need to be efficient in order to derive profits.
Because it's astrology with a scientific veneer, so people who think they're too smart for astrology feel okay about using MB.