skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> it would give too much info to the bad guys to avoid detection.

I'm pretty sympathetic to this line of thought, so don't take this as 'you're wrong', but I notice that we would never apply this logic to laws, or environmental standards, or contracts.

You'd never hear someone say, "if we have a clearly defined tax code, that will just make it easier for people to find loopholes."

Where I do hear this argument come up is explicitly in contexts of moderation and abuse policies. And it's something that sounds very reasonable, but it's hard for me to get away from the fact that in most other contexts it sounds problematic to me.

Maybe part of the problem is Cloudflare's scale? Maybe the reason it feels bad to have a police officer pull me over because, "we think you're going too fast" instead of "you went over a posted limit", is because that's a critical infrastructure that I can't avoid.

Cloudflare is a private company, and even if it wasn't, I don't know if it would be big enough presence that I would worry about their policies. But when I hear things like this:

> Our goal is nothing short of making it no longer viable to run a malicious bot on the Internet. And we think, with our scale, we can do exactly that.

That maybe shifts the situation a tiny bit farther away from "moderation policy on a personal blog" towards "policeman pulling me over because I broke a law I didn't know existed."

I dunno. I'm not 100% sure how to feel about it. I do think that Cloudflare should be able to filter traffic however they see fit, but that doesn't mean that every strategy they choose is inherently good, or that it might not be problematic for them to lack transparency about their standards.
Maybe I'm not patching correctly, but I never found keeping an LTS OS up to date to add a significant amount of work over keeping frameworks up to date, let alone 10x.
In my opinion it would be ideal if all namerservers (including the root servers) would respond to DNS over TLS (DoT?) traffic which seems like it could be easily adopted but would probably increase the load considerably in some cases (i guess root servers see some massive amount of traffic)... i dont think this will happen anytime soon with DoH or DNS over TLS
White Claw Hard Seltzer
"Allowed to" is not the same as "required to."

Open science people generally want people who publish papers to be required to publish the data. This might be in a public repository, or with the journal, and if there is a fee, that fee should effectively only cover cost.

Stallman's conception of free software says that you should be able to charge as much as you want. Hence, these are different concepts.

What I mean is that the statement in the original comment, "Now chemists and biologists have started talking about making data openly available and so forth" is wrong. Chemists and biologists "started talking about" this decades ago. The evidence I showed is that it was no later than 1987. It's almost certainly older - I just happened to read about this example.

I'm not saying they have nothing in common. I'm reacting to the hyperbole in the idea that the free software movement was instrumental to "the paradigmatic changes in how science itself is done".
IN PARTICULAR,I DO NOT LIKE A PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE SCREAMING AT ME.(well, the last versions seem calmer)
A manager can be in an advisor role with some employees. In a mentor relationship I think giving an opinion should allowed.

If a manager knows this person's goals and understands the harassment process and resources involved then they may suggest not reporting. Most of the time its to save themselves but this could be a wise strategy
hmm

The big question will be whether the phones are rooted/jailbroken. That would open the door to pretty much anything.

Otherwise, with enterprise mode, it sounds pretty easy to block the access to all apps except for one.
Agreed, the message is worth spreading and fighting for, the man can go, he's too toxic.
I don't think Open Source "misses the point" of Free Software at all. I think both the Free Software movement and the Open Source movement are making different - albeit highly related - points. And the same goes for some of the other "Open X" movements" like the "Open Data" movement, "Open Science", "Open Culture", and so on. There's an inherent commonality at a certain level of abstraction, but each of these "things" is still independent in a sense.

That said, I think it would be better to focus on where these various initiatives are aligned, and focus on how to work together to maximize the strengths of these various communities, as opposed to focusing on where they differ, and engaging in petty bickering.

Of course there will be hard-liners who will reject this, and I can understand and appreciate a measure of that. I'm a bit of the same way when it comes to my radical anarcho-capitalist / libertarian political beliefs. I'm open to a certain measure of collaboration with others in the name of "any progress is better than no progress" and "don't let the perfect be the enemy of good enough", but there are principles that I'm unwilling to compromise on.
If I got one dollar for every time someone says the bike chain will be replaced...
It should be fairly easy to setup a parallel Lichess (or whatever it is you use) account and compare Elo ratings?
And yet, the idea is that they should be allowed the opportunity.

If a government is unilaterally in complete control of all people at all times, full stop, then there isn't any real freedom, is there? You'd just be subecting all of society to the whim of whoever had enough money and/or guns aleady to have taken power.

But this is no place to have that discussion. Besides which, most people who express the opinion you have are not interested in contemplating any other perpsective any way.
How is it that you're sure?

I am not a fan of Patents, especially software patents and ones that are deliberately filed for malicious, anti-competitive measures.

When a company truly innovates, they deserve the prize of a patent. It appears that they've done so, investors lurking around or not.
Substitutes are not so easy to find. After using an app on my phone, and then my desktop computer, to try and do homework that included lots of numerical calculations, I quickly reverted to the hard-keys of my calculator with which I was working faster and more accurately. I've personally found the key layout of the calculator to be a lot more efficient than a desktop computer's, and the touchscreens to be flexible but error-prone.
this was so unexpected to read here (though i suppose the presence of that song in office space allowed it to permeate into geek culture) but I really appreciate you using their words to make a salient point. rip bushwick bill
Quantum computers: amazing progress, but probably false supremacy claims
Oh man. I remember paying for CompuServe. I tell you, nothing beats a 1200 baud modem on a commodore 64
Maybe one lambda is timing out to fallback, slowing sagas down. I don't know.
This is the case. With an addon that deletes most but not all homepage items or sidebar recommendations, YouTube does some noticeable spinning trying to fill the space which keeps getting emptied.
I was assuming that YC's 7% equity gets diluted by the time a company gets to that size. If that's not the case then I stand corrected.
The world in the movie was quite devoid of animal farming / husbandry.

As an aside Snowpiercer had a related concept - grinding cockroaches to make protein bars...
More than 60% of Ethereum nodes run in the cloud, mostly on Amazon Web Services
The gist of what you're saying is correct, but we must be careful with words such as "monster". There may not be anyone in their life causing their suffering, it's actually often the opposite, there is simply no one to turn to.

I also personally tend to avoid the word "usually" because being suicidal is not overwhelmingly associated with any specific situation. All kinds of people can have suicidal thoughts, and having them is not a sign that you're a good or bad person.
It's in the PR linked here.
And with CC mode you'll not need all that complicated shortcuts. (I'm using tmux -CC for 1 year without knowing this shortcuts)
I need to include this into my builds.
If your writing a web app I've heard good things about Giraffe (https://github.com/giraffe-fsharp/Giraffe). It seems to even have a project template via the "dotnet" command to get a quick web app running. With F# I personally find Rider or VsCode better IDE's than VS as well. The workflow in F# is more like my experience with scripting languages than something heavy like Java/C#; you don't lose much by going to a more lightweight IDE and a lot can be done via CLI commands and text editing in .NET Core.
I agree -- on balance, smoking is not worth it, at least not regularly.

So I basically never smoke cigarettes anymore, and Juul only occasionally.

Still, I miss it...
Isn't Netflix serverless?
> Now, if you can map some useful computational question onto the original configuration of qubits that is answered by the ending position, you've got yourself a useful quantum computer. This is the hard part!

Yes, I agree. But this has not been demonstrated. What's being demonstrated (apparently) is that measuring a quote-unquote "quantum computer" doing whatever it does naturally is easier than simulating said quantum computer classically. Well, yeah. Duh.

That's the same thing as "rendering" a scene with an unbiased renderer vs. setting up that same scene in reality and using a camera. No one in their right mind would point to the camera and say they'd create a next-gen, heretofor impossibly fast unbiased rendering algorithm.

Technically, the digital camera is "computing" the same result—but no one would call it that, and IMO, the same is true of what is being discussed in the FAQ. It's literally NOT COMPUTATION, which brings us back to your line:

> Now, if you can map some useful computational question onto the original configuration of qubits that is answered by the ending position, you've got yourself a useful quantum computer. This is the hard part!

It's not only the hard part, it's the only part that matters. Until then, you have AT BEST a "quantum camera". Potentially useful, perhaps—but it's not a computer, or computation.

Anyway, thanks for responding. Much better than drive-by downvoters probably hoping to get PhDs in this stuff.

Also, my intent is not to belittle Google's engineering effort. In the same way that I wouldn't belittle Sony for making 24mmx36mm backlit CMOS sensors. It's impressive! Good for them. But it's not computation, and it definitely doesn't establish some kind of "quantum computing supremacy" (since no meaningful computation is being done). When they stop handwaving about mapping actual computation problems to the scene they've set up and are measuring, then I'll get excited. Maybe it's doable, maybe not. But a quantum camera, AT BEST, is one step along the path...
> I would consider that any driver who's following all the rules of the road and posted signs (which would and should be different for these small, narrow side streets)

Sweet. So you agree that adjusting the traffic laws and/or posting signs that say "No through traffic, transit to or from neighborhood properties only" would be sufficient to then permit enforcement actions?

Those signs don't exist yet because prior to waze/maps they generally weren't required-- common decency and limited patience with convoluted paths were enough to restrict through traffic in most cases.

Now that almost everyone driving is being directed by a mechanical sociopath it has turned into an issue.
>Q12. Even so, there are countless examples of materials and chemical reactions that are hard to classically simulate, as well as special-purpose quantum simulators (like those of Lukin’s group at Harvard). Why don’t these already count as quantum computational supremacy?

>Under some people’s definitions of “quantum computational supremacy,” they do! The key difference with Google’s effort is that they have a fully programmable device—one that you can program with an arbitrary sequence of nearest-neighbor 2-qubit gates, just by sending the appropriate signals from your classical computer.

>In other words, it’s no longer open to the QC skeptics to sneer that, sure, there are quantum systems that are hard to simulate classically, but that’s just because nature is hard to simulate, and you don’t get to arbitrarily redefine whatever random chemical you find in the wild to be a “computer for simulating itself.” Under any sane definition, the superconducting devices that Google, IBM, and others are now building are indeed “computers.”

This is the core of it to me. It's a question of 'some people’s definitions of "quantum computational supremacy."' Many people say that the definition here is a crappy one, and sure this shows a form of it, but not the kind to justify the hype. Sure, it's fully programmable, but not so programmable as to do anything that anyone cares about (even a teeny tiny few-bit version of something people care about) better than we can otherwise.

To appeal back to his analogy to the wright brothers, it's like they carved a frisbee from a stick while working towards airplanes. It's amazing that they carved a log into a neat shape you can throw further than another log, and the hype train is saying that it's fully carve-able, so it counts as "airplane-supremacy," but that's a crappy definition and not what we're waiting for.
> Our current world mostly doesn't have effective solutions for mental health issues.

Well, help is here! Cigna recently emailed me that they have an algorithm backed app, and a game, precisely to help keep my mental health tuned up.
Grandma's DSL router is about to get much warmer.
It really is different from jumping a queue, though. You have no means to call that person out.

In a queue, you can appeal to the emotions of a clerk, attendent, or some other agent with power. Further, if no power agent exists or is sporadic enough that they virtually don't exist (like, say, police on the same roadway you describe) then the action of calling out devolves to simple game theory in which the best mode of action is to simply not participate.

I challenge you to change your mindset:

>take advantage of 2-second gaps

that 2-second gap is simply a buffer. when buffers are filled do we call it 'being taken advantage of' or do we simply empty the buffer and continue our routine?
This is a nonsensical premise to me masked by the fact that we use one phrase "chronic pain" to represent a huge range of experiences. And then because we have this one phrase we throw the other word cure in front of it like this semantic trick represents the possibility of achieving it.

I don't buy it. Chronic pain is a thousand different problems and I think it will be solved piece by piece by debugging those individual problems.
I think the point of GP is more that their marketing content seems to be geared to wow investors, not consumers. Mentioning that they have a patent is of no positive value to consumers, it in fact might suggest that the design will be a niche commanding a high price.
In retrospect they were right as PC became commodity anyway
Although I'm hardly losing sleep over my loss of karma, I'm glad someone appreciated it.
I presume 2% efficiency means is a difference of many seconds in competitive cyling. It is huge. When I used to work at GE Gas Turbines, a 2% efficiency increase from generation to generation would destroy the competition (Siemens). It could mean millions of dollars of profits for energy companies that run these turbines 24/7. Not saying its the same thing, but 2% efficiency increase in most highly saturated markets such as LEDs to cyling to wind turbines - is HUGE.
If you have the source material, why don't you quote it directly.

Since we're talking about the recent email thread, then you'd know RMS didn't start that conversation, so you can't blame him for injecting the discussion anywhere.
> implying that there's any way a rich, famous, 73-year-old man can "have sex with" (rape) a 17-year-old girl, whom he has extraordinary power over, and who, in in this case was his friend's trafficking victim.

...what are the scare quotes for? Is "have sex with" not a definitional superset of "rape"? As far as I can tell, Stallman does not assert that Giuffre was not raped, only that Minsky would probably not have known. (As far as he knew, she could equally have been one year older and legally, voluntarily engaged in prostitution...?) You could argue that (and I think that if Minsky did indeed have sex with her, you would have a very good case) that Minsky was extremely naive and/or irresponsible to not suspect anything amiss in the setting, but sexual (or any other) assault, in the view of many people, requires intent to harm someone against their will.

Here, it seems that the intent, and hence the primary guilt for the assault, most likely was squarely with Epstein and his associates: if a gun salesman takes you to his shooting range and tells you to fire a weapon at a target that he actually secretly tied a person to the back of, and you shoot that person dead, you are not on the hook for murder even if you should really have known that something is off and recall hearing muffled screams from somewhere at one point in hindsight.

> The idea that Minsky's "honour" is in any way more important than harm in what happened to Giuffre

Where did Stallman claim that?
Yes, Toy Story 4’s director knows how weird Forky made the Toy Story world
I agree, anonymity is really important online, but for social media, maybe it should not be the case? One can go and be anonymous in different platforms already, and if it is a really big concern, they can just evade social media altogether.

Why allow fake account pollution in bigger networks, that are affecting so much of our real life politics today? So much trolling and social engineering are being done through fake accounts, the best solution is a very harsh validation.
If a politician prefaced every speech with "Politicians lie" does that absolve the speaker of accountability for lying?
I see your point though POSIX imposes very few (if any) architecture decisions on application developers. The kind of design choices we’re talking about are very different from those of POSIX-like utilities so I’m not sure if that analogy is a good one.
I have no comment on the QC claims, but regarding the flight analogy, it seems you're being disingenuous: https://www.xaprb.com/blog/flight-is-impossible/
Just to clarify, this is desirable because "fewer/no ads" is preferred over "faster page load times"?
Here's evidence[1] that uBlock adds less than 100ms to "an atypically large page from a nice site" (i.e. one that doesn't have any ads). Some other effect is at work here, it's probably just random network latency differences.

[1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Doesn't-uBlock-Origin...
Identifying mushrooms is not that difficult. You need a good book and some diligence. Lots of people pick all kinds mushrooms regularly and accidents are relatively rare.
you're making me want to start building some BSD boxes
This dude has tried a lot of things... he deserves to hit success
A really good first step can be your doctor, who can lay out options and resources. Think of them as a knowledgeable first responder.

It worked for me.
> this might be perfectly rational behaviour for people who care about some side of the cause

I dispute this is rational. Creating echo chambers polarises and intensifies opposing viewpoints. The rational thing to do would be to engage in polite and meaningful discussion with people with whom you disagree. This would diffuse extreme opinions and allow people time to consider whether or not their position is justified. Rather than reacting in a knee-jerk defensive manner that serves to protect identity by strengthening belief, they are then given space to examine beliefs in order to strengthen identity.
Don't forget back when YC invested in AirBnB and Stripe that they only put in $20,000 for the 7%, which brings down your valuation quite a bit closer to something that might include AirBnB and Stripe as 10,000x exits.
Are you saying that it's OK because it's common, or that the DOJ should be doing even more than it is? Or something else?
"Build something that people want." It really is the best advice ever.

Maybe more specifically helpful, I would figure out a pivot. I bet there's an idea that can build on the work you have so you're not throwing away all that work. But, even if you are, better to do so sooner than later, if no one is using it.
Stonewall Riots. Boston Tea Party. Battle of Blair Mountain. Young Patriots and their “Rainbow Coalition”. If you have not heard of all of these then ask yourself this simple question:

"Why not?"
Tactical Nihilism sounds a lot like solipsism. "We can't ever not make generalizations, so we shouldn't even try to make statements."
26,000 ITEM LIMIT

You may have noticed that it requires almost
zero time to find any item in the stock table
by the stock number. This is because all of
the stock numbers are indexed and held in
memory by the program. Unfortunately there is
limited memory in DOS software to do this.
The theoretical maximum would be 32,000 items
but since some memory must also be used for
other purposes the program becomes unstable
with more than 26,000 items.

The other consideration is that one of the
reasons that this program is free is to help
the small to medium business compete with the
Wal-Marts of this world. With some exceptions
once a retail business grows large enough to
carry more than 26,000 different items then
it is a Wal-Mart type large business and
should be able to afford commercially produced
POS software.
This isn't a fair read on the situation, the tension isn't between my streets and your streets, it's between major arterials and light residential streets.

In many cases the arterials don't have anyone directly on them (or only commercial/industrial property)... specifically as part of their intended purpose.

In fact, if the situation isn't addressed in a fair and intentional manner a my vs your issue will be created: wealthier residents will erect gates, block traffic, privatize roads, or move to other locations ... and leave everyone else to contend with the mess on their own access roads, without the political air cover of wealthier people also suffering the same roadway misuse problem.
Let them, it is better to get funding from investors if you actually have a novel idea. What's wrong with marketing to investors? Unless you have some shady solar roadways idea or a way to produce water out of thin air, that is. May be I am getting older and less cynical.
I'd eat insects as soon as they're available in my local supermarket at an acceptable price. I've seen insect burgers in the supermarket, but they were about twice as expensive as beef.
Nothing to do with DevOps, more to do with keeping your different projects separate with their own dependencies. That way, if you need to move the package to another machine, you can just do a `pip freeze` to document which packages you need, then `pip install` them on the new machine.

If you just want a sandbox area where you'll be developing lots of little scripts and bits and pieces, there's nothing stopping you from having a single environment that you keep adding to as you go. You just miss out on the portability aspects mentioned above and potentially risk getting conflicts over time as the number of packages you install grows and grows.