skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> I really think the catapult and parachute approach is significantly more effective than the hover-and-deploy one is.

What is that thought based on? Have you studied this field in depth?
Every state will end up having a different law like this, and it will be terrible adhering to each one.
Yeah, on Mac/Windows, I just install the free version of Malwarebytes and do a full scan occasionally...
>It’s not an analogy at all

Then why are you talking about a garbage company? Your whole comment is building an analogy.

>Although I’d like to know which step in my story stops qualifying as one.

This is where it stops qualifying:

>Instead of taking the land, the government just declares that it’s legal for the garbage company to dump trash on other people’s land, and the owners just have to deal with it. This is quite different in the details from the original subsidy, but the overall effect is essentially the same.

The government saying "it's legal to do X" and all companies in any industry and any individual (what we're talking about is CO2 emissions) are allowed to do it, it's not a subsidy. It's just behavior with an externality that the government doesn't tax.
An older/vanilla version of HN is. Since then, secret sauce algorithms have been added. If it was public, it might be easier for someone to game the system.

It's written in Arc (a dialect of Lisp) and included in the Arc distribution:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1390685
There's significant pushback against the restricted drugs thing, so that might not be the best comparison.
Quite a few in this album are cross-eyed:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dNN8JejjaeKj8h8617f8pwCgoaJ...

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bYdjnKlqJdhJOrZIuN-zeCwyL8K...
I don't agree at all. I don't find it less "readable". You just have to be used to it. If you understand English, German isn't that hard of a language to learn. Japanese would probably be a little bit harder to pick up though. Doesn't mean Japanese is unreadable
I was pretty good buddies with some of the higher-ups that spent a lot of time with Patrick. One of the craziest stories they told me was when they were partying at his ranch in the mountains with a lot of property.

Everyone was drinking and laughing or whatever, I think he estimated a handful people were there, and suddenly Patrick gets a notification on his phone and starts freaking out, saying someone was coming onto the property, specifically one of the "men in black" Feds you hear him refer to. Apparently he had people watching cameras around his property for any "suspicious activity," and there were reasons for him to fear for his life over it.

He pushes a button and his house shuts down like one of those movies where metal sheets go over all the windows, code red alarm, and literally a gun room opens up. He grabs a bunch of "Halo-style guns" (source's words) and passes them around to the other people in the room, whispering about hiding and waiting it out or they'll have to fight.

Hours went by without more incident other than everyone freaking out for a while and I think they started partying again or passing out.

People didn't used to believe me when I told them he was like this!
Perhaps I really enjoyed the movie though and I’d like to watch it again in a few months time. Do I pay to rent it again or pay $20 for a permanent download?
Do you now have to write log parsers to extract personal data for everything that previously you just stored for general debugging and security purposes? ... Any engineers now must fully understand the consequences of anything they log and design delete mechanisms for it.

YES YES YES YES YES.

Are you not already doing this for passwords, credit card numbers, and social security numbers?

Such a request is essentially NP-complete.

I think you mean undecidable, or equivalent to the halting problem, or subject to Rice's theorem. NP-completeness is irrelevant. I think you'll find that HN is the last place you'll win arguments by inaccurately using technical terms in the hopes that it will go over other people's heads, Legally Blonde-style (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rNVaY7Stt4).

To anyone who knows what they're talking about, this an obviously nonsensical argument. It's similarly undecidable to verify whether the data that you expose publicly contains customer data, or customer passwords, or your own passwords, but you do it anyway, by restricting your engineers to only write and deploy code that they understand.
The problem is that beavers didn't suddenly start doing that, the ecosystems they live in co-evolved around the existence of beavers.

On time scales relevant to evolution, human civilization is happening in an instant and nothing can adapt as fast.

The result is a gigantic loss of biodiversity.
Sure I do know, but these processes take time. And don't frame EU as a singular entity, there are many interestes involved.
They did not infect machines; they just popped up that it found all kinds of things that were not there at all and you should upgrade to fix the issue. That is also a rancid tactic but I think Norton (or Mcafee?) also did it (it has been a long time but I remember either or both of them trying to panic users into buying like that). After upgrading, it would scan and nothing would be found; or at least not what it said before upgrading.
Right but what happens when you have coverage that is refreshed every hour or even less? You then have another surveillance network, one which is very hard to opt out of
Only as an artifact of how laws currently work, not a necessary aspect of how transactions have to work.

We could definitely have a system where eg all CC processing must be done through a firewalled system such that the business only ever learns that the payment was successful (unless there is a dispute).

Edit: Europe tries to approximate this with the GDPR system of “you can only use information for the purposes for which it was collected” but that doesn’t stop them from seeing your identity like I described.
> If that were true, nobody would be using either fossil source.

Sunk costs are a thing.
I am a bit surprised it took this long to show up really given so many other trends
There are so many positive externalities that it's not even possible for me to list all of them but let me give you a couple of examples.

Our use of fossil fuels secures:

Safer environments:
(access to water, safer buildings, the ability to build infrastructure, healthier citizens, food supply security)

The ability to innovate:
No matter which innovation you want to talk about it requires fossil fuels, without fossil fuels no ability to innovate like we don. All of the alternative energy developments require access to fossil fuels).

Dual use.

You can use oil from so many different things pesticides, plastic, energy, medicin, building materials, steel and I could go on. This is from the same "mining" of one material. What do you think it would cost the environment if you had to pick different material up for each of the things fossil fuels can be used as.

These are advantages not built into the price of oil. You don't pay for that but that's what you get.

There is currently no realistic useful alternative to fossil fuels and no person I know who started looking into this came out negative about fossil fuels.

Yes, there are some negative consequences as with all other things we do in life but they are by far dwarfed by the positive attributes.

Nature doesn't give us a safe and friendly environment we made unsafely, it gave us a hostile and dangerous environment we through our use of fossil fuels have managed to make much much safer.
It's to hard to do anything so lets do nothing.
It is very hard to diagnose light brain injuries. The problem is that no one knows what a healthy brain should look like because we are all different so (unless you have before and after images) you can't say if a brain is injured. Another problem is that the neurologists making their judgement likely were primed - they know that something was wrong with the brains in the images so they looked for exactly that.

This blog post explains these issues in more detail: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2018/04/07/ba...

That said, it would be very interesting if they can show brain injuries from exposure to common pesticides. I wonder what impact such result would have on millions of farm workers or even on people living close to highways.
I tested our most complex pipeline on Github Actions (the newer version of the beta, which had the YAML specification, though I tried both). Our most complex pipeline, though universally likely not very complex; maybe 8 distinct linters, unit tests, a build step with a typescript compile + docker build, and an image push.

While they're definitely trying out some novel ideas in the CI world, it was startlingly slow. Using as much parallelism as possible on every platform; CircleCI could do this pipeline in ~5 minutes, BuildKite (what we currently use) hosted on GCP n1-standard-1 instances, could do it in about 6, and Github Actions took closer to 10. I believe the main reason why Circle was faster was that I took some extra time to set up their native cacheing systems for things like npm dependencies and build outputs between steps; we don't have this set up on BuildKite, and that might shave off a few seconds (though, I haven't looked into it, but if we're forced to egress these caches from a BuildKite DC, say in AWS, to our agents in GCP, maybe it wouldn't save any time. The tight integration of Circle is a big advantage here).

My theory is that the big slowdown is the downloading of docker images; not necessarily the beefiness of each build container.

On Circle, we avoided the use of docker and went straight native, except in the final steps where we're actually building an image of course.

On BuildKite, we're actively encouraged to use Docker to isolate builds. Given a single agent will be shared between multiple repositories, this makes total sense. But, the agents are still durable; if a tslint step starts with a pull of the node:carbon image, that image will be cached on each machine that has ever ran the build, practically indefinitely (until the machines are recycled). So the P99 off each pipeline can be higher than that 6 minute mark, but the vast majority of builds will go much quicker.

On GHA, every step needs to be in a docker image (which I like!), but there doesn't appear to be any local image caching in the build containers. If they can add this in some capacity, I'd bet the builds would be much faster. Arguably; they know at any time what images may be needed for a given repository, because the pipeline steps are defined statically in the repository, so they could feasibly keep those cached in a pool of workers that are then grabbed for that repo. Plus, I'd bet over 50% of builds start with the top 50 most popular images on docker hub (alpine, ubuntu, node, python, etc). There's no reason why every agent can't have those pre-downloaded and ready to go, beyond cost.

Excited to see the product improve; I could easily see us switching and paying for it one day.
What is the real significance here? They are a single manufacturer of a standardized style.

Is this part of a trend of lower sales? Some kind of non-business motivation (politics, pressure, etc.)? Or just a business with a product that doesn't compete?

I'm not sure there's a lot of intellectual content here either. The AR-15 itself isn't much different from other rifles except it looks scarier. Which is largely because it's made of modern, mass-producible materials rather than wood.
Just to be clear, my advice was that Systems Engineering is the blind spot. There are a couple companies that use functional programming, but pretty much all companies need Systems Engineers. They're so hard to find. It pays just as well as Software Engineer. It doesn't require higher education. Systems Engineers also tend to have a lot more power than Software Engineers too, since they control the means of production. Totally worth considering.

Please note the SRE book has been raising awareness of these facts with the public, so the opportunity window is likely to shrink over time as more people try to get in.
GP is referring to pseudonymization, not data structures.

Logs that do not contain explicit PII are still rife with pseudo-identifiers that could possibly (but not typically) be used to join activity with PII.

For example:

- You have one set of logs that stores anonymized click activity

- You have another set of logs that stores purchase transactions

- Both have millisecond timestamps

You could potentially link the click record from one logs database to the purchase record in the transaction database, when during a single millisecond there is only one transaction and one click happening. Now your anonymized click ID and all your click activity is linked to your PII in your transaction.

Sometimes it's off by a few millisecond. Sometimes the logs are obfuscated up to the second level, but then you'll still have instances of a single click and transaction in a second. Does this activity still need to be removed from logs, despite not being linked to your PII or even being identifiable? These are the challenges that need to be addressed.
And we know they will cost two arms and a leg, compared to renewables.
I guess we need to figure out where satire ends and crazy conspiracy theories begin. The difference seems to be with how often repeated and fervent the claim is.
Thanks! I will try that
> The "anonymous" side's solution here is, "anybody should be able to convincingly and legally lie about their physical location to (virtually) any business." If that solution is implemented, GDPR and Right to Be Forgotten don't work because it's impossible to verify jurisdiction.

How is that? GDPR protects EU residents when they are outside the EU, so you already can't just look at someone's location and decide not to give them GPDR protections. If the GDPR applies to you, your GDPR related features need to accessible to all your users.
Is what people say is what people actually going to do ?
Hmm, I think this definition needs some kind of innovation factor. Most start-ups try to do something different than the competition. Those who succeed improved or innovated successfully. Small local business mostly innovate on how to do things (process improvements to cut cost), less on the product itself
> war just isn't a very good form of population control any more

That's because war isn't a form of population control. It's a form of conflict resolution.
There was the application of tracking vehicles for fighting crime that has been proposed. With enough data, you can "rewind" and "fast forward" time to see where criminals came from, who they coordinated with, etc.

All well and good as long as they're criminals... But there's nothing to ensure it's used for that. Imagine Uber God mode for all vehicles.
Ssh you're not meant to confess to design patterns these days ;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xkNPp6mzzI
They have something that works for them. Why change?
Well you said it yourself, there is a betting aspect and when there's betting, tipping the scales is a possibility.
An even larger hammer you can use is injecting arbitrary JS using Violentmonkey; that lets you do pretty much anything. It also works on phones.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/violentmonkey...
They don't advance quickly. They are less then 1% of the worlds energy usage and are only projected to be around 3-4% in 2040.

They advance because of the political tailwind they have not because they are actual solutions.

Again you can't have energy based on solar and wind alone. You need backup energy. That means oil, gas, coal and nuclear.

Nuclear powerplants don't meltdown today and fewer people died from nuclear in all its time than from what nature alone kills in a year by a factor.
Personally I am the same as you. My first attempt is never the optimal solution.
What about the super-series content? netflix just purchased the rights to Seinfeld for example -- probably for an insane amount of money. Or The Office which is leaving netflix in a few years.

Those probably drive new users and retain current ones.
[replying because I previously downvoted and another respondent didn't know why people were downvoting.]

> Really? From your description it sounds like I would have to trust Sparkswap and some other unknown bank with my fiat.

Fiat transactions have extremely high reversibility often for months after the fact, and law enforcement is actually responsive around fiat theft in a way they haven't been around cryptocurrency theft. As a result, at least so-far, exchange thefts have not centered around the fiat side of the operations, and in the rare cases fiat has been lost it seems to have always, AFAIK, been cases where the exchange self-traded in order to cover up a cryptocurrency loss. But perhaps as the cryptocurrency side gets derisked we'll see more fiat shenanigans.

>> In just the first half of 2019, almost $500M^3 was stolen from custodial exchanges.

> And why would you be immune to this?

They'd be immune because those thefts targeted huge standing balances of highly liquid, irreversible cryptocurrencies, that users left on exchanges for convenience in trade. It sounds like their intent is to eliminate all large standing cryptocurrency balances. I have no idea if they will be successful, but if they are it should be a substantial derisking.

> What problem? To buy LN coins instead of Bitcoins?

There is no such thing as "LN coins", lightning is a bitcoin smart contract that allows effectively instantaneous transfers of Bitcoin between users. It works by telling the bitcoin network that some collection of your coins will be governed by a programmatic contract between you and another user, then you can trade your coins back and forth as fast as you want at no cost, and you only need to go back to the network if there is a dispute between parties (where the network then forces correct handling) or you want to remove the coins from the agreement.

This is conceptually similar to how you enjoy the protection of the law and the courts while virtually never going to court yourself-- except more powerful because taking your dispute to the network is completely automated, radically cheaper than a court, and not so subject to making a wrong decision. :)

(The network part of the name comes in because the lighting contracts allow transitive trade, e.g. if Alice and Mallory have funds subject to lightning contract, and Mallory and Bob have funds subject to lighting contract-- then Alice can pay Bob, transitively via Mallory without posting transactions in public. This is possible because the protocol is constructed so that multiple trades can be made cryptographically atomic-- where either all succeed or all fail.)

Part of the reason that you're being downvoted is because misinformation claiming that lightning issues some kind of additional or alternative cryptocurrency is a dog whistle of some well known cryptocurrency scammers, such as Craig Wright and his staff.

Downvoters may have been assuming that you were employed by one of these scammers, but it's just as possible that you simply picked up some of their terminology in ignorance.

Cheers.
"My own complaint" is one on which the success of autonomous vehicles hinges. It's not an arbitrary critique at all -- all these things will be misclassified and mistreated unless explicitly included in the training process (until ML gets smarter). The fat tail strikes again.

"Benefiting the world" sounds great except we're embedded in a capitalist system for which the net gain on utility from this action is negative -- the super-corporations capitalizing on my unpaid work will further contribute to the economic inequality that beleaguers everyone who works for a wage.
The Great Oxidation Event (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event) was exactly that. Oxygen-producing organisms caused the extinction of almost all life, over two billion years ago.
I’d go with “secretary of defense guns down thirty civilians with a machine gun in Times Square”.

Why these mass murderers are allowed to flourish in our society is a continuing source of dismay for me.
You've got it backwards. Electric vehicles have more embodied energy / carbon, but use less to operate, particularly if the electricity source is not coal. Delivery vehicles that have a high duty cycle and start/stop often are a great target for BEVs. It's true that with current tech, a plug-in hybrid may still be better from a CO2 perspective, but fleets also care about the lower maintenance costs that could be provided by electric-only vehicles.

More: http://www.cmu.edu/me/ddl/publications/2010-JMD-Shiau-etal-P...

And in general: https://www.cmu.edu/cit/veg/
Not related? Tapping an undersea cable doesn't compromise encrypted traffic.

Unless it looks like the NSA gets Apple and Google to put in back-doors, the products are still significantly safer than Huawei which is just an arm of the government.
Awesome! @photomatt would also love to know the company's plans with HappyTools (https://happy.tools/), what's coming next?
Yes, there are still some stability issues though. Phoronix benchmarked the Linux kernel built with Clang/LLVM against GCC recently: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=clang-li...
They're just probing to see if you're running anything they might be able to exploit - I didn't see any 200's other than /, so I think it's low risk.
I believe it was about 4 degrees C warmer than now two interglacial periods ago

Most critters got through it, even hominids.

The opportunity is slowing global warming down enough to match the upcoming ice age, not too soon, not too late.
Everyone, join in the protests tomorrow!

https://fridaysforfuture.org/events/map?c=+All+countries&d=F...
I totally agree. I still think homework has utility at least in helping students develop patterns of study and figuring out problems without help from a teacher available at arms length.

Too much is definitely a detriment to anyone’s education, but I think this usually happens when classroom instruction is imbalanced with material covered as “homework”.

By far I learned the most in a physics class in high school with homework but you could correct a number of problems in class if you completed it at home (not easy). I liked this balance, but there were still students who seemed to lack the discipline to actually just do the homework and not wait for class to see how many solutions they could copy.
Your claim is that if you put CO2, a relatively easy to acquire gas, into a bottle, the temperature will keep climbing? Isn't this a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

I'm not so sure your experiment would work unless you specify various other conditions. The main reason that CO2 is a 'greenhouse gas' is that it absorbs thermal infrared light. In other words, CO2 'reflects' infrared light. This, combined with the fact that the sun is continuously heating the earth means that -- in the context of the Earth's atmosphere -- CO2 acts like a giant blanket. Only in the context of a continuously externally heated object does CO2 cause temperature increases, which is not something that is necessarily going to be simulated by 'putting CO2 into a bottle'.

However, CO2 by itself does not cause things to heat up. That is patently ridiculous, and bad science. In fact, if you fill a jar with CO2 and water gas (also a greenhouse gas), and expose it to the air on a cloudless night, and then put some kind of insulating layer between it and the earth (like some feet of straw), it'll actually freeze: https://pazhayathu.blogspot.com/2012/02/water-cooler-air-con...
The number isn't that relevant, whether its 1.5 or 2C. What is relevant, that we can limit the temperature raise only if we strongly stop on the breaks with respect to CO2 emissions. If we don't do that, we will have quite different and much more unpleaseant numbers.