skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I was lumping them all into MDS class of vulnerabilities. It was misleading.

https://linuxreviews.org/Microarchitectural_Data_Sampling:_T...
You're assuming a world without parents. What an odd world. How do people come to be?
How did you get the computer you're writing on, if not by the method described above?
If your manager demands you be available over the weekend, you are on-call and should be compensated.
> and look at the Westboro Baptist Church.

That’s actually a great example of why viewpoint censorship is a _bad thing_, for everybody, including Twitter, you and me. Look, you and I both know that there are facts that are true that you can’t express for fear of being kicked off of public forums. In fact, even stating that there exist facts that are true but that you can’t express is toeing the line, even though nobody disputes that this is the case. Since you seem to be more or less pro-censorship, I’ll assume that you’re a bit left leaning, so here’s an example that’s suer to make you agree with me: imagine if publishing climate data somehow became (even more) controversial and people sharing (true, undisputed) global temperature readings found themselves being kicked off of discussion forums.

Now we have a situation where we have two sorts of people being deplatformed: the Westboro baptist church and people who think that the world is getting hotter. This paradoxically makes the WBC seem _more reasonable_ by association. Remember, censorship is retroactively self-justified - since it was censored, you don’t know what it is, just that it was something really bad, so it was bad enough to get deleted. We’re better off if anybody says whatever’s on their mind and, if it’s ridiculous, it gets mocked.

Does that leave some people who agree with ridiculous viewpoints anyway, no matter how often or thoroughly they’re debunked? Sure, but there are two possibilities: one, they’re in a small minority in which case they’re harmless or two, they’re actually a majority which suggests that they might actually have a point - and you, representing the intransigent minority, attempting to control them through censorship is EXACTLY why censorship should be opposed.
When I jaywalk (or cross anywhere) I consider it my responsibility to cross safely. If I got hit by a car, it is 100% my fault for not looking. Maybe it is also 100% the driver's fault. Responsibility and blame is not something that has to get divided up such that it adds to 100%.

In this case the pedestrian and driver are both fully responsible. The pedestrian was lollygagging across the road like a complete idiot. The driver wasn't paying attention.
My Hardest Bug to Debug (2018)
I was able to follow these directions to train gpt2 on tweets. I currently have a system that is trained on 355M .
I found that it might be very effective. I have the test at
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1p7tlobl5y5plBCu_enK4KawR7B8....
I got the information from trumptwitterarchive.com

I am now working on a larger system using a dataset called sentiment140. Email me and I can send links to each one .
Thanks for the links. This is significantly larger than a NUC, but still manageable. That said, part of what I appreciate about the NUC is that it's all built together...no weird hardware/compat issues, etc.
I dunno. That incident pre-dates SWAT and 9/11. Nowadays they could just launch a missile at his house, bulldoze the lot, and sell it to some corp to build a parking lot or a suburb or something.
Mobility Reimagined
But "investing" is just rent-seeking from other people doing actual work. Literally it's taking a portion of the profits of someone else's labour in exchange for access to your capital.
yes like proximity or exposed to first.
The idea is that not everyone can own and operate a car (the killed woman was one of them).

The idea is that in a vehicle-pedestrian collision, the driver is going to be unharmed, and the pedestrian is likely to die.

The idea is that cars already have plenty of pedestrian-free infrastructure: the highway system, but pedestrians are nearly always forced to share the road with cars in the US (sidewalks are disconnected by roads).

The idea is that roads and sidewalks are constructed with tax money, and the pedestrians are not getting their fair share. A lot of people drive because, as you noted, they have to, not as preference.

The idea is that the cities don't belong to people with cars, and the convenience of moving around in a vehicle should not come at the expense of lives of pedestrians.

The idea is that if you are not on a highway, you go slow and look out for people.

Is that last thing too hard to grasp?
LF uses a giant all-encompassing DAG as a CRDT and implements subjective name conflict resolution by computing "views" of the DAG based on various weighting constraints: https://github.com/zerotier/lf

It's a bit like Riak or etcd but can be used across organizational and trust boundaries similar to e.g. a cryptocurrency. Anyone can run LF as part of the same network and both data privacy and security are maintained.
I don't follow your logic. Compound interest grows capital exponentially, while taxation is linear. So, while tax avoidance helps, it's not necessary.
What is the current state of distributed databases?
I am thinking of trying out a more distributed approach for one of my new applications, and one the questions that I'm trying to answer is if it's worth it to switch from a more SQL server heavy infrastructure to a more distributed database model- currently I'm trying to decide between Spanner and CockroachDB. What have been peoples experiences working with distributed databases? What's the state of the world here at the moment? I'm basically looking for as much information as I can to help inform my decision.
I'm more reflecting the general consensus. That's communism, which is generally seen as a failed economic system, and difficult to practically enforce. Although maybe that all changes in a post-scarcity economy, like is Star Trek technically communist? Should the goal actually be GINI-0?
I think it depends who was legally in control of the vehicle. I assume (and I relise it could be different, but this is just creating a model) that the safety driver would legally be considered to be in control of the vehicle, and as such responsible for the crash. She did after all have the ability to prevent the crash had she not been negligent.

I assume for instance that if I were to use Tesla AutoPilot on the road in the UK (I don't have a Tesla so I haven't looked into this) and my car crashes into someone while a) it's enabled and b) I'm not paying attention that I am still 100% at fault.

Until self-driving cars can legally be in control of themselves, absolving occupants of any responsibility, I'd assume that this is, or at least should be, the case.

I don't think Uber is clean in this to be clear, I suspect they were cutting corners to stay competitive, and I just don't trust them at all to make decisions that are in the interest of the general public, but the direct criminal responsibility seems to lie with the the safety driver, even though it seems that Uber should be sueable for something.
Software engineer at an e-commerce company. Conference attendance is likely at some point but not even close to my primary role.
I believe the original 80/20 pareto principle was one of the first quantified observations of exactly the phenomenon of wealth distribution.

So the natural stable distribution of that dynamic system is certainly some type of power law, aka Pareto Distribution. It will almost certainly always trend towards such a distribution given its historical efficacy. The question then is, at what alpha value do we achieve some desired outcome?

I like this line of thinking, and I'd like to see GINI index or the Pareto distribution alpha value tested as a predictive economic indicator for things like growth.
> And a reliability of 142:143 is not terribly high for a safety-critical system.

That's a 50+ years ago flight on a system which was being debugged - unfortunately, too hastily. Parachutes subsystem underwent major rework after that catastrophe, and the follow-up flight history attests to it.

One can call it "142:143" only as a first approximation.
That's a completely valid reason. If the competition is underserving the market and you think you can outgrow them because you have an aggressive growth plan then that's something.
the X is there in the top right, it's just white on white background.
Getting a 40ton truck isn't hard, and those are very difficult to shield against. Most deployments don't resist them.

There are better ways, just look at military anti-tank bollards. Those will stop a truck, and archive what you want. They are also not as temporary, usually.
This is a lot more satisfying than just r > g, which although seeming to be well supported in a rather large book somehow is dissatisfying. Specifically, I was looking for some kind of agent model like what this author is presenting here.

I've often thought about the "it's expensive to be poor" adage. What's interesting is he takes in this risk preference idea, in which you naturally expect the poor to have to be cede certain opportunities in order to secure further existence. I've played a lot of poker where you see this dynamic where the big stack guy can take chances and still win, and the cards (and skill) don't matter that much.
NYC is an unbelievably diverse food city though. You can get anything here. So that tweet doesn't really land. I'm not saying Houston isn't good either (haven't been), but NYC is great by that metric.
What are you expecting him to do with those guns?

Who are you expecting to show up when some guy barricades himself in his house with a bunch of guns?

I've witnessed a standoff first-hand. The police will show up and attempt to take down the person in question. They don't just hang around with their thumbs up their ass. They have riot shields, body armor, and they storm in from every direction with 20+ guys.

SWAT does not fuck around.
The thing that always irks me about this is that we keep talking about the individuals even though that's not the real issue.

Sure, Jeff Bezos has a lot of wealth, but really what he has is a lot of shares of Amazon. It's Amazon that really has the money. Even if Bezos is the CEO, he has a duty to the other shareholders to act in their interests. He can't just donate all the company's assets to charity even if he wanted to.

The real problem is that corporations are too big. The fact that this makes their founders very rich is more of a side note. Increasing the capital gains rate isn't going to make Apple or Microsoft smaller or give them more competition. It isn't even going to collect more money from the largest shareholders until they sell their shares, which many of them never actually do.

This is a competition problem, not a wealth problem. If there were ten times as many companies then there would be ten times as many founders who each had a tenth as much money -- or less, if the added competition directed more of the money to the customers and workers.
You're assuming a world without inheritance, nepotism, politics, lobbying, etc. So many factors go into how much a person's effort can compound....
I don't think danhak compared 2 people.

Anyway, if I started with 100k dollars and you started with 1M dollars (a 900k difference) and we both grew 50%, now I have 150k and you have 1.5M - a 1.35M difference. Still 9x, but way more $.
Please don't be a jerk on HN, regardless of how correct you are or feel you are.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Jerk is the rate of change of deceleration. The original settings were a pause of 1s, followed by 5m/s³ of jerk up to 7m/s². That means it takes 2.4s from the issue is detected until "full" braking of 7m/s² is applied.

Even 20m/s³ doesn't seem all that aggressive to me. A good car can brake with around 9m/s² (depending on the state of the road) which means it's going to take 0.45s to go from 0 to full braking.
> If they added the suppression because there were too many false positives, that would just have resulted in the car honking at apparently arbitrary times. It's just converting the garbage signal from one form into another. It's still too noisy to be reliable.

I love how they went from "our vision system is too unreliable to have warning signals every time it doesn't know what's in front of it" to "okay let's do it anyway but just not have warning signals". Like it didn't make them stop and think "well maybe basing a self-driving car off of this isn't a good idea".
The company I work for is trying to make this process a bit better - it's called RaiseMe: https://raise.me. These name buys are pretty untargeted, and often include only superficial demographic information.

The application and admission process is difficult to navigate and not transparent, and ends up disproportionately impacting the chances for immigrants, minorities, and first-generation college students of finding a good match.

Our hypothesis is that by surfacing available aid earlier, in smaller amounts ("microscholarships"), and allowing students to explore less-well-known colleges, and opt-in to having their information shared, engages students throughout their HS career, pushes them to achieve academically, and nets them a college better suited for them. We found this to be the case over the last 5 years, given our 300+ college partners and usage in 3 of 4 US high-schools.

Our college partners find spending their acquisition budget with us to access (opted-in) rich student data to find interested students that match their profile results in a greater ROI than spending their budget on spamming students and parents with glossy brochures.

(We've also found there to be opportunities to help transfer students navigate the transfer process, and help enrolled undergraduate students from dropping out.)

By the way, we're hiring.
How about you don't owe $8.41, though
Async is great... all those times a thread is waiting for even fractions of a second can now be easily put to use... using the same thread if needed (a big win for single threaded Python for example).
I can’t read the article but I think it’s starting to deflate on its own. Like when J.P. Morgan stopped advertising on google after the whole controversy of ads being shown in front of extremist content and realized it didn’t make a difference.
10+Day+Detox
Nodejs make proper threading available:
https://nodejs.org/api/worker_threads.html
Notice you're assuming the parent's reference and then saying it is wrong.
1) Have a monitoring in place.
2) Never miss alerts, use smth with multi-channel escalation like amixr.io
I don't think it's necessarily about producing more. It's about risk. The people who risk more, are compensated by the reward. Now, you can definitely alleviate the inequality by giving more money out, so if Bezos is making $215M/day. Wouldn't it make sense for him to distribute the wealth to make some people happier?

I believe there comes a point where a person has enough wealth and needs to re-distribute it somewhere else to produce/innovate more.
> It scales linearly.
> If you have 3 (or 10) times as much as I have, and we both invest all our money in the same interest bearing account, then after N years you will still have 3 (or 10) times as much as I have.

Right, it's linear relative to other interest bearing accounts, but GP's point was that existing wealth of an individual grows exponentially.
Part of path planning will involve vehicle dynamics, breaking, acceleration and steering response, and the envelope of the vehicle. All of those will heavily impact how a car should drive.
Ya, I am guessing this is something they likely won't pursue to its fullest extent but indeed something annoying. Say for instance, the company is eventually taken over by a bad actor that now wants to put my face on some endorsement for a shady product. Then I won't be too happy about that.
It would have to be a disruptive model for sure...
The biggest thing is that's not a very natural distribution for a parameter like wealth. You'd have a VERY hard time trying to maintain that given innate differences between individuals in terms of expense of effort and the like. There will always be ways to try to gain additional "wealth" that doesn't meet whatever definition you try to use to equate everything.
Imagine missing an arm! There's always barriers, however, focusing on what you don't have won't result in progress.
And even if the reactors were small enough, there is no guarantee they'd be quiet enough.
Can you please review the Show HN guidelines? I appreciate that you're not exactly flaming the OP here, but still, the idea is to respond more charitably to people's work. If you know more than others, find a constructive way to express that, such as by teaching them—and by extension, the rest of us—something related to what they've done so far.

https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
This isn't just an issue of marketing wanting a Facebook Pixel.

In some cases, councils turned their websites into revenue streams and thus were being paid to include adverts on their site that tracked users, browsing council content.

https://www.wokingham.gov.uk/website-advertising/
> The micro-decisions and predictions made are very challenging to get right.

Yeah, they really are. So... maybe they just shouldn't have self-driving cars until they can figure that stuff out?
As I understand the numbers something like 99.9% of that 6400 m/s dV is done via aerobreaking. Which makes it actually much easier to land on mars than on the moon energy wise.

The falcon heavy and dragon were almost definitely up to the task, given that SpaceX was for a short period of time actively looking for customers.

Source on the 99.9% is this talk (about starship, but I doubt red dragon would have been substantially different in terms of delta v): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bysu8XN5OfY
Since values where falsely supported by corrupt mortgages and appraisals then further supported by our government bailout not allowing the market to work as it should, why shouldn't people also expect to not be priced out of their neighborhoods? Shouldn't median income have anything to do with what housing costs should be in any given area? Everywhere in California for example isn't 5th ave or Silicone valley, so your argument is flawed.
Along with attempting to shift blame to the cloud, there are always suggestions which try to mitigate their inability to deal with sentient things with more rules.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20882763 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20520124
"They give the impression of constant distance between the ordinal values, e.g., #10 is as far below #1 as #310 is below #300."

I don't think most people interpret rankings like this. It's generally understood that the distribution of large ranked lists is not linear, and that there's more room between the entries at the top than in the middle.
as opposed to figuratively terrible?
I'd be very surprised if any British person (Americans I believe don't call any vehicle a 'lorry') would call that a lorry. Lorries are the container + cab vehicles, or fixed backs of similar shape and size.

I suspect the author wrote that without seeing the footage, perhaps reading 'truck' and assuming it was a lorry being described by someone who wouldn't use the word, as above.
What Is a Meme Azul?
I have no sympathy for those who turn one-sided adhesion contracts into nigh-ubiquitous property covenants, just to support their petty-authoritarian model.

I have seen far too many petits Napoleons terrorizing their neighbors under an HOA aegis to defend even the HOAs that act honorably to fulfill their original intents. They should all be voided. If you can't "preserve neighborhood character" on voluntary contributions and conduct alone, your HOA doesn't deserve to exist.
In his defense, it's much harder to react to emergency situations if you are not already fully engaged. It's similar to the difference between dropping a breakable item versus watching someone else drop it. You will start reacting to your own folly much faster than passively watching it unfold.
> This assumes (like everyone else seems to do) that the code was perfect, the APIs that were called were perfect, and that the process never changed. This is almost never the case.

The code and APIs will never be "perfect," and many processes change little.

Also, it's a little ambiguous who's code you're talking about: the customer's or the platform's? If a platform that maintains backwards-compatibility is an achievement worth celebrating, because it saves loads of effort across society and give people access to software who might not otherwise be able to afford it. If a platform breaks its customer's code because it's chasing after API perfection, it's kinda abusing its customers.
Hosting CalConnect to build the future of calendars
Yup, easy rebuttal to that one is just looking at how insanely hard some poor people work, while still struggling to succeed: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/31/books/review/stephanie-la...

The more insidious version of this is arguing over whose labours have more "market value". And there's something to that, but I can't get away from the feeling that it's deeply unfair how a software professional can coast for weeks on the occasional flash of insight or burst of productivity, while a housecleaner works two full time jobs and still is one unexpected car repair from insolvency.
The downvotes on your comment is a sad indication that things won't change too soon.
I think it was high 30's back then, and now it's mid-40s. Different sources measure it differently, but generally it's gone up. Mid-30's is like Denmarkish.
The only applications that will disable these mitigations are maybe home power users or certain niches where access to the system is always trusted. For everyone else, there's performance stealing mitigations.

If you or your employer doesn't apply mitigations I certainly wouldn't go around bragging about it. Let it be a deep, dark secret until the next hw upgrade cycle. Otherwise you'll get pilloried and/or sued for any data breach.
Yes, I understand what he was saying, and I also understand the sentiment. I disagree that all of that collateral damage should be written off as "they should have seen it coming", though (although I'm OK with that stance for the major investors).

This part:

> Contractors may not have known, but certainly had access to the same information everyone else had and could have known had they actually reviewed the information.

is unreasonable, in my opinion, but perhaps I wasn't clear on what I meant by "contractors". I wasn't talking about IT contractors, but about all the rest -- the companies providing office supplies, janitorial services, and so forth.
The difference is that real estate isn't just a financial asset. It's an exclusive claim on a sizable chunk of immobile physical space that potentially has many other uses, none of which can happen when it's full of whatever's there right now. This isn't true of a bond or a painting.

It's in the general interest of society to ensure that land is economically productive because it's central to a great many other aspects of life. This is generally intended to be reasonably in line with what its potential is. This also really isn't true of a bond or painting.

My answer is that real estate wealth is qualitatively different in ways both important and relevant from other forms of wealth.
Maybe this is just a generational thing, but I still have never clicked on an ad. I hate ads. I don't know anyone who likes them. I don't know anyone who has intentionally clicked on them.

I have literally never met anyone who places any value in advertising at all. Everyone hates it with 100% of their being. It is the garbage we all just sort of accept exposure to as some sort of fee for existing online.

Who are all these people that subverted technology and turned it into advertising-tech?
Gaming Became the Next Front in the War over Hong Kong