skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
i like how SO takes moderating so seriously- you need to keep a certain standard otherwise you turn into quora or reddit.
I think you're inaccurately conflating "chronic caloric restriction" with any and all forms of fasting, when it refers only to rather severe long-term fasting/starvation of the sort that has been tested in mice but is borderline unethical to test on humans even if they aren't being ravaged by cancer and chemotherapy. That's why short-term fasting is worth investigating.
In this summer, for my vacations, I've decided to re-read several of sci-fi books, with some popular new ones, and opted for a ebook reader (kindle) to avoid carring several pounds of books to the beach. Started with Isaac Azimov's Foundation triology (all), made a jump to William Gibson's Neuromancer and now, just ended Frank Herbert's Dune (1st volume only).

Coincidence is seeing this article just after returning from the vacation's, still imagining riding on a Shai-Hulud.

The only true comment that would like to add to this thread regarding Blanch's "The Sabre Paradise" is something that I've heard from an old teacher: most, probably all the books are derived from Homer's Odyssey; which created most of the writing styles, characters constructions and interactions, world creations, etc. After, there's not a single book that brought anything new to the writing, except the way you mix or the characters that you replace.

But even with this idea in mind, we cannot say that reading Homer's Odyssey means that you've read ALL the books, and there isn't not even that this is the best of books. To be honest I like the imagination created by it, but it's real "drag" if you try reading it...

At the end, for me at least, what counts is the mood: I prefer Dune over "The Sabre Paradise", the same way that I prefer J.R.Talkien's Lord of the Rings over "All Quiets on Western Front", even if both are based on the developments of the Great World War (I).

If you have time (and mood) read'em all... But still, keep away from "Odyssey" (there are a lot of more fun versions of the same story)! :)

PS: My next books in line are the (new for me) "Hyperion" and "Three Body Problem" from Liu Cixin. And recommended detours? :)
That is true of all finite resources, from orbits to spectrum to real estate.
There's also --resolve and --connect-to, which have some neat uses.

For example, direct a request to a specific server in a cluster. Or send to localhost SSL without -k, so you can still test certificate verification works ( localhost can be useful, because some dumb firewalls block 'external' non-443 SSL).
star trackers are not used for orbit determination (position). They are used to determine the attitude (orientation).

GPS works extremely well in low earth orbit.
New approach could enable parallel computation with light
Then we (and in extreme cases, you) could at least review it and point out if the reasons where nuts (i.e. if an answer has 5 downvotes for wrong then we can factcheck it and point it out)

I'm mentioning lobste.rs for the second time in this discussion, but lobste.rs has this and it works kind of well IMO, both to think twice when I downvote and also to try to figure out why someone was downvoted.

Then again, lobste.rs is a different community and there is a reason or maybe several why I hang both here and there :-)
Üyeliksiz Sohbet
Deep Learning Frameworks: PyTorch vs. TensorFlow
"...they explained it wasn't needed."

Well, somebody seems to have needed to maneuver.
it's just pedantic and insubstantive
Is it running a de-icing cycle?
Only China can save us now
Phenom, Phenom II, Bulldozer & Piledriver, all had worse performance/power.

Basically all of their CPUs from 2007 until 2014, a full 7 years.
The only issue I see: during changing "scale" face should NOT be regenerated!
> To me it sounds like there should be clear regulation about right of way in space

Common courtesy worldwide would be for the person causing the risk to move aside first. Worse still it was a private company working on a for-profit product forcing a public weather satellite to divert.

There's no need for regulation until bad actors show up.
Ryzen 3000 CPUs not hitting rated boost speeds
IRC sure, but the big win is email.
You have no way of knowing that they generate tickets only when checked.
iPhone Users Were Attacked – By Google's Project Zero
This book about the incident is a great read. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Flight-232-Story-Disaster-Survival/...

It goes into detail about the causes of the crash, the stories of the passengers before and after the crash.
Animated version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS1ibDImAYU
And if not for their own use, selling access to other players.
I'm increasingly convinced that what I call "naive fact-checking" misses the forest for the trees.

Facts matter, yes. But a false narrative, even, or especially where constructed at least in part on true facts, is vastly more significant.

A characteristic of virtually all Big Lie Narratives is that they contain, often major, nuggets of truth. But the arrangement of narrative amonst these, and eventual insertion of false (or at the very least, unverifiable) facts, eventually proves these out.

A classic example I've run across is "It's All a Rich Man's Lie", an epic 3h 40m YouTube conspiracy yarn which, at least in its first hour or so, sticks largely to the domain of underlying truths: yes, there are "secret societies" at Ivy League schools, yes, many major US industrial firms maintained operations or divisions in Nazi Germany, etc. But no, actually, Kennedy's "Secret Society" speech (mentioned about 20 minutes in) was not about the Yale Skull & Bones group, but instead about the Soviet Union, and its practice of leveraging unflattering or inconvenient reporting from the US itself against the US.

(The question of whether or not Kennedy was right in asking for self-restraint on this basis is a matter for another discussion.)

Often the individual elements and false narrative become apparent by pulling back ever so slightly from the presented story, and looking at the greater context of facts offered. A few paragraphs of surrounding context from the Kennedy speech ("catnip for conspiracy nuts" according to one source) make painfully clear that its topic is not what the conspiracy nuts would make it to be.

The fact that such checking is expensive and takes time makes the fabricators' job all that much easier, and the debunkers' harder.

Another interesting case is the "J.P. Morgan Bankers' Manifesto" hoax, by one Thomas W. Gilruth, first published in 1892, and still making the rounds on social media over 120 years later. I'd run across it by way of an meme whose message appealed to me, though thinking it might be too good to be true, I dug deeper.

To my knowledge, this is the most substantial debunking of the Gilruth hoax ever published:

https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/39w8u4/jp_morg...
Dockerlabs – Docker – Kubernetes – Beginners – Intermediate – Advanced
The reason the author is unaware of the reason is because SpaceX refused to give a reason. Impotence? Incompetence? Malice? Different risk calculation? Game of chicken? Either way if they throw thousands of satellites into space they can't just say "sorry, tragedy of the commons, everyone else should shoulder the risk we created (& the costs to avoid risk)"
> The conclusion of this WSJ piece [...] is that we need better media literacy.

> My conclusion is the opposite: we need better reputational and accountability systems and institutions.

I've noticed that on issues that provoke strong feeling, folks often put things in opposition that really aren't opposed. This is a great example. These aren't opposites. They're simply two different approaches to the same problem. They're not mutually exclusive in the least. Nothing about teaching people to think critically harms or opposes holding media institutions to account for what they say or vice versa.

Anyway, I don't think more accountability for media institutions is a bad idea, but I can't help thinking it alone won't fix the problem. The internet isn't going away, and it's fundamentally a many-to-many medium. Unless some authority systematically censors and reviews public fora --- I'm talking about everyday conversations and posts on Facebook, reddit, chatrooms, HN, Slack --- we're not going to be able to go back to the days when fact-checked journalism could keep misinformation, propaganda, and conspiracy theorizing at bay. (Hell, I guess those days never existed, but I think these problems have gotten worse.)

Perhaps the best point of comparison for the effect of the internet as a new medium is the invention of the printing press. Generally regarded as a good thing in the long run, but it led almost directly to centuries of religious warfare in Europe. Not a heartening thought.
Not necessarily. All it says is two of their intelligence sources refused to answer the question of whether or not he was executed.

They reported Iran executed some number of people who were believed to be moles or otherwise guilty of harming the program. According to the sources, Iran doesn't seem to know with certainty if they got the right people, or if the executed individuals were merely unwitting carriers who got infected.

It's also possible they didn't care so much and considered this sort of incompetence/negligence (of course, not such a fair accusation given their adversaries) a capital offense. They may have executed everyone involved, wittingly or not, to serve as a deterrent and increase future OPSEC. Many it's just a bonus for them if a mole also got caught in the net.

This is kind of like a game theory puzzle: if he was executed and you say he was, you give them valuable information. Same if he wasn't and you say he wasn't. You could lie, but Iran's intelligence reading this article may suspect you'll lie. Or they may think it's a double bluff or something.

The safest move to cause the least damage and give Iran as little info as possible may be to say the mole may or may not have been executed. There's also the possibility that the sources fuzzed the story a bit: there may have been more than one mole, or, less likely, zero moles. Intelligence is always cat-and-mouse mind games, with fact and fiction often intermixed carefully.
Leather is not easier to clean than plastic.
Flight risk: can we take the carbon out of air travel?
It does matter if it’s a minority or a majority! Words like “completely unacceptable”, “should be illegal”, “never again” are thrown around with abandon, painting a false picture of what’s actually going on: a substantial quality issue for a minority (10-20%?) number of users, but perceived by social media participants to be a vast majority (60%+).

Misperceptions such as these lead to lots of mistaken beliefs about far reaching issues.
It's probably just a quesion of what you are used to.

OOP terminology feels more "Software Engineer"-y to me and FP terminology feels more "Math"-y.

So OOP feels more at home and FP feels more foreign.

On the other hand, in OCaml feels at home and Haskell/PureScript feels very theory-heavy.
This isn't deleting your account, it's just removing your access to it. Don't do this. This will prevent you from actually deleting your data in the future because you're now locked out.
I remember those, the one in Tustin also had pictures of industry luminaries (RMS, Bill Gates, Grace Hopper, Steve Jobs, Woz, etc) inside, posted high on the walls around the edge of the building.

Just going there takes me back to the proper “computer stores” that ceased to exist after the 90s. Actual PC parts and not full of appliances and movies/music
I didn’t have extremely concrete visuals, but I did have a very strong feeling that there were tiny people in the room with me that wanted to talk. Like I couldn’t make them fully appear, but I knew they were there.
I did, but those seemed like obscure macros/corner cases almost no one uses.

I was more arguing for use of Docker instead of "Conan" or whatever tool they were selling.
I dont see why it would be resource intensive server side. In fact, it would be less resource intensive, since we avoid a full page reload and instead reload a single comment iframe.

As for the rendering engine, a iframe tag per comment is nothing compared to the pile of JS that's normally there on other sites.
The stack overflow model works well for a certain type of question. Part of this is the reaction to the resources of 2008 - trying to find things on page 15 of the a thread in the Java community forums.

While there are many possibly helpful questions that could be asked, not all of them are a fit for the format. That was a design choice made on day 1 and is backed deeply into how the software works and the way people interact with it.

Still, people asked those questions. The problem is that while they are interesting questions, and everyone wants to answer them - that reduces their value while at the same time putting more work on the community to try to keep it useful. Look at https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9033/hidden-features-of-... and consider the challenge of keeping it useful and relevant. If you were to try to add an answer to that post (if it weren't locked and closed), would you read through all 296 answers to make sure you weren't repeating someone else?

Some of these questions were recognized as taking more time of the people trying to maintain the site and focus on the questions that it handles well and were locked. The other option would have been to delete them, but stack overflow tends to have a "we don't delete useful content or break the web" philosophy.

There are other sites that handle the types of questions that Stack Overflow doesn't handle well quite well themselves. Quora does anecdotes well. Slant.co does comparisons. And so on.
Just want to add that the Three Body Problem trilogy is exceptionally good. The first book is the slowest, so make sure you read the other two as well. Each one builds up on the last.
Who rests their hands on the dash?

And I don't mean normal interior lighting, I mean the kind that is light piping all over the dash and doors that can be set to any color of the rainbow.
Why not both?

The possibility of wiretapping will always exist, even if not carried out wholesale by the government itself. And so will commercial services touting convenience in exchange for being MITMed.
Things to Read This Week – 2nd Set 2019 – That’s a Bug
I'm in an odd camp - I only ever liked the first book and found I really disliked all the rest. I read the first four and got half way through Heretics before finally stopping, so I did give it a decent try IMO.

I have since reread the first book a fair few times (most recently via the excellent Audible audiobook production) but never had any desire to try the subsequent novels again.
> It's easy to ask bad questions. It's harder to ask well-researched and high-effort questions. This asymmetry inevitably results in the SO site being flooded with bad questions.

A few ideas to make it harder to ask dumb questions:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20861911

In short: when accounts are free, activate instantly and can ask questions immediately, don't be surprised that people ask stupid questions.
Presumably using only one engine would have prevented the plane from flipping like it did, but it might have smashed into the ground harder or turned into a fireball.

Ultimately it is impossible to say what kind of effect it would have had, though I’m inclined to say it would likely have been better if the thrust was applied equally.
Same, I bought almost all the parts for my Ryzen 3600 upgrade from Micro Center. Prices were great, pick up was easy, and they reflashed the BIOS for free in 30 mins.
SpaceX refused to give a reason. So you can guess: Impotence? Incompetence? Malice? Different risk calculation? Game of chicken?

Either way, if they throw thousands of satellites into space they can't just say "sorry, tragedy of the commons, everyone else should shoulder the risk we created (& the costs to avoid risk)".

Will SpaceX wilfully endanger other satellites (most of which are of higher cost & societal value than an individual SpaceX constellation satellite)? If so, maybe NASA should stop allowing their launches until they offer a better answer.
What do you mean, Facebook is right there
The Graphics Codex
Fasting is low risk in healthy populations.

Let's assume you're talking about fasting as a treatment for cancer patients for the sake of argument.

Let's say that studies have examined the effect in 100 patients and it seems moderately effective.

What's the problem? Why shouldn't everyone do it?

Well the very real concern is that when they do a more rigorous study with a much greater number of patients, maybe they find that fasting actually increases the negative outcomes. The result that was found in the weaker study was only a statistical fluke.

So the thing they're trying to avoid is doing more harm than the status quo. This is a very real danger and it would be irresponsible for them to not do the due diligence.

Of course, that's not to say that there aren't valid criticisms of how medical treatments get validated and how quickly they can get to patients they can help.
This is supposed to be contrasted with an operator asking for the credit card digits manually, leaving room for them to scribble down the card number.

The DTMF system is so that the computer receives the card number directly. Of course that could be done with speech recognition as well.

And in any case, as others have pointed out, a phone connection is not a secured line.

But then again, a credit card fraud incident isn't the end of the world either. So maybe the risk is acceptable.
JMS's Centauri republic is kind of how I imagine the Empire
Starlink satellites are only approximately 350 miles up, which means any debris gets brought down by atmospheric drag very quickly. A million satellites in that orbit could not cause kessler syndrome.
My point is that:

WSJ put the onus elsewhere than themselves.

That this is a long-established tendency of the empowered. See Annie Leonard on "anti-littering" campaigns (responsibility dodging by manufacturers of disposable packaging and goods so packaged): http://www.worldwatch.org/system/files/AlterNet-SOW13-AL-102... (PDF). It's very much a blame-the-victim approach.

That there is no mention at all of accountability for the distributors, amplifiers, curators, and promotors of disinformation.

Once you start looking for such patterns, they become painfully apparent. I've taken to calling them out.
> Names can’t transmit meaning, and so a name shouldn’t be judged on how well it transmits meaning. That doesn’t mean that names can’t be judged at all - there are good and bad aspects to names.

Names can't transmit the complete meaning of a concept, but they can still transmit a partial or ballpark representation of that concept. In the world of linguistics it's easy to see how many names come from the composition of Greek or Latin roots, prefixes and suffixes, or Chinese composition of radicals. I don't find it particularly compelling to try to make the case that names cannot transmit ANY meaning at all -- therefore let's choose some other arbitrary criteria for judging names.

If you think about the concept of affordances/signifiers from HCI and interaction design, people do draw upon their past experience when encountering new, unknown concepts, and in the PL space a good name can streamline the process for learning a new concept. It's just that Functor has affordances from category theory and, well, most people haven't taken enough advanced math to access those affordances before encountering Functor.

I think Matt would have been better off calling this article "New Concepts Deserve New Names", rather than try to say that all names transmit no meaning whatsoever. I think I would agree that it's not a huge price to develop new affordances for Functor, Applicative, Monad, Semigroup, and Monoid, in comparison to the potential pitfalls of choosing a name that points to a potentially vague or incorrect meaning. And I personally like the names because although they were poor pointers to meaning, they were good pointers to their mathematical roots, and that makes me curious to learn more category theory.
My suspicion is that SpaceX and the ESA disagreed either on:

1/ the position of the SpaceX vehicle (ESA may not trust the SpaceX position data)

2/ that they disagreed on the probability of a collision (ESA thinks it's 5%, SpaceX thinks it's 0.005%) or

3/ they disagreed on whether the probability of a collision was worth moving for (eg, ESA thinks you should move for a one-in-a-million shot, SpaceX disagrees).

I recall someone saying that SpaceX did share ephemeris, but I can't find a reference. Maybe I dreamed it.
Hi OP I am wondering if you ever did the corsera course "Learning how to learn" and what your thoughts were on it and if the you consciously or unconsciously employed the methods described to help you learn new topics.
It’s still not clear what you’re talking about exactly, will you clarify? Perhaps some concrete examples of the safety and simplicity gains you’re referring to?

Are you saying, and arguing with your team, that individuals should always branch and merge, even when they want to check in single commits, or small numbers of commits?

I don’t consider what happens before push to be “history” at all. Do you? I do consider what happens after push to be history, and for pushed commits, I agree, people should not rebase them.

Branching was designed for the isolation and safety of multi-person teams working on features that take non-trivial amounts of time. Arguing over what individuals should do when not working in teams in a branch is possibly a bit of bike-shedding. I don’t know if that’s what we’re doing here, but on the other hand there are some clues: rebasing is something people do to their own private branch before push, but not normally to other people’s commits after they’ve pushed.

I do think it’s noisy and unnecessary to have two commits for every single-commit change in master. A lot of teams specifically disallow that practice and require direct checkins to master for single commit changes, just to prevent the noise.

If you’re advocating never using rebase, and never rewriting your own history before you push, then I think that is a dogmatic approach that misunderstands the goals and tools in git and fundamentally mistakes git’s philosophy.

If you’re saying that people are rebasing your changes after you pushed them, then I agree with you completely.

I’m not calling anyone wrong. But this isn’t a disagreement over which way has cognitive load. You asked what was wrong with noisy history, and I answered. Your example of having to learn rerere only applies to the team lead, the person doing the merges, and it only comes up once in a while. Not everyone needs to learn rerere, and nobody needs to use it all the time. My example, noisy history, applies to everyone on the team at all times. On my teams, I prefer that people learn git well, and keep their histories clean.
Something is Mappable in Haskell when it instantiates the class and satisfies the necessary and sufficient conditions it is obligated to by informal yet explicit contract of the class. That is to say that definitions are what guarantee validity, not connotational semantics.
Said no one ever.