skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I have not heard the colloquial use of "zero trust" by service providers you mention. The baseline Tailscale product is not "you don't have to trust us" as we run the auth server. The variant of our product where you run your own auth server does have this property, but it is not the default arrangement.

We do use "zero trust" in what you describe as the architectural sense, and I do not think leveraging WireGuard is a step backwards at all. When one node wants to communicate, it establishes a WireGuard tunnel to the node it wants to talk to. That WireGuard tunnel only moves packets for talking to a single node, to talk to another node you establish a new tunnel.

There is (in our default and recommended setup) a 1-1 relationship between a public key for an endpoint its IP address. That public key was linked to a corporate SSO account by the auth server. That means when you send or receive a packet from the private IP range Tailscale manages, you know exactly the identity of the source or destination of that packet.

If you configure a Tailscale node to route a subnet, you remove some of the BeyondCorp-style Zero Trust from your configuration. This feature exists to help companies transition to Zero Trust, and is not something I want to see as a final state for anyone's network. The end goal is Tailscale running on every node in the network.
I feel like you are intentionally being thick in order to get mad at me.

I am only talking specifically about the 2/3 claim at the bottom of the article, which for the avoidance of doubt, is simply a summary of the final measurement made in the article, i.e., the result of dividing 1.4 by 2.1. I know this because of its positioning in the article, because the numbers line up, because a different % IPC is given for the earlier measurement, and because an earlier version of post, with different results for the last experiment (with IPC of 2.8 and 1.4), showed a different ratio (50%).

How you are somehow interpreting the small clarification of the one line which was being discussion as wide-ranging defense of the article, I'm not sure. My broader thoughts are available here [1] and the comments on the article.

---

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21724780
I don't think Joel is trying to do anything with POV. The antenna is stationary, it's just covered in a ton of LEDs. Plus, he's talking about 10x the number of LEDs that you mentioned.

FastLED + the OctoWS or YvesBazin's controllers make much more sense for his project.
It was a slow ramp. Issues with Gmail, o365, and others.
On Safari at least, hitting the share sheet button and then “copy” will always return the canonical URL (which I believe the amp standard requires sites to define)
You actually can: if he had a better level of education than everyone else, why wouldn't he do better than people taking traditional educational paths?

As someone who participated in many academic competitions as a child, the winners were consistently weighted 9:1 private:public.
I'm sure it has, but in the meantime Java is making great strides as well on multiple important fronts -- low-latency GCs, a next-gen JIT, AOT compilation, native ffi, low-overhead in-production profiling and lightweight concurrency, and the main problem with Microsoft's technologies remains that they break compatibility every five-six years or so. Now it's .NET Core, and it wouldn't be a bad bet to guess that in five years it will be something else. We're at a point where it's so hard to make changes with a big bottom-line impact (arguably there weren't too many such advances in the past twenty years) that very few actually justify breaking compatibility, and companies know that. So while smaller software can afford switching from one technology to the other, big "important" stuff requires a compatibility lifespan of at least ten if not fifteen years, something that Microsoft has never been good at. It's possible that with their focus shifting more to the backend with their cloud offering that would change, but it appears that their cloud strategy is to support all software platforms rather than focus on their own. That's why we see Microsoft now hiring engineers, as well as getting some CLR engineers, to contribute to Oracle's OpenJDK [1].

[1]: https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/discuss/2019-October...
What makes you choose such extremely authoritarian language while omitting the details?

What makes you bring this completely unrelated statement to the conversation?

Why would you need to use whataboutism, a known fallacy, to discredit Rossmann?
If the Universe Is 13.8B Years Old, How Can We See 46B Light Years Away?
Boeing faces $3.9M fine for installing faulty parts on 737 planes
I work at a very large company (IBM) and I refuse to interview people that way. My track record for great hires (both full-timers and interns) is arguably impeccable. No whiteboard or brain teaser quizzes involved. I wrote a little about my interviewing approach in my latest "hiring" post: https://programmingzen.com/new-ibm-internship-positions-in-m...
The following paragraph is a good summary, I think:

> Anyone who cares about getting good grades has to play this game, or they'll be surpassed by those who do. And at elite universities, that means nearly everyone, since someone who didn't care about getting good grades probably wouldn't be there in the first place. The result is that students compete to maximize the difference between learning and getting good grades.

It's a race to the bottom.
That’s a very good point, but then we are talking about edge cases and a delay measured in weeks to months. So, the benefit from catching 1 bad drug could outweigh the benefits from releasing 100 drugs slightly earlier.

It’s not an easy choice, especially when the risks are often hypothetical and the benefits so clear.

It’s interesting looking at lists like this and considering where things broken down. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs
With JAX you _can_ just use python control flow with gradients, so long as you don't try to jit-compile the control flow. This ends up being just like PyTorch / eager execution. However, you have the option of compiling the largest possible blocks of code that are convenient.

When writing code in JAX, I often start by write code eagerly and then try to jit increasingly large pieces to get more performance.

You might also find the experimental control flow interesting since it tries to be more pythonic while also being possible to jit-compile. (https://github.com/google/jax/blob/master/jax/experimental/l...)
I'm sure they'd eat kittens like popcorn if they could.
How to Match “A B C” where A+B=C: The Beast Tamed (2018)
Concrete vs abstract thinkers. Some people can only really do concrete thinking, once the rule is in place they can follow instructions happily and never feel a need for more. Abstract thinkers will always want to think about the unseen, and have a need to manipulate what does not yet exist in the concrete world. Some can create, and the rest can then think about the creation. All on a continuum, of course.
Plus they eventually got dinged for this because they had inexplicably advertised the Linux support, so removing it turned that into false advertising. Owners of the classic PS3 got a chunk of $ from a class action settlement.
There was no reason they couldn’t have sold a slightly less locked-down system to researchers at a higher price point —- Microsoft did exactly that with unsold X360 Kinect units (and bundled in a USB adapter) for medical research.
> It's odd behavior.

There’s no point in letting a potential future meal drown if you’re not hungry at the moment.
Has any managed portfolio outperformed SPY over last 30 years after accounting for expenses?
> He backed up his words by allowing googling on the actual coding part of his exams. You had to understand the underlying concepts but you never had to memorize syntax. ... His course and exams were _rigorous_. You could never cram for his class and expect to pass and indeed I know of one student repeatedly failing his course.

When I studied law, all our exams were open book. Bring whatever you want. I brought casebooks and printouts of legislation and important cases. Others also brought headnotes and volumes of Halsbury's (a legal encyclopaedia).

None of this helped if you didn't know the material well enough to identify the legal issues in each question.

Which is why I failed Torts.
An indictment is a charge of commiting a crime. It is the first step towards being out in trial for a crime. No secret trial has occurred in the Assange case.

Ladar Levison was not served with a national security letter by the FBI. National security letters can not legally compel either the turning over of encryption keys or installation of a device to intercept communications. In fact it can't compel turning over communications period but only any existing records regarding such communications. Existing being a key word because a NSL also can't compel keeping of additional records beyond what has already been collected by the entity receiving the NSL. Lidar Levison received a wiretap order issued by a federal court. Wiretaps require the FBI to prove to a judge that there is probable cause that a felony has been committed. I can't think of a country in the world that doesn't allow wiretaps and require them to be kept secret. Requiring a judge to issue a wiretap order is in fact more stringent control over wiretaps than exists in most of the world including many European countries where police can implement wiretaps on their own accord.
thats kinda the point...
This post reminded me of Eliezer Yudkowsky's Guessing the Teacher's Password https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/NMoLJuDJEms7Ku9XS/guessing-t..., which focuses more on the need to unlearn answering questions in the style that school expects you to answer them in, since that style has been optimized to make testing easy, rather than demonstrate in-depth understanding
> But as you grow, that ten percent of underperforming people becomes large in absolute numbers, and is very painful to deal with.

I think you could reduce the 10% to 1% simply by actively firing bad employees, and the easiest way to do that is with a probationary hiring period (let's say 6 months, maybe a year).

I am fully aware of how systemic rot can be, and how hard it can be to remove. The real problem is when you hire a bad manager, because they will not only let the rot fester but encourage it to grow.

I think you could wildly relax hiring standards for ICs and be incredibly successful. What we need are better practices around hiring managers more than anything.
Yet you can't account for them now being 46B light years away without breaching C, or encompassing the expansion of the universe, within which things are moving. I think he manages a clear explanation of that without scaring away too many.

Your "correct" version on the other hand, leaves more questions than answers, not least of which being how do we ever get 46B ly distance in something 13.8B years old. Then you have to cover the expansion, relativity, and hey presto you've written the article. Just skimming the other comments here makes it clear it's not a topic that's well understood or intuitive.

Clickbait it ain't, and the title is a very fair question.

I'm really disappointed to see this the top voted HN answer right now...
> mammal bro behaviour

You might be onto something here. Dolphins look cute, and orca's don't look like the killers they really are. Sharks on the other hand look scary. So it works the other way around.

But they do eat seals, which are probably closer related to them than us?
The first message „lo“ was sent at 10:30 p.m, on October 29, 1969. The transmitting SDS Sigma 7 host computer crashed before transmitting the final „g“ needed for the receiving computer at SRI to add the final „in“ for „login“. It took Leonard Kleinrock and UCLA student programmer Charley Kline about an hour to recover from that before the computer effected a full "login" sending the three letters „log“ again.
I don’t necessarily have a problem with a person having a billion dollars. I do have a problem with the influence of money in the U.S. political system. Moving to federally and state funded election would be a start. That and a tax on wealth, not income, that would erode the accumulated assets over a generation would lead to greater equality.
A federation.

To be honest, if a large company has multiple departments that essentially govern themselves, perhaps they could just give them proper names, as if they were subsidiary companies? Because it seems to me that the mechanism behind the "best performers leave when they feel the average performance of workers in the company goes down" is really bounded by the company name. I.e. people in department of frobnification leave because of the people in department of foobing bars. But people in Frobnificator perhaps wouldn't leave because of people in FooBars.io, even if legally/administratively the two situations were equivalent.
No, you cannot. IQ is highly correlated with wealth and is also highly heritable. So in all likelihood what you've observed is that smart kids win academic competitions, and also happen to be from rich families. If you take a bunch of kids with an IQ of 100 (or 115, or even 130) and put them into private schools they'll do a little better but they won't be winning any academic competitions.
I have my ad-blocker on all the time. The 3X improvement is with ad-blocker on both. AMP loads multiple times faster, therefore it does have a purpose. On the original site, things jump around until it's usable, on AMP it's right there when you tap on.

The crazy loading times are actually not that important as long as the site is usable quickly.
Exactly. Every time I travel for a client they pay for everything, plus the "sandwich & juice" in the airport, taxis/trains to/from home/airport/hotel/meetings AND the hours/days from the moment I exit my home to the moment I reach the hotel. For the return, any minute after 5pm, until I get back home.

I am not willing (in order to be 9am on the client site (in another country) to spend half a Sunday away from home and loved ones for free. I usually charge 1h commute +2h in the airport pre flight + duration of flight + commute to hotel post flight.
That makes sense. I guess `try` means something a bit different in JavaScript than `rescue` does in Ruby.

It seems like this code in Ruby:

```

begin

do_something

rescue => e

handle_error e

ensure

log_something

end

```

is equivalent to this in JavaScript:

```

try {

doSomething();

} catch(e) {

handleError(e);

} finally {

logSomething();

}

```

I'm not saying that they're 100% equivalent, but I was thinking of the `try` block as if it's `rescue` when really it has more in common with `begin` in Ruby in that it's defining a block of code that can be rescued/caught if an error occurs.

So I guess my confusion comes from this type of block being named `try` rather than something like `do` or `begin`.

TL;DR I was just thinking about this in the wrong way from what I can tell.

EDIT: Yet I think that my point might still stand in that, if `try` is just a block that has its own scope, like an if-block or `begin` in Ruby, then it should be possible to not require either `catch` or `finally` since its own behavior has little to do with error handling.

For instance, this is possible:

```

let x = 'foo';

try {

let x = 'bar';

} catch(err) {

// noop

}

console.log(x); // foo

```

The try-block would be way more useful if it could just define scope without being tied specifically to error handling. There are lots of circumstances where defining scope would be handy outside of conditionals and creating functions for a similar purpose.

I guess what might have made the most sense, if JS could have started over, is that there'd be no `try` statement and that `do` could be used in its place.

```

const words = ['foo', 'bar', 'baz'];

let i = 0;

do {

console.log(words[i]);

i++;

} catch(err) {

console.error('whoops!');

} while (i < words.length);

```

We can't go back now since JS, for good reasons, is remaining mostly backwards-compatible. But the ability to do the above without extra gymnastics would be pretty cool.
Somewhat important to note I think is that the Netherlands has the highest public charge points to electric vehicle ratios in the world [0] which adds to the appeal (and lowers the barrier) of owning an electric vehicle.

[0] https://twitter.com/TheICCT/status/915456384300281857
This going to be true of most self help writing by survivors.
I'd guess a different brand attached to Microsoft would not have much more acceptance than Bing.
It's precisely because general relativity applies that this is possible.

First, note that relative velocity and growth of distance between objects are distinct concepts: Shoot two bullets at 0.9c each in opposite directions, and from your perspective, the distance between them will grow at a rate of 1.8c, whereas their relative velocity (as computed from the 'angle' between their 4-velocities) will only be 0.994c.

In special relativity, that relative velocity will correspond to the growth of distance between the bullets as measured by an observer comoving with either bullet.

In general relativity, things are more complicated: Curved spaces lack distance parallelism, so you can only compare the velocity vectors of the two bullets when they are located in the same place at the same time. Also, there's generally no longer a canonical way to decompose spacetime into spatial slices across which you can measure distances.

Now, you can still define a relative velocity through parallel transport along a path connecting the two objects, and in particular the path of a photon emitted by a distant galaxy and observed by us. This will in fact recover cosmological redshift as a generalized Doppler shift. If defined this way, the relative velocity goes to c as you approach the cosmic event horizon, hence you'll never observe relative velocities larger than c.

However, while there's no canonical spatial slicing in general relativity, in Friedmann cosmology specifically, a preferred spatial slicing does exist: The one where the universe looks homogeneous and isotropic and the same amount of time will have passed since the big bang (as measured by an observer following the Hubble flow). This allows us to define the proper distance (at constant cosmological time) between astronomical objects, and the growth of this distance is what's known as 'recession velocities'. These velocities go to c at the Hubble sphere, which doesn't really have any particular significance: We can see galaxies that were located outside the Hubble sphere just fine (though as time goes on, the Hubble sphere will approach the cosmic horizon asymptotically).
The reason was cost. Have fun convincing management to allocate resources to develop and support another SKU tailored for researchers.
Paul should talk to Seth about education. He seems to have had the insights before him[1].

[1] https://seths.blog/2018/09/education-needs-to-be-inconvenien...
Considering that both the countries (Israel, China) are and have been involved in very unsavory stuff, I wouldn’t say that it’s an unreasonable conclusion. Less than 50% likely, probably. But definitely not out of the question.
Unschooling (2001)
Ma et al. include 72 references yet also fail to cite the following, which also seems relevant.

Thermodynamics and signatures of criticality in a network of neurons

https://www.pnas.org/content/112/37/11508

"The activity of a brain—or even a small region of a brain devoted to a particular task—cannot be just the summed activity of many independent neurons. Here we use methods from statistical physics to describe the collective activity in the retina as it responds to complex inputs such as those encountered in the natural environment. We find that the distribution of messages that the retina sends to the brain is very special, mathematically equivalent to the behavior of a material near a critical point in its phase diagram."
I'm 99% sure that you are not affiliated with the Chinese Government. I just wanted to show that accusations like these are not really helpful. It's not the responsibility of Goole/Facebook to prove that they aren't sponsoring bad faith anti-TikTok articles. It's your responsibility as a commentator to show at least some proof (beside a convincing motive). I think the bar for that proof should be rather low, but there needs to be something. Otherwise we are switching from a commenting system based on a reason to a commenting system based on feelings/opinions.
As I said, I work on OpenJDK, and the JVM constitutes less than 25% of the Java platform software (JDK). The Java language constitutes about 2% of the codebase, and Kotlin and Clojure make use of over 95% of it. They use the JVM, the Java core libraries (thanks to erased generics), and the selection of Java's debugging, profiling and monitoring tools that make up the JDK (not to mention their extensive use of third-party Java ecosystem libraries that aren't a part of the core platform). They are most definitely Java platform languages (although they're not only Java platform languages; e.g. Kotlin is also an Android language), even if colloquially many refer to the platform as "the JVM" although the JVM is only a small, yet obviously very important, part of it. Java is the name of both a programming language and the platform it is part of, and sometimes, for the sake of brevity, I too would refer to the platform as "the JVM." But as someone working on Java (not so much the language, but the platform), I try to use the more precise, more correct terminology, and I guess I'll just have to try and live with your dismay.
> If the people aren't motivated, any standardized measure will miss the mark

Shouldn't that be a sign that trying to come up with standardized measures is a fool's errand?

Short of blatant social engineering, I don't see how we can have a system that could improve people's motivation and drive for education. And if we don't have a way to actually change human nature, why do we keep trying to design this system that would magically work for so many different people?
Ehh, I'm less optimistic about this ever since the changes to US patent law. The guy in a garage has far fewer protections than they used to.
There are two implications.

First, the free fluorine will cause corrosion of the structure in which the spent salt is stored.

Second, this UF6 will be enriched, possibly mostly 233U if this is a thorium cycle reactor. If that condenses out somewhere you can achieve a critical mass. Unintentional nuclear chain reactions in spent fuel are a total no-no.
Infinite amount of dark mathemagic is required for faster than light expansion of nothing.
Boredom Helps with Creativity
It's a pop science article, and I'm sure the audience that's into pop science articles found it interesting and probably learned something. I'm not really sure what you expect.
I'll never buy another Sony console again after they removed the ability to run Linux on the PS3. It's one of the reasons I bought one and I used it a lot.
On top of the work to do it myself, I like the Pinboards/Ulysses/underdogs of the world and want them to continue to exist. There's something to be said for supporting small businesses that put out affordable, high quality work.
Bug busters: The tech behind new vaccines
That's not true. Look at mavericks or pipeline the crowds are insane.