skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Based on my very limited knowledge, there is no way to calculate these equations exactly for the entire universe, the way they are currently formulated.

Perhaps more importantly, we don't even have complete information, but only measurements that are necessarily 'averages'.

We don't even have a formulation of this model that allows us to understand the 'error' in these measurements, where here error is about making future predictions based off those measurements.

To use a perhaps tenuous analogy, say we have a model that describes exactly how air molecules interact with each other. We take measurements of parcels of the atmosphere and are able to describe what the molecules within are doing - pressure, temperature, humidity, etc. If we want to describe what happens to the entire atmosphere, however, we need a different model that describes how the parcels of air interact - cold fronts, wind patterns, rainfall etc. We have continuity between these two models, because as far as we can tell the way these parcels of air interact is consistent with the way individual molecules interact, but the actual models are very different to each other.

With general relativity we have a model that works incredibly well for understanding how a small number of things interact with each other, and we assume that it describes the interactions of every object in the universe. We currently use the exact same model to talk about parcels of objects (eg galaxies) in just the same way as we talk about individual objects (atoms? stars?), and we don't know if that is reasonable or not. It's obviously reasonable at a small scale, as when we model things like our solar system we are accurate to an extremely high level of precision but it's not obvious that this continues to hold as we scale up.

When trying to work out a weather forecast we don't simulate every single molecule, but instead large parcels of air (at a surprisingly fine level of detail, it must be said, but still relatively huge). It's not even reasonable for us to measure every single molecule, even if we had the computing power to simulate it.

Even so, it is far more tractable to simulate every molecule of air in our atmosphere than to simulate GR for every body in the universe, or even every galaxy!

We need a model for the interaction of large collections of objects in the universe, and at the moment the best we have is GR. What we don't have is a way of measuring how accurate that is, or even a way of formulating the model that would be consistent when applied to the kinds of collections of objects we're capable of measuring.

It's possible that dark energy and dark matter are real things we can't (currently) directly observe, or they could be artefacts that arise when you try and apply GR to 'averages' of large collections of objects, but right now we don't have a way to quantify how accurate those models are in order to rule out the possibility one way or the other.
Thanks! I too think GPU programming is quite similar in that you need to think of things in a more data streaming sense. It's sort of functional that way too; building up pipelines of transforms.
yes, I realized this after asking the question :).I must admit I never thought it in this way.

Thinking more about this, this might fail if the compiler uses post-incrementing load/stores which update the pointer addresses too. Or will it not use them if I am using index[arr] ?

Lets say the load/store updates the pointer too. So after first execution, ptr will index+arr in both cases, but during the next iteration , the former will be ptr[index] while the latter will be ptr[arr].
> But it strongly suggests that discrimination isn't the primary driver of female under-representation in the industry.

I don't see that it does. It's entirely possible that in less egalitarian countries, women are just less likely to leave tech on account of discrimination or harassment. I can think of several reasons why this might be the case:

- Women in poorer countries might be more likely to endure mistreatment for financial reasons.

- Women there might just be more accustomed to mistreatment.

- Tech might be less hostile to women relative to other fields in those countries. Eg. in Western countries, it's "normal" for women to become teachers, but somewhat less normal for women to become programmers. In more misogynistic countries, it's considered abnormal for women to be teachers or programmers, so there would be less to differentiate the options.
Also, if char is signed, char + char may be UB and with known overflowing values the compiler may deduce it's a can't-happen situation, generating code accordingly. Or when encountered at runtime, it may hose your program state arbitrarily, etc.
Very pithy comment. Breakthroughs are only breakthroughs in hindsight. False positives and negatives abound in breakthrough declarations.
Work isn't a debating society but it is part of larger society, if we all go to work building gas chambers without any willingness to discuss the political implications of having all these damn gas chambers around, well..
I'm always impressed by the way a simple turn of phrase can hide disproportionate impact on human lives.

Specifically interesting in this context is that the turn of the 20th century, and the 1920s in particular, is really the birth place of modern immigration policy.

Of note is the fact that the requirement of visas for entry and quotas on point of origin appeared around this time- if you read newspaper op-eds for the immigration act of 1924 (or the earlier chinese exclusion act), these measures are specifically pointed out as a way to maintain the racial makeup of the country.

Prior to that point, visitors could just turn up at Ellis island for entry. Afterwards, the island itself served more as an offshore detention center for what were then classified as radicals, anarchists, and those "likely to become a public charge"— awaiting deportation.

Citizenship, too, could once be had for as little as the price of a dozen eggs-- check out this booklet published 1921: https://archive.org/details/howtotakeoutyour00metrrich/page/...

"All it costs is $1, not a penny more. No witnesses, no examination, no pull required." -- 2 years of residence later, another set of papers (also on Archive.org) and a short literacy test (added in 1917) and you could be a citizen-- but this rapidly changed as additional quotas and restrictions were added.

The history of immigration law is a fascinating topic, and there's a lot of interesting primary sources available.
> >Saas is making licenses obsolete

> Exactly this. I don't see the point of, say, the AGPL because it can't possibly be enforced: Short of a whistleblower or other leak, have no way of knowing if I'm connecting to AGPL software, or merely something that's API-compatible.

I don't think that is people's main concern. As a developer I'd trust that most companies will honour the terms of a license, and if they don't it'd be unknowingly in most cases. It's too much of a legal risk, and not worth it in most cases.

The issue is that GPL licensed software can be legally used in Saas use-cases because it needs to be distributed for the gpl to get triggered. In the case of AGPL that loophole is closed, but it's still possible to use AGPL software in a Saas product in the case where it is not used directly, basically. For example, in most cases it's legal to call an AGPL command-line application you modified from a backend service, without having to share your modifications. At least that is my understanding.

Either way, my point is that the concern is about legal use-cases, not illegal ones.
> "That being said Patagonia is as a company that manages to perfectly brand itself as a sustainable company in order to get all the PR and hype coming out from it."

If a company is doing good, should they be allowed to let people know about it? Do you think they're doing this for craven purposes only? Or might they be putting their money where their mouth is and are proud of it? That it might encourage others to make similar decisions in their own lives, both personal and business? I'd like to think that people (and that's what a company is, a group of people) are capable of doing things for reasons other than pure greed or profit.

Do you fault people for making purchasing decisions based on the actions of a company in addition to the products or services they provide?

Sometimes I wonder what drives people to apparently only see the most cynical view. In my more uncharitable moments I think that's because they can't imagine others doing things because they think they're they right thing to do. And if they can't extend that to others, what does that say about themselves?

But perhaps it's just that they've been burned too many times in the past. Whatever the reason, I choose to embrace actions of others that are good. I believe I'm capable of doing good, and that others can, too. There's so many things we need to do together, and cynicism gets in the way of us trusting each other to do it.
I wish everyone good luck... mehn! am so nervous
Help who? Why ?
I worked at Niantic (originally on Pokemon Go) since the day they officially spun out from Google until a few months ago.

I am speaking solely for myself when I say that, While the company has plenty of flaws, it is very serious about privacy protections. It was drilled into every engineer from day one that we were dealing with really sensitive data. Not just any old data - kids were a target audience and so we were dealing with realtime location data from children under 13.

Niantic took a lot of time and effort to ensure that this data was deleted, obfuscated or has as much precision removed as possible, as quickly as possible.

I don’t like how Niantic handled some things, but their stance on privacy was never one of them.

(Again, this is my personal opinion. I definitely don’t speak for Niantic.)
> This is a misstatement of my idea, which is that which is that greater numbers of women were higher in stem at the beginning because of a historical circumstance. The data you show in [1] is a snapshot of the modern day, and really says nothing about the historical circumstances.

For the third time, the inverse correlation between gender equality and women's participation in engineering and technology hold true both when viewed over time within individual countries and when comparing different countries at the same time. Look at the rates of women's participation in engineering and technology in the US and it peaks at in the 1970s and 80s and tapers off after that. It does indeed show a relationship between the historical circumstances of women and their career choices. And when the same circumstances exist today in other countries, the inverse relationship between gender equality and rates of women in STEM holds true as well.

> You act as if there are no momemtum effects of the initial higher rate of women in computing technology. A baseline rate of women in the culture at the time would encourage more women to be in the industry, perhaps until other effects became stronger. That the numbers continued to rise, in my opinion, say nothing about my second proposition one way or other.

The same trends are observed in countries that did not participate in WWII which makes this hypothesis that the war imparted some sort of momentum on women in computing questionable.
The icccm uses selection for what we call clipboard. A lot of x11 software used to put what you selected on the clipboard automatically.
tech culture has skewed
so insanely towards the
authoritarian left

Have you worked at a tech job lately? This is just.. wow..
This still exists.

To get a green card for example you need to undergo an exhaustive medical exam and can be rejected due to the results.
Not that I disagree with what you've said, but I put "producers by volume" in there. Thus talking about fact-checking isn't really a counterpoint.

Did changes in fact-checking change the proportion of information produced by state and corporate actors?
That's an interesting assumption of people, and I can see where they might come to that, but the logic is unfortunately flawed. Just because publishers/developers might feel the need to monetize user data on free apps to make money, doesn't mean they won't also do it for paid apps to make more money.

Betting a business is going to leave money on the table because it's the nice thing to do is not a winning strategy on the consumers part.
If you were counting on DNS and SNI monitoring to detect compromised endpoints, you’ve lost anyways, because malware can chose its own dns resolution method and avoid SNI regardless of what the OS or Firefox are set up to do.
They're probably referring to the fact that the Cherokee members are already represented by their US legislators in the same way that other US residents are. Providing them this vote would give them more representation, and they're asking if you believe that's a better solution.
I think D is still working through lack of support for dynamic libs (lots of headway was made so I may be wrong)

It is funny how Go sold it as a feature, but it was always a deficiency in D (and yes, it just happened out of the box.)

That isn't to say C dynamic libraries didn't work, that is a linker thing, but it would be the same in Go.
The things you mentioned are all implementation problems not inherent to the mode of transport. Visit any Asian megapolis (HK, Seoul, Singapore...) and you can see how public transportation can be effective and convenient.
>Is there any way to set it up in Amazon (or ebay, too) so that their fulfillment never uses a certain delivery brand?

Amazon support was able to do this for me. They also CC:d me on a really strongly worded email to the delivery company, which I found really surprising.

This was one of the euro amazons with european support staff.
Of course. Every old idea was new once, and that is the role of the activist and ideologue: to introduce new ideas for public assessment.

But these people would do well to remember that the bulk of the public they are trying to convince are not ideologues as well.

The well mannered majority may not know best but it is what is ultimately making the decisions.
You do realize that argument could be taken as far as to completely eradicate the concept of freedom, right?
Currently the test is primarily for Tuberculosis (I-693). Once you arrive you are still responsible for your own healthcare costs because America doesn't have socialized medicine. Further, no medical exams are required for tourist visas, and many folks such as myself have lived in America for almost a decade, and still have to submit to asinine medical examinations. If I had Ebola everyone around me would have died many times over in the literally ten years I've lived here without an immigration-type medical exam.
Because many believe that Satoshi's vision was to do quick on chain transactions and be used like cash not like gold.
One of these things is not like the other. One of these things just isn’t the same.
> The actual hypothesis Chomsky puts forward in the book is childishly simple, though. He imagines literally every for-profit corporation, the military, and the entire federal government as being one fused united party with identical interests, and so NBCUniversal would never report anything critical of the military or the US government. This, um, doesn't track reality.

That's, a bad misreading.

Can you quote relevant sections that support this statement? The laying out of the propaganda model is only about 50 pages in entirely so you shouldn't need walls of text to show some evidence.
Has anyone received an invitation yet?
Okay... This implies the light was stretched along with the space, right? Because otherwise, the photons would just... Never reach here if space between us and the light expanded faster than c.
Upvote for the National Orchid Garden, though I wish they had a tour that shows all the work that goes into it. I keep an orchid at home, and while it's easy to take care of, it really only blooms when it feels like it.
That is not his thesis at all. He is claiming that in most cases mainstream media will be supportive of American imperialism (it applies more broadly than the US, but let's limit it for now).

Of course there are factions within the most powerful, but there are also universal interests. For example, there are no rich or powerful groups in the US who are pro unionization in tech or pro worker's co-ops (there may be individuals, sure, but you won't find a PAC or lobby group). There are no rich or powerful groups in the US who would accept unilateral nuclear disarmament. There are no rich or powerful groups in the US which consider the US has no legal or moral rights to intervene militarily unilaterally anywhere in the world.

Of course, there are sometimes 'dissident' groups, like the currently surprisingly popular Bernie Sanders movement. If they do get a foothold, some popular opinions may also change. But such moments are a good time to test the hypothesis, and you can easily see how much the media, 'left' or right, is against the Bernie campaign, and considers it naive or pie-in-the-sky.

Overall, going on the empirical path, you'll be really hard-pressed to find any US mainstream media critical of US actions, or often even reporting on relevant events, if they put the US in a bad light.
I would agree with cheated, not disenfranchised. It's easy to make the argument that they're not continuing disenfranchisement here.
I very much wish no one had used the terms "dark matter" and "dark energy", as those imply far more knowledge than we have. It implies to those unfamiliar that there is in fact some form of energy or matter that has been "sort of" identified, but whose properties are unknown.

That isn't the case at all. We have equations we use to predict observations, and in certain cases, those observations are not quite matching what we predicted. There are a lot of reasons why this can happen, and using the equations poorly is but one of them.

I really wish they'd just said we've found an inconsistency, between theory and observation, which is the actual case. It would, I think, better inform the public about the actual process of science, rather than making it sound like a new discovery has been made, which has not happened, clearly. Or perhaps the real discovery was the inconsistency, and that should be the framing of the problem. Describing it using sort of known words like 'energy' and 'matter' makes the general public think a new type of matter has been found, rather than what has actually been found which is a hole in our understanding.
This is such a cool publication, by the way. Founded by David Byrne of Talking Heads.
> Many of the things I added I lost interest in because too much time passed,

That is great. Fewer things that you need to pay attention to. In fact, this kind of attrition is a great way to reduce the burden. You only want to invest your effort in those things whose value to you are not ephemeral. Check out "It's not what you read, it's what you ignore" by Scott Hanselman https://www.hanselman.com/blog/ItsNotWhatYouReadItsWhatYouIg...

> How do you decide what is worth reading deeper into, spending more time on, etc?

That really depends on your goals, the topic, your background, etc.

> Do you record them somewhere? A diary? A mind map? [...] When I take notes I struggle to organize them and make them easily searchable for posteriority.

I tend to take lots of notes in Markdown files. Recently I've been playing around with Org mode in Emacs with the "Deft" interface. It's full-text fast incremental search is fantastic.

> What sources do you use to learn new things and keep track of the novelties in your field?

At some point (as a grad student) I used to subscribe to a couple of relevant arXiv categories, to skim through ~50 titles/abstracts every day. But see my link to Scott Hanselman's post above.

Also, to quote Sturgeon's law, 90% of everything is crap. And, (as Knuth says) I would rather get to the bottom of things than stay on top of things. So, I consider it more important to invest time/effort into understanding thigns in depth, rather than following every little gust of wind.

The questions are too broad, so it's difficult to give a useful answer. Feel free to reach out to me via the email listen in my profile if you would like to discuss this more specifically.

> When I have time I try to consume some of the stuff I save. Yet it feels like I'm not making any good use of the information I'm putting into my brain.

I think "consumption" is the wrong thing to aim for.
How many distinct colours can I use in the same image and still be able to tell apart when the coloured boxes might be arranged in any order?

I'm trying to come up with a colour scheme that supports categorical labelling for as many categories as possible - that means I want the colours to be distinct from one another, to be able to recognise each category with ease, but at the same time cover as many categories as possible. With <10 categories it's easy, with 20 I struggle.

Can anyone make a suggestion? I am not interested in uniformity of lightness or linear progression, but maximal separability between nuances.
Usually once residency is granted in a place that has socialized medicine, there's a waiting period during which you're responsible for your own care.
Camping Spots Finder App UI Clone with React Native #2: List Section
How would you add 'reputation' to what people post?
SF often talks about reputation systems as part of a society's culture. True, it's a big hairy problem, but how could some person or group make an initial attempt at doing this? It'd be great to have web pages, tweets, and various posts tied somehow to a measure of the author's current trustworthiness (based on previous behavior). Even a high/medium/low/unknown rating would help.

No matter how imperfect the implementation might be, it'd be great to have anything that exposes to the general public the idea that people need to consider the source of anything that's posted on the Internet.

What would you try doing?
Not to be outdone, and seeing the existing A-Z alphabet nearly fully used, SJWs are changing the single letter sexuality codes to three letters, 17,576 sexes to remember should provide ipv6 level of future proofing... And a win against the blob..
I wouldn't presume to argue against her, because she's a physicist and I'm not.

I'm mostly making the case to the peanut gallery here to maintain a state of epistemic noncommittal. It's a very popular intuition to think that "dark matter" is just a weird consequence of modeling things improperly, kind of like how we used to think there was another planet between Mercury and the sun because that was the only way to make Mercury's orbit consistent with Newtonian dynamics. If we are modeling things improperly, I suspect it would have to be a pretty weird bug--and I think the one she's suggesting qualifies as such.
> He was happy to sell them a generic off-the-shelf wedding cake.

If you're talking about the Masterpiece Cakeshop baker, he didn't say that until the lawsuit was in-progress. At the time that the couple went in, he refused to serve them without discussing what they wanted.
Listening to the well-intended advice of (unqualified) adults who told me there was little opportunity in pursuing the one subject I'd cared about all of the time I was growing up. Instead, find the people who are already doing it, wherever that takes you.
Talking Clock continues to tick online after shutdown silenced 'George'
A blockchain could be used to enforce that immutability. Which might be an actual, useful application for blockchains.
While not a targeted answer to why not go/rust, this is my case

https://dev.to/jessekphillips/my-case-for-d-444p
Humans are so competitive that they'll often take pride in being the worst at something, because even that's a perverse way to be at the top of the list. That you can create an arbitrary game, seed it with some people to set up a ranking, and open it up to a bunch of people and they'll go crazy figuring out how to rank themselves using your criteria isn't all that surprising.