skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This is more promising since it is a closed carbon loop and a drop in replacement without capex for retrofits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_biofuel
Niantic Taps into the Long Tail
> You can use this language to walk into a room and say, ’I’m going through my Saturn return. I’m reckoning with restrictions and limits and boundaries right now.”

I wouldn't recommend doing that as anyone who is logic and science based will immediately cease to take you seriously. We have so much more information on how the universe works now than we did 2,500 years ago and there's nothing to suggest that astrology is anything other completely false.

People used to believe that leeches could bleed out toxins, thankfully we've evolved our knowledge models since then. Let's not go back.
Depends on the country and the market in that country for contractors / consultants. The UK is pretty much boiling with demand, mainly around London, for software consultants. Hopefully the gov won't kill it with the upcoming IR35. Usually in the UK it would be recruiters that would find indie gigs for you, but you do need to have a skill for it (good mix of more than just a stack) and the agility to learn a client's code base fast, or to create one for greenfield projects. But like everything else, it takes time to build a rep.
In general, we think the point of tech is to get off tech and be together IRL. Same thing when we're thinking about features to build. Want to walk the walk, etc.
What do you mean "Robots are hard to control at a low level"? That's the only level where they're easy!

At the lowest granularity, they have servomotors, encoders/resolvers, and kinematics that convert motor rotation to a motion in 3D space. Robot manufacturers have made the code to make a joint or linear move to a predefined X/Y/Z/i/j/k location in space using those tools really quite simple. Inputs and outputs to control grippers and other end-of-arm tools are also straightforward. As long as you keep the process low-level, they're incredibly reliable and easy to program: a clever maintenance technician can pick up a pendant for the first time and have a well-scoped task programmed in a week. A competent sales engineer can clamp a small robot to a conference room table and demonstrate picking up and putting together your product in a one-hour sales demo.

It's when you expand the scope when it gets really complicated: ask it to pick up a variety of objects, located by vision algorithms in arbitrary orientations and locations, that are moving in real time, in a changing environment, is simply a hard problem - and I think it always will be. Robots really only know how to move their tool center point from one location to another, and asking them to "do what I mean" and "pick up one of these and put it on one of those without making me worry about low-level stuff" is a level of simplification that has never really worked in any other domain.
Start to finish build time(including OS install) is maybe two hours if you're a complete newbie. Everything is color coded and keyed to fit into only one spot.
No, it's a philosophical one. But religion is more than philosophy.
similar here. bug in jvm ref counting. not only did the java have to be debugged, the jvm itself then had to be debugged. second hardest bug i ever had to deal with.

first hardest was a linux kernel crypto bug.
I would swear they trained on Pornhub transcripts. Interesting for how it frames several popular individuals too.
One of the deep problems in assessing whether or not something like Clairvoyance is real is that there is no way to know the difference between extreme luck and the output of a truly new fundamental ability. It's especially difficult if the Ability is real, but the Practitioner is somewhat flawed in their practice.

Suppose we want to test if someone can tell the future, and they really can tell the future, but are not super great at interpreting their inner precognitions. We ask for the predicted outcome of 5 future events, each of which only has two outcomes. The reach within their minds, and "see" the different outcomes, but its a little jumbled, and they only get 4 of the outcomes right.

Contrast that with someone who has no real ability, but just guesses at the same event outcomes. There is a 1 in 32 chance that they will get the outcome of all 5 events correct. So if you were testing enough people, or simply knew enough people who thought they could predict the future, but really couldn't, you would find plenty of people who seemingly knew the future, but didn't.

The reality of assessing such abilities is very difficult, even more so than I have demonstrated, but ultimately I don't find it meaningful to even speculate on the existence of such abilities without also a meaningful way to measure them.
Religions make testable claims as well, mostly with respect to events in the past and in the future.
In rust, they separate the concept of a future from how it's actually run. Tokio is one way to run a bunch of futures, and it has many different options.

For instance, I use the CurrentThread runtime in tokio, because I'm using the rust code as a plugin to Postgres, and it accesses non-thread-safe APIs.

What you are asking for is essentially for the futures runtime to be hidden from you. That's fine for some languages that already have a big runtime and don't need the flexibility to do things differently, but doesn't work for rust.
Thanks. I'm aware of that handbook but somehow I find web-based books lack the charm of a real book but eventually once I know my way around it, I'm sure I'll come to it.
You're not wrong, but from a political standpoint it's impossible to justify giving any sort of subsidies to China as long as they're pursuing an expansionist foreign policy and have nuclear missiles pointed at us.
> * Calling an async function constructs its stack frame without running any of its body.

This is actually possible to do by using async blocks instead of async functions. E.G. you can write this:

fn test() -> impl Future<Output = ()> {
// Run some things directly here
println!("I am running in the current frame");
async {
// Run some things in the await
println!("I am running in the .await");
}
}
I hear what's your saying, but should be that their right? Right to f!#(& up their lives, because they decided it that way.
Keep in mind that during the Flint water crisis everyone stopped drinking the lead contaminated water, so of course you aren't going to see a giant jump in the lead blood levels. That doesn't mean there wasn't a lot of lead in the water, and that doesn't mean it didn't have an impact on the residents.
If you adjust for the drag/energy required to carry more voluminous fuel... any idea how this nets out?
It's even worse for the people who fly, half of the population in America doesn't fly in any one year.
e=mc2 I think - there’s a Tesla forum thread about it, and Quora articles and things if you look. I’m not a physicist.
I might unmount the cooler before shipping the box somewhere, but if it's just sitting there you will generally be alright.
In that vein I often think of democracy of an escape valve chimera. You get to scream on paper for a while until the next overload.

I'd deeply love an analysis about the effectiveness of voting / political systems in relation to goals/results. We would probably choke on the accountability issue right away.
This comment is wrongheaded on several levels.

1: Jet fuel makes water when burned as well: by mass it is ~18% hydrogen, and by energy content it produces 55% as much water as pure hydrogen. The fuel itself is vastly less relevant than the amount burned.

> Coal fired plane might be better since CO2 is a much weaker greenhouse gas than water.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how atmospheric water works.

2. Water vapor -which is a gas- is effectively set; it cannot be affected by dropping water in the air. The amount of evaporated water is only affected by atmospheric temperature.

3. Liquid water droplets in the air are just clouds. Unlike water vapor, clouds are extremely good anti-greenhouse gases. They block visible light but allow infrared through. Seeding clouds with sulfuric acid is one of the suggested ways to fight global warming.

4. Contrails are made of ice crystals, not gas or liquid water. Ice clouds cause greenhouse forcing, but the destruction of ozone and other protective gases from high-altitude radicals in jet exhaust is generally considered a larger concern.

5. This is an area of active research, not something that is neglected. All climate research needs a lot more funding.
Ad-Hoc Analytics on Kafka Event Streams – Why and How
Prisma | Multiple Roles | Berlin, DE | Onsite or Remote | https://www.prisma.io/

Prisma is building the data layer for modern applications. Prisma is a suite of open source database tooling to replace traditional ORMs and simplify database workflows.

We are a small and dedicated team in Berlin working on making advanced data infrastructure developed at large tech companies accessible to all developers around the world.

Prisma has a really tranquil office located in beautiful Prenzlauer Berg and for those interested in moving to Berlin, we offer a lot of help with relocation!

We work in Rust, Typescript, and Go and are hiring across many departments (engineering, support, developer relations, design etc)
The async map you laid out above could be accomplished with a `Stream` in async Rust. You can turn the array into a `Stream`, have a map operation to return a future, and then use the `buffered` method to run N at once:

https://docs.rs/futures/0.3.0/futures/stream/trait.StreamExt...

Not only does the `futures` crate provide most things you'd ever want, it also has no special treatment – you can implements your own combinators in the same way that `futures` implements them if you need something off of the beaten path.
Do it! Make sure you "Show HN" it later too
Like I said, it's a matter of safety versus security.

Use-after-free, concurrent read/writes, forgetting to acquire a lock are all problems that can crash an application or cause correctness issues. Preventing all of those falls under the "safety" heading, and is still useful in a security-permissive environment.

Now, what do you mean by "investing so much effort"? At the language level, it's valuable effort that lets us achieve security in many security-conscious applications, and we get the safety for free in less security-critical environments as a knock-on. Score! From an application developer's point of view, though, you're right. It might genuinely not matter, especially if you're not otherwise motivated to learn the language (a lot of that effort is a one-off and is amortised over your lifetime as a developer, if you choose to learn it). Not all applications benefit that much from the safety guarantees, and you might just be better off not even putting in the effort of using the language if something else is a better fit for you.
Chronicle, Google’s cybersecurity startup supposed to change industry, imploding
"Electric aviation for aircraft larger than 4 passengers is extremely hard"

To be honest, the worst parts of flying are usually all those other passengers anyways. If you could scale up a fleet on-demand small electric planes. Flying would improve. If you account for all the waiting time, it might be just as fast too.
and hire you? hard to understand your intent. a missing semicolon can indeed be a stupid hard bug to find.
There's lead in paint all over America, just dripping off old buildings into the soil in some places. And asbestos in insulation and other building products. So?
What happens when it mechanically fails and doesn't disconnect? Have a 2 mile long cable being drug behind a 200mph flying machine?

That seems quite dangerous - to both the aircraft and everyone onboard, as well as to anyone on the ground in the path of this cable.
I've done experiments in completely audio-based "VR" experiences. I think it's possible and could even be a useful form factor for people. It definitely blurs the line between VR and AR, and I default back to my assertion that the big difference between the two is who is providing the context for the experience: the developer (VR) or the user (AR).

From a technology standpoint, the Holy Grail device will be able to do both VR or AR selectably and seamlessly. The reason I think so many extant AR apps are just crappy VR apps is because the devices we have aren't able to blend VR and AR, the developers wanted (or were mandated) to use a specific system, and then shoehorned a specific design to the system they had.

> no, overlaying stuff over image of the world captured by a camera doesn't count as proper AR

News to me. If that is the case, then how is the HoloLens AR? Without utilization of the spatial surface recognition system, conceptually the HoloLens is nothing more than "overlaying stuff on an image of the world". That the world is viewed through plastic rather than routed through silicon doesn't make a difference.

Add surface capture to a VR headset with a pass-through camera (which can be done today with off-the-shelf parts, it's just not in a commercial product yet) and I see no difference.
You get a very different view when you're looking at actively attacked codebases. Memory safety issues are everywhere.

https://twitter.com/lazyfishbarrel is very much worth reading.
Perhaps I may be very wrong, but the name of this network, "Friended", comes from a term that Facebook turned into common vernacular. "Friend me on Facebook" or "I friended you on Facebook". If you're starting point is a term coined by your goliath competitor, I'd be concerned.
or for work. i ain't building something for myself for work. if it breaks, i fix it. im going to buy it from someone and if it breaks, they fix it.
I like that idea and I'd like a chip like that too, though compared to say a current 3400G I'd rather have more memory bandwidth, much more cache and a couple of extra Vega cores. Don't care much about doubling the core count, four cores with SMT is enough for what I do with it (mostly gaming from the couch). It depends on the use case I guess. Maybe AMD will surprise us with further segmentation to server APUs and gaming APUs.
Based on past decisions, it's going to take some revolutionary technology that is cheaper than avgas fuel/engines. Isn't the USA is the largest and last major country that uses leaded fuel for small planes. We'll do almost anything to save small plane owners the cost of upgrading.
Rapid prototyping will make a lot more money than cost savings on hardware in most cases
> It. Takes. Time. That's it. There's no shortcut

There is - being in deep shit together for a brief time. The deeper the shit the shorter the time needed for a true friendship.
That's a great article.

I read astrology charts for a hobby, though I am skilled enough to do it professionally. I rarely read in person, and tend to read it from just the chart, via the internet (so very little telegraphing from voice tone and body language). One of the things that turn me off to reading for people in general are some of those things that the author brought up:

- People have a limited range of issues: relationships, career advice. They need counseling, not an astrology reading.

- The kind of readings I do or would like to do have little to do with what the person wants

- There are actually multiple ways to read charts. For example, two popular house systems, Placidus, and Whole Sign House can give different apparent results. Some people get really mad when charts are read with a different house systems.

- There was at least once when I used the wrong chart for someone's reading, and they seemed to relate to that reading.

Having said that, there are enough unusual things that came out of the experience. I don't think it is completely worthless.

I don't use the method the person described -- sympathetic magic, or word association. Nor do I base my astrology on the popular notion, that astrology is a science. It most certainly is not a science. I don't see it as a celestial clockwork that mechanistically produces results that are predictable (I have pissed off astrology enthusiasts who think that way).

Instead, my view of astrology is a map for Consciousness (the idea that mind did not emerge from the mind, but rather, matter solidified from mind), and it is something I think many (but not not all) psychonauts can relate to. For those who are exploring things that way, it can be valuable map.
The problem with "psychics" is ultimately a more general problem about access to help, especially the field of psychological help.

The help anyone could do is entirely dependent on the ability of the person to get access to the help. For example, suppose that person A has problem C. Person B has solution D. Now, even if solution D is the perfect solution, one must figure out the access path to that solution.

In this case, the problem is how to create a process whereby person A is most likely to get to the appropriate solution. My guess is that for the most part people will prioritize a) trust in the solution provider b) ease of access and c) cost, not necessarily in that order. There probably is some bias towards an easy solution (e.g. take this pill) as opposed to a complex solution (e.g. get a B.S. in computer science).

It could be that a phone psychic, simply by being immediately available and inexpensive, could provide a better throughput of low level psychological issues than the higher barrier to entry of the traditional psychiatric industry.

The fact that someone self-describes as a "psychic" is in some ways just another form of marketing, one with a certain target demographic. Admittedly, this demographic might hypothetically be better served by a different set of solution providers (in the same ways that the demographic most keen on faith healers might be better served by licensed physicians), but it's not clear that they would go to them for all of the reasons mentioned above.

All in all, this is one of these areas that is extremely difficult to judge, both because of the difficulty in evaluation solutions to psychological issues and all of the cost and marketing issues.
> when you look into the testing and QA setups for something like Boeing

Boeing has a corporate lineage that extends back for more than a century and for most of that they did not have the levels of engineering safety excellence they can manage today. The culture that achieves near-perfect performance every flight is a different culture to the one that got planes off the ground back in the day.

And that goes to what I'm trying to communicate in this thread - people are bringing up examples of how people deviating from standard practice in mature, well developed industries where there are highly safe alternatives.

This is a different industry. Today in 2019 mankind knows how to fly a plane safely but does not know how to drive safely - I've worked in a high safety environment, they were notching speeds down to 30kmph and 40kmph down from 100kmph on public roads because the risk of moving any faster than that just isn't acceptable. People were substantially more likely to die on the way to work than at it. They'd probably have bought in 20kmph if the workers would reliably follow it. Driving is the single highest risk activity we participate in. Developing car self-driving technology has an obvious and imminent potential to save a lot of lives. Now we aren't about to suspend the normal legal processes but anyone who is contributing to the effort is probably reducing the overall body count even if the codebase is buggy today and even if there are a few casualties along the way.

What matters is the speed with which we get safe self driving cars. Speed of improvement, and all that jazz. Making mistakes and learning from them quickly is just too effective; that is how all the high safety systems we enjoy today started out.

It is unfortunate if people don't like weighing up pros and cons, but slow-and-steady every step of the way is going to have a higher body count than a few risks and a few deaths learnt from quickly. We should minimise total deaths, not minimise deaths caused by Uber cars. Real-world experience with level 3/4 autonomous technology is probably worth more than a few tens of human lives, because it will very quickly save hundreds if not thousands of people as it is proven and deployed widely.
If by "truly good" you mean makes money, that's a tautology. If by "truly good" you mean materially improves lives entrepreneurship hasn't panned out.
Hunh? There was an active campaign to distribute and install lead-certified filters.

Looks like they're still available for free pickup: https://www.michigan.gov/flintwater/0,6092,7-345-73954-36627...
FWIW OpenMP supports any C++ random access iterator and c++11 range-for loops. I guess you count any external iterator as C-style loop.
If you get a giant cooler it's usually recommended to uninstall it before transporting the computer (which means having rubbing alcohol and new thermal paste to reinstall it after transport), but stationary it's perfectly fine. They also have to hold up high end gaming GPUs which weigh equally much (and also recommended to be removed for transport).
I'm just trying to understand the full proposal. "Designed in California": contracting out production of the design is ok, but licensing it out wouldn't be? If they mix in enough hands on in setting up the production, that process engineering work is ok to be protected with trade secrets but not patents unless they get hands on with the assembly?

Is it ok to patent inventions from hired contractors? Or do they have to be in-house employees? Isn't it the same thing as licensing from a third party, just done after the fact instead of in anticipation of getting some inventions out of a contractor?
"P50 goals address sandbagging."

Hitting 100% when the expectation is ~50% means implies a really bad estimate, or that the estimates were a lie, probably in an attempt to look good.
Facebook does this when you sign into an app you've previously authorized, in native application flows. Microsoft just added this recently as well. We do recommend it to other IDPs.

This is only enforced for public clients though that don't have verifiable reply URIs - so web sites are OK.
I just checked Wealthfront and it says my rate is 44%. I'm working on increasing it to ~60%.
They did not kill the Kinect hardware, just the console experience.
Placebos work even if you know it's a placebo. If a person believes religion/psychics/chiropractic/homeopathy helps them in some way, it probably does. Even if they know those things are bunk.