skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The issue is speeders. And noise pollution. And air pollution. And risk of getting hit. Driving a car on a street has externalities that need accounting for.
I feel like the commits are ordered backwards horizontally here: https://pvigier.github.io/media/img/commit-graph/many_merges...

Wouldn't it make more sense to have the first commit leftmost, closest to master etc. Beyond just feeling more natural to me (reading left to right etc) it'd avoid that huge amount of lines crossing going to the merges, as shown in the smartgit example.
Astrophysicists: Gamma-ray jets may exceed the speed of light
seems naively optimistic
Lots of stranded customers, most of whom don’t have the wherewithal to get themselves home.
> stable opinions over large groups don't form in a week

We know very well how they form: years of false propaganda.

People still believes he's scared of plants.
And what is the point then? I'm serious since i read this "if you do not understand why then it isn't for you" but without any explanations about what isn't understood.
Fair point, I was more addressing the blocking-call concern. There are a number of ways you could get your debugger of choice to not halt a particular thread (this would admittedly require some extra work), but won't a typical browser have an application-level timeout that you'd hit anyway.
weak scaling is easy.
I can add an IP as a loopback just fine - my routers have that all the time.

The problem is then how does the network know where my IP address is. When a packet aims at my loopback, how does it work its way to me?

The answer is the same as interface addresses - we use routing protocols for that, mainly today that's OSPF (in local networks) and BGP (globally).

Convergence takes a relatively long time for BGP, and BGP (at least at a global scale) is limited to /24s. ISPs won't accept your /32 advert.

Even if they did, traffic still only goes in one direction from a given host. On top of that, theoretically if every BGP peer rand BFD you might see failovers in a few seconds, but that's not the real world.
What about some sort of code URI? Maybe something like:

code:github.com/kstenerud/bit-tricks/absolute_value.h/absolute_value
This lecture contains the best advice I've come across for academic writing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtIzMaLkCaM
What does that have to do with what the parent is saying?
Just use anything command line, I personally stick to Mutt.

Check it out or neomutt or even Alpine if your taste suits that.
Why are you hosting the data in AWS instead of on Azure?
Window XCreateWindow(Display *display, Window parent, int x, int y, unsigned int width, unsigned int height, unsigned int border_width, int depth, unsigned int class, Visual *visual, unsigned long valuemask, XSetWindowAttributes *attributes);
Agreed, entirely.

But the social-science and system-science issues get confused by using ethically charged words like "decent." Modeling "decent" gets confusing without ways of measuring it. (I'll spare us a long digression on how slippery it can be to understand ethical / moral reasoning.)

Do I leave parking spots for other people because I'm a "decent" person? I like to think so -- I like to think I put others' needs ahead of my own when I can -- but that's my business. From a systems point of view I do it to help control parking lot congestion.

If I were a business owner and didn't leave convenient parking spots for others, I'd be deliberately adding to congestion near my business. That's a cost. What's the benefit?

Example: Van Jacobson's slow-start / exponential-backoff algorithm to help prevent TCP endpoints from saturating routers. It's certainly possible to explain this to a roomful of undergrads as a "be nice" requirement on web servers and other sources of large TCP streams. But it's more productive to model it as part of a large-scale system to control congestion.
Trial-marketing. Twitter users generally tend to form relationship (follow/see/RT)-graphs stick within language boundaries (and to a lesser-extent, national identity boundaries) - by using language or region as a proxy for a "clean" subset of users you can get some experimental results that you won't get by using random user selection, for example. Also, users unaffected by this change will still be able to see other users' replies and could then share screenshots of said replies which would defeat the point of this exercise - by using language boundaries means it's less likely that such a thing would happen (e.g. if this was Sweden and Norway instead of US+Japan, would you really bother to go through Swedish tweets to find replies for other users?)

In short: it sounds like they're uncertain about pushing this change through on everyone, and want to trial it first.

Twitter has gone-back on ideas they've thrown around before - like when they said they would hide other users' tweets' Like +RT counts.
I'm not sure there's an inherent value in compromise.

I certainly see value in a greater understanding of the alternative perspective, but not in accepting it if you disagree.
I know we’re going way off topic, but I’d rather keep a higher proportion of my earnings while I’m alive in exchange for losing control of whatever assets I have left over.
And they ask a hard algorithmic/CS problem then your job is to build CRUD interfaces
What on Earth is wrong with techcrunch? I clicked the link of the story, read it, decided to go back to HN. I had to click the back button 4(!) times.
> The article makes the strong and accurate claim that there has been no clear, measurable proof that helmets prevent concussion or death.

I am curious what part of the editorial leads you to draw that conclusion. The editorial specifically acknowledges that there is evidence that individual helmet use does reduce head injury rates. The entire point of the editorial is to discuss how to reconcile the individual use studies with the canadian helmet law study.

The point is not that "helmets don't pervent head injuries", but that helmets, and specifically, helmet focused public policy, have a marginal impact on safety and distract us from other more effective policy interventions.

> an emphasis on helmets reflects a seductively individualistic approach to risk management (or even “victim blaming”) while the real gains lie elsewhere. It is certainly true that in many countries, such as Denmark and the Netherlands, cyclists have low injury rates, even though rates of cycling are high and almost no cyclists wear helmets. This seems to be achieved through interventions such as good infrastructure; stronger legislation to protect cyclists; and a culture of cycling as a popular, routine, non-sporty, non-risky behavior.

Removing private automobiles from public roads is completely unnecessary to achieve much better bicyclist safety.
> He's harassed and bothered dozens of women in and outside of MIT.

No, he didn't.

Thomas Lord who worked with him says

> One remarkable thing about the FSF at that time, when we worked out of dinky spare offices on the campus of MIT, was the degree of participation by women. In the tiny society that was then the FSF, women were more prominent than I had seen in Silicon Valley, or acadamia prior. The general culture of inclusiveness and tolerance that RMS fostered meant that, at least when I was there alongside Bushnell, that social circle in and around the organization was feminized and all the stronger for it.

https://archive.is/7qepC#selection-1243.1-1359.221
I used to be "anti Tesla", then I tried one, and now I own one.

Teslas are disruptive - they're not what you expect of cars. I will never look the same at a car again. Tell this to anyone who doesn't understand, and they simply won't understand what you're going on about.

Over a year in; driving my Model X still makes me smile.
By new you mean that we get to know ms products in a different way right?
This doesn’t fix some of the issues you mention, but helps stop microplastics from contaminating the environment.

http://guppyfriend.com/en/
yes right! :)
The really dumb part is that GraphQL has more restrictions than JSON on property names, so you can't actually render arbitrary JSON data with gatsby without breaking the GraphQL schema and getting a ton of errors.

It seemed nice at first, but the way they tell you to deal with images and other resources is ridiculous overengineered and gets in the way.

If you throw real data at it, your builds explode from seconds to minutes.

Ill considered, chasing too many fads, and the inability to turn it all off if you don't need it.

That's what gatsby felt like.
Lots of people are holding out for Navi support.
How to 'Grease the Groove' and Exercise Easy
> I'd expect the bar to preserve any specific content to be a lot lower than what we had in the past.

At the moment, I agree.

However, as older civilizations rose and fell, their knowledge lived on in physical support, directly accessible by anyone who was taught how to read the language, therefore the assumption was that "as long as the language lives on, books are a good archiving support".

When our modern digital civilization falls [1], I'm not sure most of it would be transmittable through long-term electronic archiving supports that may be easily readable (as easily as a written book at least) by future civilizations, because not only the language has to live on, but the technology needed to access the content also has to function.

I also agree that some contents will always be more relevant to "backup". As for everything that happened on Facebook (same can be said for most social platforms), it is likely to entirely disappear with the company. One could even see it as a parallel civilization, that has no means of self-preservation other than that of their ruling entity's business interest.

[1] Jonathan Blow - Preventing the collapse of civilization -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW-SOdj4Kkk
Awesome. Thank you for the thorough response! This helps.
My coworker wrote this great tutorial on NestJS and TypeORM
> Bullet charts are currently considered to be one of the most effective graph types in the world.

There are far too many outrageous claims in this article.
Really? What's the difference between "fired" and "resigned under pressure"? How does it change one bit my original argument? In this instance, RMS was innocent. Doesn't matter if he was guilty in 999999 other instances(1), he was under immense pressure to resign _for this incident_. What happened to the US philosophy of freedom and liberty that inspired an entire world? I feel like it's completely gone now, they easily sacrifice what were formerly sacred principles, for well-intended but completely misguided reasons.

> It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished. But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, 'whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,' and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.

(1) Which is yet to be proven, btw. We shouldn't take destroying a man's reputation so lightly. But well, what do I know. The mob must enjoy its victories, even when they're really defeats.
Reiser3 was in maintenance mode and Reiser4 was unstable.[1]

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20150921073059/article.gmane.org...
Nobody is saying that you shouldn't wear a helmet. The point is that Helmets are at best only a marginally effective public policy to make cyclists safer.

> an emphasis on helmets reflects a seductively individualistic approach to risk management (or even “victim blaming”) while the real gains lie elsewhere. It is certainly true that in many countries, such as Denmark and the Netherlands, cyclists have low injury rates, even though rates of cycling are high and almost no cyclists wear helmets. This seems to be achieved through interventions such as good infrastructure; stronger legislation to protect cyclists; and a culture of cycling as a popular, routine, non-sporty, non-risky behaviour.
Europe shows the way in online privacy
The url changes a few times while scrolling.
> but really too dumb to see that he was wrong about the source of his insecurity

Was he? He critically appraised the evidence: height is proportional to various forms of success, and made a plan to get taller.

Sure one could convince themselves that it’s not a problem and be less successful for it on the metrics one cares about.

But that’s easier to do if you don’t have some void in life that seems hard to fill.
The Unabomber retrieved pubic hair from a public restroom to plant as a false clue in one of his bombs[0].

0: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1998-05-05-980505...
I think in this case the Motte it self is indefensible in the end: RMS isn't the most charming guy and comes off as a creep: That's indeed not a persuasive argument, except, take into account that rather a large part of his job involves being a public advocate, and, well, either you teach the public not to get excited about someone who (literally, sometimes) puts his foot in his mouth, in which case, good luck to you, or, you sigh, complain about the tyranny of the masses... and fire him.

Is it fair? (And consider that I'm looking solely at the motte part; disregarding entirely this most recent event): Well, for most definitions of fair, it is not. Nevertheless, I don't think MIT, GNU, FSF, or any other entity should suffer significant damage just to chase the ideal of someone with RMS's peculiar ways gets to do the job of being an advocate of their organization.

It boils down to this: Is it acceptable to fire someone from a job based on something they are not really responsible for?

I think if the job description itself, prior to you taking it, makes clear that: Yes, you will be fired then – that it is fine.

The vast majority of clearly public facing jobs work like this. If you're the CEO and you do something rather upsetting, but not illegal, in a private setting that leaks out and which has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the company or on your ability to perform your job there... you still get fired: The board weighs the value of your presence in your C-level role vs. the next best candidate vs. the damage done to 'the brand' by leaving you there, and a swift decision is made.

It's hard to draw lines in the sand on this. Both the public-ness of your role as well as the severity of how upset the public is about the unrelated thing need to be taken into account.

Imagine some sales rep at a company has a sextape leaked from years ago. Is it fair to fire them? Probably not.

Imagine that same sales rep has a penis tattoo'd on their forehead. Is it fair to fire them? Probably yeah, and the reason is not really: "They will do a bad job at sales itself". The reason is: "Most of your job is selling the product, put a small part of it is simply reflecting on the company. And with that tattoo you're doing such an incredibly bad job at that last part, we dont even want to know how well you will be doing at the first: You're out".

My point is, for RMS? I estimate that he is on the 'his firing his justified' side of the line for virtually anybody's sense of fairness.
Ok, but which accusations do you have in mind here? That he harassed woman, that he was creepy or rather general opinions about sex with minors? Because I am a bit confused of what means what.

I heard about advice given to some women to keep plants, so that he does not come. But that is not the same as story about Stallman harassing someone, it is story about people thinking he is creep, but no specific on anything he was supposed to do to women without plants (hope the difference is clear).
I've heard it's down to patent disputes. Wouldn't surprise me.
It doesn't call out to Google Analytics, or any of the social buttons. It's a classic static page, although even this manages to load a bit of javascript.
> all PC motherboards

Gonna need a citation on the Xeon-W board with PCIe 4.0 support. Apple aren’t using Ryzen and definitely not Ryzen 3. If they were they’d be waiting for Threadripper - even current TR doesn’t support PCIe 4.
I don't think you deserve to be downvoted, but consider the implications of this worldview: no one would rationally invest in any business venture that they might not live to see come to fruition, and that higher wealth to invest correlates with being older.
Not sure what you're getting at, this is the same socket as all the other Ryzen 3000 CPUs...

Not to mention that every slightly larger air cooler is a "passive cooler". Just don't connect the fan. Or set a fan curve that disables the fan as long as the CPU temperature is sub-62 C. Or 95 C, if you really don't want them to turn on.
Browser? I'm not talking about browsers, I'm talking about every other kind of application that tries to use a userland protocol, because that seems to be the direction network libraries are aiming to go. I have no idea how to tell most (all?) debuggers not to halt particular threads, but it sounds painful. And my point is, there are consequences like this that no one seems to care about at all, but that I would hope would've been addressed before seeing people jump on the ship.
What a disgusting, morally reprehensible take by Mr. Bushnell. He's arguing that Stallman should have known to shut up an just thrown Minsky under the bus, sort of like Bushnell does with Stallman in that article.
I'd like to point out, it's not "DoorDash" that has done anything wrong, it's these people:

- Andy Fang

- Evan Moore

- Stanley Tang

- Tony Xu

They decided our security and privacy wasn't worth as much as hur hur hur growth hacking startup hur hur next uber, and couldn't be arsed to even give us a proper apology.

Look at their blog post: not one mention of the words "we sorry, we fucked up".

It's all about the other guys.

The bad guys.

The guys who stole your data not us, and you should change your password with us to protect your account with us.

No. That's wrong. Look at the 295 million people who weren't affected -- all the people who don't use doordash at all!

That means the best way to protect yourself is to simply not use doordash. Delete it. Delete the email account and the bank/credit card you used with them (ask your bank/credit card company for a new number). Move if you've got to (drivers license details!?!?!?) You have no other protection now- you're fucked. They have your data, and they're only going to risk it again.

And remember how difficult it is to get in control of your data again when the next breach happens, the next time you're thinking about signing up with something, or you're getting ready to vote.
This article is a great example of how to pad out your paragraphs by repeating variations of the same sentence over and over.
sort of ...

I am playing with `todoinator` - it is a way of finding all the "todos" I leave scattered around my code, but also gives me ways to rank my code - its not quite where you are but I think the principle of having almost everythin derived from code is the guiding light here.

[#] https://github.com/mikadosoftware/todoinator/blob/master/tod...
Neomutt is good but it can be a pain to configure without a script. I
recommend people who want to use Neomutt for the first time use this wizard https://github.com/LukeSmithxyz/mutt-wizard
Show HN: Sprynkl – A high-performing team app
> I downvoted your previous comments because I think you haven't made any progress from your initial point.

I don't need to make "progress" from my initial point, because my initial point was simple (and correct), and no one in this thread has bothered responding to it. Stallman said what he said in very simple terms. I made a claim that Stallman said what he in fact said, and this whole thread has been full of trolls claiming he did not say what he patently did say. I'm not sure what "progress" I could possibly make from that. Hell, I'm the only person in this chain of comments who bothered quoting Stallman and commenting on it. It's pretty telling that the comment in which I actually quoted Stallman's words is the most downvoted in the thread - the truth hurts - and that's the point I was making with the follow-up comment..

> I flagged this comment because it is complaining about downvotes.

I explicitly said, in the damn comment itself, that I wasn't complaining about the downvotes. I genuinely do think it's hilarious that a simple statement about what Stallman did in fact actually say has brought so many trolls out of the woodwork who have no ability whatsoever to defend their "position".

>Given good faith, I could initially respond positively to your comment. While I believe you did not phrase it well, I think there's an argument to make there - if mens rea should be part of determining whether a crime is sexual assault

And this is how I know that you're here to troll too, because I have been extraordinarily clear about the fact that I'm not arguing with anyone about this. The only thing I'm interested in defending is that Stallman said that Minsky couldn't have committed sexual assault if we assume that his victim "presented herself as willing".

Stallman said that. You can't get out of that. Frankly, in this comment, you didn't even try.
Why you can't program computers to "be" requires explanation. Maybe someone who has read the book can comment.

I'm sympathetic towards "consciousness is about being" idea. I don't see why consciousness requires conscious thinking, much less language. When you sip coffee in the morning looking trough window, you are just experiencing while staying alert. All decisions and cognition is unconscious, yet the level of consciousness is not diminished.

When we are just "being" we are still doing active cognitive processing and reacting, but the process is not conscious, yet the conscious awareness of being is still there.

(concepts like being, awareness, consciousness, experiencing would require better definition in this context)
...yeah, against all odds, I don't think an $80 white t-shirt is a great option, regardless of how long it will hold together.
Maybe your anxiety comes from the pressure to do the cert and not it's contents.

Do you feel you're not getting it or that you're not getting it fast enough? The latter can evolve into the former. And perpetuate the anxiety loop.
TCP keep alive has a minimum of 2 hours or so. Debugging can live with that.

And debugger ruins everything; If the other side sends something larger than the local receive buffer it will usually disconnect after a while. as it will sense no one on the other end.

All the things that debugger can "ruin" should just be parametric - increase buffer sizes / keep alive times when debugging.

Also, there are more options than "kernel" and "each process for themselves" - you could have a "network/TCP daemon". QNX successfully does that for disk drivers and file system drivers - and likely network too. So does Minix.

It's just that historically, unix/linux/NT don't.
The other thing is that it's extremely obvious that the tech press doesn't hold their own to the same standards. For instance, there's this one Ars Technica journalist who'd been posting pro-pedophilia comments on their own forums and creeping their regulars out for years. They were quite happy to keep him on until he was arrested in an FBI sting for allegedly attempting to meet up to molest a 7 year old: https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/peter-bright-charged-solicit... Even after his arrest, this didn't get a huge amount of press coverage.
Open-Source Static Sites – Built with Automation Tools on Top of Eleventy SSG
Most action heroes would spend years in prison had they done the same thing in real life. Movie "good reason" for shooting someone, beating someone or stealing a car would not cut it in real justice system at all.
AFAIK there are restrictions to that. Either the FSF can't legally stop advocating for free software or the "or later" clause actually refers to a new General Public License, not to any arbitrary license that is called "General Public License".