skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> I've been in the middle of the opposite. All numbers are synthesized. Founders set up company, initially fund it themselves, take some rounds of investment with preferred, gives up some control. Company runs low on cash, finds new investment from "trustworthy" investors, all preferred. The founders hit 49%, the investors gain control, and make a purchase offer for the precise value of the preferred shares to themselves, which they decide to accept. All common shareholders are instantly out in the cold, with nothing (including the founders, who were utterly screwed).

Usually you structure your board in a way that prevents this-- not to mention that you could likely prevail in litigation if these are the facts because the board has a fiduciary duty to all investors, not just preferred: only if there is no reasonable prospect for common to get something can you accept an offer like this. Not to mention that when a controlling shareholder enters into a transaction with the corporation they have the duty of showing that the transaction is fair for all involved.
My kids (9 and 6) started with touch devices but are increasingly preferring an actual PC. I just bought a Dell G3 gaming laptop (in addition to the Lenovo PC we already owned) so that I didn't have to give up my MacBook every time they wants to play Garry's Mod.

For first-person "builder" games (current favorite is "Scrap Mechanic") WASD+mouse-look is a lot easier for them than tapping and dragging on a touch screen. Also: larger displays.

Forget mouse+keyboard dexterity...most other kids don't seem to even know about the Esc, Enter, Space, and Shift keys.
Punched Card Typography
my point exactly, but I still got downvoted.
I'm fascinated by this graph of the growth of solar as compared to International Agency Predictions.

Year after year, the IEA massively underestimated the growth of solar. Last year, at a workshop with the World Bank I heard an expert in energy investments say "even just 5 years ago none of us ever thought the price of solar could go this low this fast".

GRAPH:
https://steinbuch.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/iea-vs-reality...

I'm curious if there's something similar for the changing climate. Just how much are we underestimating the changing climate? Has anyone seen a graph like the one above, but regarding climate predictions?

For example, the rate of Greeland's massive ice melt was as high as the worst climate predictions for 2070, decades into the future. [1][2] It seems even the scientific predictions can be too conservative.

[1] https://twitter.com/xavierfettweis/status/115648786895048294...
[2] https://twitter.com/xavierfettweis/status/115648786895048294...
>"Using a microkernel as not much more than an overgrown MMU and task switching abstraction layer for someone's monolithic kernel is a cheap hack driven by the needs of academic research, not how they are supposed to be."

I found this interesting. Can you or anyone else say what the context was where academic researchers have needed to do this? What problem was it solving for them in a cheap way?
Well, extremes are what will cause most pain. Reality is running ahead of and worse than models, and the models seem to underestimate extrema https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08745-6
I would be curious to see Gates’ take in his maturity. In fact I visualize a more curious and playful Microsoft as Gates himself pushing it that way behind the scenes.
> You want any interface you expose to the public to be simple enough that you can be reasonably confident that none of the messages you accept can cause bad things to happen.

Yes, that's why you expose a simple set of views as your public interface for each role, and apply the dirt simple RBAC that every multiuser RDBMS supports to limit users to the appropriate set of views.

> SQL is so computationally powerful that you can't really get that assurance.

The computational power of SQL is mostly irrelevant, because the dirt simple security model let you limit database effects, so that all the computational power means is that people can tie up resources with poorly (or maliciously) crafted queries, if you don't apply the simple mitigations every multiuser RDBMS has against those.

People not bothering to learn about the database engines they are using leads to putting (often poor) ad hoc security in the web layer in front of a database that isn't properly secured because the app in front is excessively trusted, making this less, rather than more, secure than if people just learned to understand heir DB and exposed it directly instead of trying to acheive security through cargo cult complexity.

It's possible to enhance database security with defense in depth and and additional layers, but none of that starts with misunderstanding RDBMSs so badly as to think that they are, in an app stack, one of the hard parts to secure.
Already exists: gifv

https://help.imgur.com/hc/en-us/articles/208606616-What-is-G...

Nothing on imgur.com's homepage is a gif, for example. Same with gfycat.com.
Animated – True Scary Horror Stories
> Also the article is only accessible through a subscription, so I couldn't finish it, which is ironic because this is exactly what's broken with today's web.

Do you work for free?

Do you have proof of a better business model?
Sure, but I don't think theoretical guarantees are that important in practice. When I solve math problems, I don't personally use methods with such guarantees. Mathematica has certain guarantees for evaluating integrals, but that really doesn't help when it chokes for an hour on one. In practice what matters is computational complexity, and how well heuristics can help you narrow down your search space. And here IMO geometry problems have the enormous advantage that one knows there exists a short, purely synthetic solution.
Yes: those problems will boil down to: do some functions (polynomials) belong to an ideal (maximal, usually)?

Grobner it and you are done.
Sure to both, but it won’t stand up for long I would think. Obviously completely dependent on your usage, but it seems like these outages could potentially last for a long time (weeks even?)...

Power walls are expensive. You may be better off looking at a NG generator and then doing an on-site reserve tank that feeds off the utility line. That could keep you online for weeks if it’s designed right and if you’re savvy, the cost for this could be about the same as a powerwall.

That’s kinda how a friend of mine built his house here in CO. It’s solar as well, and typically generates enough power in a day to recharge his 2 x power walls 1.5x. He then has an NG generator that’s linked to an underground tank that fills off the utility line.

Pretty smart. House basically takes care of itself and in the event it doesn’t (say during a week or two long snow storm), the generator is there. And if the utility kicks off, the tank can feed the generator for more than a month. More than enough time for any weather to clear and sufficient solar to kick back in.

I think in your case, since you don’t have solar, just the same idea around the generator + tank could work well without breaking the bank too much?
I think the point is that is often not something you have to do on a blind assumption. Communication can clarify how critical a link is.
is it a bailout? I thought it was a thinly vieled takeover.
Some earthquake researchers I know have started using neural net approximations of PDEs for doing viscoelastic calculations [1] (simulating how the Earth's crust and upper mantle responds during and after an earthquake). The have found pretty huge speedups (5000% on CPU - 50,000% on GPU) using neural nets with good accuracy, but I am not sure that the PDE meshing was super highly optimized.

[1]: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017...

edit: Whether this NN approximations will enable us going well beyond what PDE solvers can do is a tough question, especially because PDE solvers are generally needed to build the training sets as far as I understand (i.e. they are trained on synthetic, not observational, data). It's possible that one could strategically and judiciously train smaller components of a NN system and then assemble the system to do things that the PDE solvers couldn't do, perhaps, in the way that one can often write unit tests for scientific software but not really test the final results directly (because there is nothing to test against). However I think that in general the lack of training data for the more complex system will always be a major obstacle, whereas it's not really for PDEs.
AWS Invests in Iron and People to Court Enterprises
Surprised this comes from google. I thought they were only interested in "practical" languages like "go." I wonder if anybody from google dislikes golang.
There is no organization of more than 500 employees that can take decisions like that.

Developers of one service simply don't have the power to force other developer in another part of the organization to do anything. That's assuming they're even aware of the existence of that service and who is supposed to own it.
Nice. I find it pretty easy to get excited about any prospect of a more efficient and typesafe alternative to R and Numpy.
Why async fn in traits are hard in Rust
I, on the other hand, believe that fighting climate change will be a great wealth equalizer. The development of cheap energy in the form of wind and solar power, and also the need for centralization in the fight against climate change (which will require an increase in taxes against those with money: the rich) will eliminate many current power structures in our current economic system, and will make many aspects of the 'usefulness' of wealth: the ability to travel quickly and in ... extreme ... comfort, access to exotic foods at any time, and the ability to use huge amounts of energy, will all become extremely limited or will be available to everyone, at least up to the point that it matters anymore.

These things that you describe must happen will never be accomplished by private companies because they are all wealth destructive behaviors, and the organization that does is will not make profit off of these endeavors: nobody can afford to buy the stuff being described anymore, at least in the United States. I know that I certainly can't afford to change out all of my homes infrastructure in preparation for climate change, and almost everyone that lives around me is in a worse financial situation than I'm in.

The process will be completed by governments, not by private corporations. This is probably part of the reason that corporations and the extremely wealthy fight against the knowledge of climate change in the public sphere: it will eliminate their 'monarchic' power structures and replace them with the highly effective centralized power structures that we had pre-Reagan.
I Made the Switch from Mac to Linux
e2e would not necessarily stop it. Since FB controls the apps that send and receive the message, they can do whatever they want to the unencrypted message on both sides.
Very fun game, played it just once and only managed to make it to gen 14!
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EEwH4nTUcAE-Q7e.jpg
You can disable gif autoplay
I've written microcode too, and there's two type of micorcode. Vertical and horizontal.

Horizontal is your wide microcode like seen on what I programmed, the KB11A CPU inside a PDP-11/45. It was somewhere around a hundred or so bits wide, and you could pretty clearly see "ok, these five bits just latch into this mux over here, these over here", etc. in the micro-architecture. I've seen between 96-bit adn 256-bit wide singel instructions here.

Vertical microcode is what you see in designs that the 801 was trying to get away from having a full CISC decoder for. Much smaller fixed length instructions that represent higher level ops, and are what RISC was trying to get rid of mainly.

The non ascetic CISC machines would normally have at least two microcode ROMs: one in the decoder, and at least one in the backend, maybe more depending on how the separated out their execution units.

So for instance 68K had:
* Decoder microcode of 544 17bit instructions
* Execution unit "nanocode" of 366 68bit instructions

An ARM1 had:
* No decoder microcode (but 32bit wide, fixed width, aligned ISA instructions with a I$)
* Execution unit microcode of 42 36bit instructions
Mixed use employment areas don‘t really reduce commuting time, especially if you have a multiple income household where people work in different areas. Tokyo is extremely mixed use and still has long commute times.
I thought Reid Barton was at RenTech? He's back in academia?
>> solar needs the grid to be even close to viable
>This was true 20 years ago and will be laughable 20 years from now.

So in 20 years the batteries are able to store half a year worth of electricity? That's quite a lot of MWh in your house.

The whole world doesn't live at the equator.
Rats learn to drive cars and it lowers their anxiety
Great comment - I came here to brainstorm how this could be turned into an exam question and you beat me to it.
Not had a chance to read the paper yet but the ability to find computational shortcuts in a epistemically minimalist way (ie, essentially admitting that we have no idea how to solve the problem and let a computer iteratively work it out) for solving analytically irreducible PDEs makes me very bearish on quantum computing. A quantum system can be described by Schrodinger's equation, which is no more esoteric than any other wave equation. If it's hard to solve now, maybe it's just because the computationally efficient methods can't be reached by mathematical analysis. But it doesn't mean those computational methods don't exist.
I've wondered this many times and assume that non-technical people just don't get online and remain frustrated. I keep an http site in my bookmarks for this purpose.
But not supported by iOS Safari. And APNG not supported by edge. That's why sites like imgur use mp4 videos as an alternative to GIFs.

It's not that a bad deal though, one minute of video is roughly 7Mo for something close to DVD quality. I had GIFS lasting a few seconds weighting way more, with terrible quality.
https://flif.info beats lossless webm
> Climate change will create the first trillionaire.

Or it will break down every aspect of our current society until it is unrecognizable.

Your "technology will save us" attitude isn't a plan, it's more of a prayer.
It is interesting to note that just about 1000 years ago the Vikings were growing barley in Greenland [0].

> “Now we can see that the Vikings could grow corn, and this was very important for their nourishment and survival,”

Barley seems to do ok in late Spring conditions in the NE United States [1]. I'm not certain you could grow barley or corn in Tundra conditions.

I bring this up when people mention warming global conditions because the planet has, in the past, been much warmer than it is now.

[0] https://sciencenordic.com/agriculture-archaeology-denmark/vi...

[1] https://plants.usda.gov/plantguide/pdf/ccpg_horde.pdf
It's part of a natural cycle. We were never going to stop it anyway. The real means to stop it will not be talked about until the serious changes start happening and the entire world is in panic.
Dropping in here just to say: if this got you worried, come work with us over at http://climateaction.tech/ We are a global community of tech professionals using our skills, expertise and platforms to support solutions to the climate crisis.
Maybe there is something you personally want to exist but you are not able to build it yourself (don't have the skillset, don't want to take the risk, don't see enough of a payoff for building a company around it, already have other commitments, etc.)
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.wsj.com/articles/te...
Seems like there are too many unknowns to accurately predict outcomes.

1. How much does the experience of US forces benefit them? Has it created bad habits from fighting in different conditions? Does the US military have a bureaucracy problem? Is the US weapon infrastructure up to date, or decaying?

2. How does the Chinese military make critical decisions? Who’s really in charge? Are the Chinese weapons systems fully capable in real world scenarios? How do the Chinese servicemen feel about fighting? Does their lack of experience matter?

3. Would a conflict based on keeping China from expanding their reach in the South China Sea balloon to full scale war across multiple theatres with multiple allies? What percentage of each superpowers resources would be allocated to win this conflict?
(Edit: I been curious/confused by this for years)

Can someone explain how this is fundamentally different from a b-tree of the substrings of a string? You'd store each substring by start index and each leaf is where the substring becomes unique.
It's funny how my comment questioning the concentration of wealth as being a condemnation of business in principle.
> i.am+ co-founder and CEO Chandrasekar Rathakrishnan

This is the same person from the CrunchPad / Joo Joo Linux tablet debacle.

Michael Arrington founder of TechCrunch worked with Rathakrishan’s dev company to develop an affordable Linux tablet (Crunchpad). Disputes arose and the dev company proceeded to release the tablet under a different name (Joo Joo).
Rio Tinto world-first autonomous trains network now fully operational
I got the impression from the spec that it was originally designed to support retaining the compression dictionary across frames, which would have produced much smaller files at no cost to the decoder. But this wasn't explicit, it didn't get implemented, and the second spec ruled it out.

It could have very easily been better. I'm not sure what the moral is.
Because if you take superdeterminism seriously, you can't do science.

Sure, it is logically possible that the world runs on classical mechanics, but that random factors in the light emitted from opposite ends of the observable universe billions of years ago were delicately set at that point so that whenever you run an experiment with it, naively assuming that no such correlations exist, quantum mechanics appears to be true instead.

Unfortunately, if you are consistent with applying this principle you can't conclude anything at all. If you see the Sun and planets move every day, would you eventually accept orbital mechanics, or would you prefer the explanation that "orbital mechanics is false, everything actually moves however it wants according to random unknown factors, but those factors were arranged just so that whenever we make observations, standard orbital mechanics appears to be true"?

Suppose we're betting on horce races, but I win 100 times in a row while you always lose. Would you accept my explanation that "this was merely superdetermined to be the case"? Or would you start to suspect that I'm stealing your money?

Superdeterminism is philosophically equivalent to Cartesian skepticism. It's just a minor twist on being a brain in a vat. Scientists reject this not because we can disprove it, but because you can't do anything if it's true. I mean, you might as well not bother getting out of bed in the morning.
I still feel like the duo just cashed in on wrecking the magic of magic by focusing on just revealing the mechanics of how it's done. Obviously, not a problem for dry adults, but there's an in between world of folks who suspend their disbelief and the fun of doing that for the rest of us.
Im not sure why anyone expects these estimates to hold any water at all.

From what I gather, pressure from the establishment has systematically caused scientists to lowball impact estimates and ignore second (and higher) order effects. Meanwhile the complexity and far reach of impact is beyond anything we can model.

Consider how all the experts were surprised in the 2008 economic crisis. That was just an economic crisis, primarily involving things we can easily count (dollars) on a very small timescale (years).

Now we are talking about many interlocking systems we cannot model well, on a timescale we cannot fathom. How good could those estimates ever be? Maybe +/- 6 orders of magnitude.
We all know their their stock has been doing well this year, but anecdotally (yes, I know, an extremely unreliable metric) it seems that there has been no rebound in usage or coolness factor. I don't hear anyone saying "I've been going back to Snapchat more", neither among personal acquaintances nor on social media or other public channels.

Has anyone? Is their recent growth/rebound limited to any particular demographic or geographical area? Are they just quietly killing it? Are advertisers really being drawn back?
(disclaimer: I work in a Climate&Energy research group)

I just want to remind everyone that there are solutions to climate change. We know how to produce clean energy and sequester CO2. The current free market does not make those solutions profitable for investors, though, and we will have to change that.

Solving climate change can be as simple as getting a carbon price adopted. It needs to ramp up over time, allow a secondary market for offsets, and create a cross-border network effect (e.g. carbon free trade zone), but it can actually be that simple.

A "carbon tax" may be infeasible given current political norms, but a revenue neutral "carbon dividend" would have the same effect while being more progressive.

So, if you are curious what you can do to solve climate change, consider contacting your representative.
It's funny how my comment questioning the concentration of wealth as being a condemnation of business in principle.

Also, go pound sand. My comment has value, even if you don't see it.
In my experience, her instincts were always correct about this sort of call.
That would guarantee absolutely nothing.
it published in several languages. http://leseditionsmir.free.fr/
Opened the article expecting it to be a more abstract cost. Turns out it's about economics. Christ alive.

"Yeah, billions are gonna die, but what really matters is my house prices are gonna go down."
Strange. You seem to have posted a doctored image. The fact that your "1977" image uses modern typography should have been an obvious giveaway to you before you posted it.

https://apnews.com/afs:Content:5755221200

> AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. The Time cover labeled in social posts as coming from 1977 is actually a cover from 2007, with the image altered to change the title from “The Global Warming Survival Guide” to “How to Survive the Coming Ice Age,” Time magazine archives show.
Mainly because that means there is finite growth in the economy, and we've built a ponzi scheme of sorts at this point. It's a hard pill to swallow, that we can't just grow forever.
> Yup. A particularly egregious case:

> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190909/12232742945/ninth....

> The Ninth Circuit:

> "We recognize that the allegation of any theft by police officers - most certainly the theft of over $225,000 - is deeply disturbing. Whether that conduct violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures, however, would not "be 'clear to a reasonable officer.'""

Ignorance of the law is no defense...oh wait.
I am trying to find the source I read a few years ago where climate scientists are intentionally scaling back their predictions so they aren’t discounted as crazy doomsday predictions. I think that there are many accurate predictions out there but we mostly see the most mild ones because they figure some action is better than being written off completely.
> The purpose of a justice system is to keep us safe. Someone who hires a hitman should be punished, so that future people don't do it. Whether they succeed is irrelevant.

One small step further: someone who plans to hire a hitman should be punished, so that future people don't even think about it. Whether they manage to hire one is irrelevant.

Now you're punishing a thought crime and equating that with successful murder even.