skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Excluding the cost of labor for the driver, public transit will be in general cheaper if there is at least some demand for it.

Yes, if you arbitrarily exclude the labor, which is a big fraction of the total cost, and conveniently assume enough demand (capacity factor) to cover for higher vehicle costs and higher fuel costs, then yes, public transit will be cheaper. That's what I meant when I said that for highly popular routes it will be more cost-effective.

In real world scenario though this rarely works out for real systems out there. For example, I live in Seattle. The metro bus system is quite extensive and offers good coverage, by national standards. The bus fare here is $2.75 per ride. The farebox recovery is 27%. This means that to cover all operational costs of the bus, the fare would have to be $10.20. Suffice to say, it is much more expensive than total cost of owning and driving a car, as long as your trip is less than 20 miles. Bus trips this long are here absolutely miserable: 20 miles bus ride in practice means at least one transfer, and so instead of 20-30 minute drive, you're looking at 1:30h journey, assuming no traffic of course.
No no no. This is exactly the mindset we need to avoid when addressing problems in our justice system. I am sorry but the entrepreneurial / venture capitalist mindset is not suitable here. Private prisons should not exist. Public prisons should be focused on rehabilitation, not retribution. As pro-capitalism as I am, the only future I see in your idea is abject market failure. We’re not talking about product here, we’re talking about human life. The market hasn’t been able to solve health care so what makes you think it’s going to be able to solve mass incarceration?

Further, this hypothetical system is ripe for exploitation. Aside from the potential exploits others have raised, have you considered the parallels to other industries such as defense contractors? Your idea creates an incentive and profit motive for crime. It’s the type of thinking that could literally result in corporations creating artificial mass shooters in pursuit of all the easy money that could be made. Sorry, but I think this is an extremely bad take and I actually worry about a dystopian future where this takes place. Pull on this thread at your own peril.
I suggest that you use run-time code generation to create optimized classes that do not check for intrinsic features on each function call.
I spent a long time writing advanced code as part of a PhD as well. It relied heavily on existing FOSS code and patent-free work, and would never have been possible if I had had to seek permission for each patentable element used.

There is hardly any field where you can improve the state of the art, without stepping on dozens of patents. Of course you can ignore those patents if you don't care about making any money off your work. But if that's the case, you don't need patents in the first place.
"Enormous"? No, not really, it's more of a nice to have. As a native speaker of an umlauty Nordic language, if you drop the umlauts, it's virtually always quite easy and in fact almost effortless to work out which words is being referred to from context.
Throwaway account!

I'm Australian. Social media sees quite a few fellow Aussies sharing R U OK day links. Yesterday an acquaintance of mine posted that no-one's asked him if he's OK but well, he's not. Same here. Wife cheated on me a couple of weeks ago and gaslighted me until I had collected evidence at which point she confessed. Everything is now very difficult. R U OK day is just banners and t-shirts.
> based on his journalism

He is being extradited to the US on the charge that he helped Manning break into classified computers. These alleged actions are no longer journalism.

Greenwald and Poitras never faced charges for publishing the documents Snowden leaked / provided. The NY Times did not face charges for leaking the Pentagon Papers that Ellsberg gave them. Assange would not have been charged with leaking documents that others provided—but he is alleged to have taken a step too far.
It almost always gets much farther beyond that point. In Seattle, where I live, farebox recovery is just 27%, which, given that fare is $2.75, means that riding a bus is much less cost effective than driving.
I don't think that would be appropriate since Golang isn't (to my knowledge) under the GNU license.

Maybe gocc?
You certainly can for individual use. My experience was more about setting up an enterprise-grade server with identity management.
You're not a fan of dual voting classes? Then I assume you're not investing in We when they IPO.

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-09-11/wework-gov...
Alex Honnold's next summit: the rest of his life
We (Apple) have privately reached out to quite a few JS frameworks and web game engines. We’re trying to take all their input into account and to share it with the WG.
All claims require evidence. You need to troll all the threads equally, or just stop making people feel like crap for sharing articles.
You have to at least build the compound to do the assay to actually find out that it's useful.
Study of French postmen's testicles is an Ig Nobel winner
> Smugglers aren't driving trucks full of contraband over the open desert through areas where Trump's (or Palmer's) "wall," whether real or virtual, would stop them. They're smuggling them through established checkpoints.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but how do you know the specific means by which fentanyl is getting into the US?

> The intense fight in the Trump era over this stems from the uncomfortable fact that the people we're seeing in camps and cages on the borders of the US, the people we keep trying to punish for coming here in ever more brutal fashion, are not trying to make illegal border crossings.

I'm also curious about this, how you know the actual motivations behind people's concerns about the border?

Fully agree with your final point though, fixing the problem at the source should at least be seriously attempted, and I don't see any sign of that happening.
Given that Apple are the major sponsor of LLVM and they're not exactly cash poor, I think it's reasonable to conclude that being able to throw money and people at LLVM development doesn't explain why it's still much slower than the Go compiler toolchain. In hindsight the Go team made the right call to use their own toolchain.

As enneff alludes, Ken Thompson's antipathy towards C++ is well documented: https://bryanpendleton.blogspot.com/2009/12/coders-at-work-k...
>>>At the time of writing, “Martin Heidegger” is one of only 174 English Wikipedia pages –out of a total 29 million – officially flagged as “incomprehensible” by the site.

If nobody can understand him, he's not worth caring about.
size_t is unsigned, so (dsize <= 0) is identical to (dsize == 0) ;)
Not great, overloaded myself with too many responsibilities and am now working to simplify my life. Dealing with the fact that there are only so many areas that one can go really deep in, and I have learn to accept my limits.
Not quite single handedly, Marten is working with a few other fabricators on this project
A careless mistake on my part. Thanks for the correction.
> Open Source software demonstrates otherwise.

Major opensource projects are predominantly developed by fulltime professionals working for companies that obtain patents as a matter of policy.

We have an example of what the world was like before patents: the guild system. It didn't appreciably advance technology.
The EU law on software patents is not that different from US law in practice. Computer programs are not patentable as such, but “computer implemented inventions” are patentable. In the US the Alice interpretation of Section 101 has a similar effect. Say you develop software that does object detection for LIDAR. You can’t patent the code itself. But if the code has an “inventive step,” you can patent the technical aspects of the object detection method.
As it is, at least Windows laptops can try to replicate that secret sauce. Or just reverse engineer it: we're talking about software patents, and pretty much all of Apple's software is available unencrypted in binary form and can thus be reverse engineered by those with the right skills.

The idea that Apple would have a goverment-enforced monopoly on good trackpads for 20 years sounds like a far, far worse outcome to me. If it were 5 years or less, maybe...
GCCGo,llgo and tinygo are different Go compilers built and maintained by different peoples
The folks that come up with photovoltaic paint are going to get very rich.

In the mean time a flexible solar charging car cover/blanket would cover the entire area of the vehicle and could plug right into the charging port while the car is parked. Could even be used across same size vehicles or to sell power back to the grid (if this were available) if car is fully charged.
Borders are an authoritarian tool of control, so allusions to empire and talking about a democratic society with a safety net being unable to handle open borders is bizarre to say the least.

The entire point of the argument is that in aggregate the benefits outweigh the costs, not that it's costless.
I'm there with you, however these [0] are the consequences of not having dual class voting structure.

[0] https://www.axios.com/starboard-value-box-shareholder-activi...
The SR-71's predecessor used cesium-laced fuel to create radar-absorbing exhaust
Sebastião Salgado: Gold
You are allowed to file patents that are novel extensions of an existing patent. You might not be able to use it because of the original patent, but you can absolutely file one.
Specialization constants don’t seem to cut it for all the use cases. There’s variation beyond plugging in constants. Also some frameworks and engines give their clients the ability to provide shader snippets at runtime.
Maybe the software is different per country/region, because here it takes maybe ~5 clicks to buy something. And you can easily add multiple items before paying.
A very nice, very theoretical answer. But how are software patents actually used in practice? As drivers of innovation, or as a way to use not-too-clever-but-essential ideas as a moat to keep out competitors?
Who would have thought that statically linking hundreds of MB worth of binaries every build causes problems?

Maybe some of it can be fixed with a lot of engineering effort, but the fact remains that it is a bad idea to redo so much work every time.

Maybe the people who invented shared libraries had a point after all.

Of course the real problem is software and dependency bloat, but that is unlikely to ever get fixed.
You could probably emulate them. For example, Money would just be BigInt/100.
> Rewrite from C to java and you get around copyright.

This is incorrect. Translations, in either natural or computer languages, qualify as derivative works under copyright law.
'Freeze and marry me ' – Russians who propose at gunpoint
Saraki Interact with Maritime Stakeholders
I used to use a solar battery charger to keep my car battery topped up when it was just sitting around. Worked great.
photovoltaic paint .. that could be a near future news headline
How does this compare to a home equity loan?
Maybe when parked additional solar panels could “deploy” out of the trunk/frunk?
> But dragging the panels around with you so that you always have some kind of charging seem pretty reasonable.

It might prevent the worst case scenario of being stranded in a desert without fuel. But for everyday driving, dragging around that extra weight has a real cost, which could quite plausibly outweigh the benefits to everyday driving.

Remember, our auto industry has moved to the point where spare tires are starting to become uncommon and full-size spares are almost unheard of. The market isn't trying to optimize for the worst case scenario.
Meh Safari is the new IE...
Google's Common Expression Language for Expression Evaluation
if we take the quantum of transportation how small can it get? A scooter?
If it was any car company other than Toyota, this statement could be plausible, maybe
Thanks, I was not aware of ma1sd. I saw Gridepo but it seems to solve different problems.

I felt as though getting Matrix 95% up and running was relatively straight-forward, but I spent far too long trying to configure self-registration, email verification and domain whitelisting through mxisd that I gave up. These don't seem like uncommon scenarios for organisations wishing to run their own Matrix instance.

In contrast, a Mattermost instance that supported self-registration and domain whitelisting was up and running in almost no time.

The config generator will be a welcome addition. I will probably revisit Matrix some time in the future.
# Fast, portable, non-Turing complete expression evaluation

Common Expression Language (CEL) is a non-Turing complete language designed for simplicity, speed, safety, and portability. CEL is designed to be evaluated without a sandbox, making it ideal for use within latency critical applications.

## Features

- Familiar C-like syntax common to C++, Go, Java, and TypeScript.

- Gradual typing with first-class support for Protobuf and JSON types.

- High performance evaluators in C++ and Go with a rich set of standard operators.

## How Google uses Common Expression Language

Google uses CEL as the expression component of IAM and Firebase security policies, as well as within Istio Mixer configs.
I've often thought these cars should have a small gas generator you could use to charge the car if there's no outlet available.
I’m. It aware if efforts to identify same plate, different state. If the data quality is so good you’re getting exact same plate different states, that is impressive.

Instead, I’d look at vehicle type identification. There is at least one startup selling an API that determines make / model info that when combined with license plate you would very likely find unique data.
> I would love to see more systems engineered to try to balance that. Perhaps a Twitter-like system that capped the number of followers you had.

Is that really better? I think I like the current system. Sure, Everest is ruined, but there are a dozen places nearly as amazing that can be enjoyed with much less crowds. If you want bragging rights, then go to Everest. If you want serenity and beauty, go to the other mountains.

Given the number of people on earth, trying to distribute the people will just lead to everything being destroyed, albeit a little bit slower.
With all due respect your exact same line of reasoning would work for exercising.

Why would it be unwise to think it works for everyone? Does doing sit-ups make everyone’s core stronger? Does doing squats make everyone’s legs stronger?

I have no idea what you were doing when you were meditating, but having anxiety about it is certainly not proof that it doesn’t work.

Maybe you didn’t have good guidance? Maybe you were having some benefit you didn’t notice or measure?

Preferring exercise over meditation doesn’t really make any sense? Exercise and meditation do not serve the same purpose. It would be best to do both with a good plan, it’s essentially impossible to do zero of either of them.

If someone told me exercise didn’t work for them, I’d simply say the same as I would to you, you must be doing it wrong (for your situation), or it is working, and it’s not at a fast enough pace for your liking.

What I would guess is going on would be loosely similar to someone who starts to exercise and does it with bad form and not enough conditioning for the exercises they try. So they get hurt or too sore and just think it won’t work.
Reminds of FaceApp. Simple channel to collect Americans face pictures for later use in who knows what...
He's following the German philsophical tradition of verbosity for its sake. But there is a small kernal of ideas that can be distilled from his work that academics generally agree are there and original enough for the time to be worth consideration. Interpretations vary wildly, of course, but that has almost as much to do with academia as it does Heidegger.
The United States allows all asylum seeker's safe entrance at ports of entry, so... Dunno what you're arguing here
still leaves wiggle room. Suppose a "direct marketing sub-agent" opens up shop, helps you send a couple of emails, so technically they are assisting you in sending direct marketing, but then that allows you to maybe sell all of your users' personal info to that third party who just set up shop out of a vacuum.

Even if you have good intentions and don't sell them the information, what's the guarantee that these third parties won't use the information you provided them for personal gain anyway?
I'm guessing GP refers to the fact that Go binaries use raw system calls even on operating systems where the syscall boundary is considered a private implementation detail (which is the case on Windows and macOS).
About 20 years. In fact it expired on June 2 and you’re free to use it. You are free to use the work that he was incented to do. His work is now our work.
well I think the tor services are a good idea at least
Absolutely as a moat, that's what makes them valuable. The point is that the moat becomes a public good once the patent expires. The moats would exist without patents, but there would be less total knowledge and less competition for an indefinite period, rather than a fixed one.

That greed is a motivation for obtaining a patent doesn't make them bad, any more than my decision to care about my wages makes me bad. Greed will exist either way, the question is how best to direct it towards maximising the total good.
Am listenning to the dem debate now where kamala (?) mentioned (promised) to ban private prisons. Coincidence?
Thanks for your kind encouragement :)
> Russel's teapot and all that, the one making claims has to prove it, not others have to disprove it.

That's not what Russel says. It's unfalsifiable claims, not just "claims".

An absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

The burden of proof isn't about citations it's about providing sufficiently justified reasoning for a belief.
well I know what I'm getting myself for xmas
And continuing the silly hypothetical, it seems like it would leave Toyota with a Gillette Razor business model of supplying you with repair parts for the last car you ever buy.
We already have applications that can take all your traffic and send it over an encrypted tunnel somewhere else, if you don't want to exit to the Internet from a place you don't trust. They're called VPN clients. DoH is like a partial VPN client. It doesn't belong in the browser.
Write your own simple virtual machine[1] and a tiny assembler which accepts symbolic names for jump targets (e.g. goto LABEL). You'll need a link phase to resolve the symbolic names, and all will become clear. A few hours of time and anything involving linking, addressing[2], and so much more will instantly become intuitive to you.

[1] Array of opcodes indexed with a program counter (pc) with a giant switch statement for executing each opcode. A simple stack for data implemented as an array and a stack pointer/index (sp). There are plenty of examples online, just make sure you actually implement things yourself, and only go to the examples to answer questions you arrive at yourself. If you understand loops and arrays implementing the VM is trivial. If you can parse a text file line-by-line and split words, implementing the assembler is trivial. Working out the linking might take some thinking, but that's the point. It's like one night of work, max, unless you really get sucked in ;)

[2] E.g. Harvard architecture vs. von Neumann architecture
You are describing the Chevy Volt. Or the BMW i3.
no thanks I have Google Drive already
I’d really appreciate that :)
> You might not be able to use it because of the original patent, but you can absolutely file one.

That is precisely my point.
> I used to use a solar battery charger to keep my car battery topped up when it was just sitting around. Worked great.

Car battery, like a lead acid one? If so, it's a very tiny battery.
IIRC Bezos argued that software patents should have 9 years protection, which seems like a good compromise to me.
See this [0] historical retrospective of IPython (the forerunner of Jupyter) in 2012 by its originator Fernando Pérez:

>Let's go back to the beginning: when I started IPython in late 2001, I was a graduate student in physics at CU Boulder, and had used extensively first Maple, then Mathematica, both of which have notebook environments. I also used Pascal (earlier) then C/C++, but those two (plus IDL for numerics) were the interactive environments that I knew well, and my experience with them shaped my views on what a good system for everyday scientific computing should look like. In particular, I was a heavy user of the Mathematica notebooks and liked them a lot.

[0] http://blog.fperez.org/2012/01/ipython-notebook-historical.h...
Forgetting the fact that most schools aren't on quarters, the 12 courses all have prerequisites for a reason. You can't just take them all at the same time.

Even if you could take them all at the same time, maybe 2 or 3% of students would have been capable of completing those courses in that time frame at my University.

You're also cutting out 5 classes because they are called electives. In most programs electives are structured so that you're going to get exposure to certain topics no matter which electives you take, so randomly cutting out 5 classes just because there is some choice doesn't make sense.
What you describe is the current practice. What I am trying to suggest is that it is reasonable to be able to use a Markush claim for obvious related compounds.
looks awesome, we need to get away from the icloud apple google dropbox nonsense.
> when the prison guard union has all the exact same incentives and is drastically more powerful.

Could you please provide me some examples? I figure if California's prisons were 200% of capacity, there's no shortage of work for the prison guards anyway.
YMMV. Unpopular opinion: I don’t really like open source. I like patents and copyrights because they’re property rights you can use as the basis for markets. Markets are good. It’s hard to build markets with open source. Open source has resulted in a world where you can’t make money just selling software, you have to lock people into ecosystems and services to monetize your work. Symbian used to sell you an OS in return for a cash payment. That was it. Now, you get Android for “free” but only by turning your customers into the product. Same thing with web standards. With video coding standards, you just pay some money and you get the necessary patent licenses. But web standards are “free.” In practice that means just two companies (Apple and Google) get to control the standard by fiat. Is this better?
Life
What is it real or fake?
I don't know.. have to read up on the actual 3 web protocol before i trust this
Why would they want to go backwards. Anyone who has spent sometime in China will understand that it's stripped Hong Kong and Taiwan far behind.

And this just leaves me scratching my head

- bring back traditional Chinese characters

I'm not sure what the motivation behind this is or if it's just due to a lack of historical awareness. Simplified Chinese characters were introduced as a way to improve overall literacy in the country to decrease the barrier for education. It was a smart move. If other regions want to preserve traditional characters out of tradition that's totally cool but overhauling the simplified character system would be again going backwards
That's essentially what a plug-in hybrid is, modulo the "small."
BTC wallet? or just a payment processor?
Agreed. This argument comes up a lot, especially in open source, that resources on one project would have better spent on some other project. Developer focus is not a fungible commodity. If the Golang devs hadn't been developing the Go compiler, they wouldn't necessarily have spent their efforts on LLVM, they'd just as likely be working on something other way to make Plan9 come about.