skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>> If you join your PC to AAD, you can connect to it via Remote Desktop only from another box that is also AAD-joined or on-premise-AD-joined.

You can connect from a non-joined machine, but you have to disable some of the security features of RDP 6.0: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/941641/remote-deskt...

I use this to RDP to my AAD-joined laptop from my non-joined home desktop.
I tried to take a cab exactly once, in Los Angeles. I Google searched for a number. They asked me where I was, exact address. I didn't know the exact address. Even on Google maps it took a bit to figure out the exact address. After some back and forth, they inform me that they don't operate in that location and give me the number to another company. I call the other company. They tell me the cab will be there in 20 minutes, maybe. I said, "what do you mean maybe?" I was already cutting it pretty close on a flight.

Uber had just gotten into LA a couple of months back. I downloaded Uber and within a couple of minutes, I had a ride on the way, and I could see exactly where the driver was and how long it would take to get there. Hate the company, but the product definitely added value.
I realize I'm in the minority on this, but I think both of these companies will be gone 5 years from now.
Honestly? No, yes, and somewhat.

> So you consider your life so far has been only pain, nothing of worth or fulfillment because you've not had a nest of millions-of-dollars to lie in?

Not only pain, but definitely not actualized either. My life to date is a gamble that I'll maybe be able to achieve autonomy before death. If I was born into wealth, I would have started with autonomy.

Not everyone is cut out for work, and I have to dedicate pretty much 100% of my being to make it happen.

My week is consumed by work, my weekends are consumed by resting for more work. Maybe some people can compartmentalize work in such a way that it doesn't eat their life, but I haven't been able to figure that out yet.

> You'd rather not have lived?

To date? Yes, I suppose. But my hope is that I'll be eventually be able to buy my freedom, so maybe I'll eventually be thrilled that I struggled and achieved independence, if that ever happens.

I'm hoping that someday, by not having kids, I'll be able to stop working and give living a try. Maybe I'll be an artist? Or work on some kind of cause to help others? I might be getting too old for sports, but it'd be nice to physically train full-time for something to see what my physical capabilities are. Or maybe read the classics and study philosophy? I don't know, the point is, I can't know, because I can't pursue anything else full-time while working.

I don't really consider my 30-something years so far as much "living", because I can't think of a time after childhood where I've had longer than 20 consecutive days without a job to be done. Even as a kid, it was only 60 days or so of summer vacation. Incidentally, that was the time I learned to write code, which ended up becoming a job because I couldn't learn anything else while trying to pass school.

> Do you resent your parents having you?

Somewhat, because I wouldn't have done it myself. I will never understand how they could toil for others for their entire lives and then think it would be great if we could continue the tradition for another generation.

I try not to be bitter about it because there's no sense in that. I can't really undo my parents choices, so I'm trying to make the best of things. But if I were somehow able to advise them before they decided to have me, I would have tried to politely decline existing.

From my perspective, I really only exist because they wanted children, so my purpose in their life is to bring them happiness. I can really only start setting my own purpose once I achieve enough autonomy that I don't have to work to exist.

If I can scrounge together enough wealth to retire before I die, I'll consider it an enormous victory. There's a good chance work will kill me before I can leave it. I'm pretty sure I'll never make enough to have kids.

I'm holding out for the chance that I'll be able to restart life in my 40s, but this time with a trust fund of my own creation. Then, without work, perhaps I'll be able to achieve a good life.

I know my view is considered extreme, but I don't see any other way to look at it.
Here is the thing. There are probably innate differences between different men and women. There are probably also innate differences between different races.

However, this doesn't say anything about individuals. A group of people might be more likely to have trait X, but it doesn't say that any member of that group has that trait.

The problem is that people are not very good at thinking probabilistically, so emphasizing differences between groups will lead people to make unwarranted assumptions about members of those groups.
No, I did not say that.

I did not say anything about the content of articles, my comment was entirely about ads. If the article contains some topic and the ad targets that topic, the ad is not creating any new bubble. If the ad targets the user specifically because the user belongs to some group then ads are influencing specific groups in specific ways and forming new bubbles advantafeous to the highest bidder.

An ad for something men would like on a men's magazine or website targets men because they are already visiting a men specific content. An ad about the same thing on a random news site because the user is believed to be a man influences the user and other similar users to be influenced in the same way, even when they're not interacting with content specific to their membership of some group. This seems harmless but in reality the groups targeted are much more specific. So you may have those ads targeting "white men between 25-30,with college degree and living in an affuent neighborhood" , so in reality you now have that specific micro group being influenced differently, forming new bubbles. Men who don't also fit that criteria are not targeted, and are not influenced to buy nice undies. Replace undies with other more nefarious things (e.g.: food, medication,housing,job opportunities,etc...) And you can appreciate how ads are essentially micro-segregating people into bubbles based on statistical presumptions. Now if a usee visits a content,ads relevant to that content make a lot of sense. The problem is the user being targeted when they don't interact with relevant content and users interacting with relevant content not receiving relevant ads (e.g.: spouse reading about a gift for her husband won't see the nice undie ads).

Ads affect much more than what we buy, they affect out associations,peferences and views on subject matters. Non-consensual surveillance (stalking) should not be used to influence very specific groups of people. Now, I don't get why you have a problem with that?
Why not write a terminal app? Everything except for the game emulator can be usefully done inside the terminal, which is pretty easy to get up-and-running with (and provides its own unique set of design constraints).
Is it really that difficult to hit the back button?
I ran through the model in other comments, so I won't repeat it here, but in general the disincentive is the same, but people's desire to do something that costs a certain amount goes up with their wealth (called an income effect in economics).
You mean the comparison with cars didn’t do it for you?
The Mac Pro is grossly overpriced, thought this piece captured it well. https://pilky.me/the-mac-pro/

It’s also timed poorly because right now Ryzen is the hot new CPU, and much cheaper too! Apple are missing out, and unlike the author I think making a Ryzen Mac would be easy for Apple, Mac OS already runs on them (hackintosh).
Whether an array is contiguous in memory depends on the language (and the specific implementation of that language). JavaScript uses hash tables for its arrays which are really objects.
sure, and if there were a bug in the ticket processing system that made it impossible to actually charge a fine to somebody named "guptaneil" specifically, I would say it's probably not worth the trouble of fixing.
I can jump in at being just a year apart from GP, mine are 3 and 5 now and it's already starting to get better massively. Having them so close to each other makes for some extremely hard first 2-3 years, but then they can actually relate to each other one and play together, which works out nicely.

Kids tend to be cutest from 3-5, so sit back and enjoy as much as you can, the time will come back — I'll confess I'm mostly enjoying the second one in that age only now, as the stress was too high with the first one.

To be honest, the second best thing about kids rather than themselves and getting to know them is what PG nicely put in the following way:

>> See what I did there? The fact is, most of the freedom I had before kids, I never used. I paid for it in loneliness, but I never used it.

In the end, all these limitations will let you appreciate your freedoms so much more.
Could luks have been designed to use memory-hard hash funcrions to prevent brute forcing like this?
Sure, its kind of disturbing, but that's just life.

There's a lot of things that you can't do anything about. I didn't grow up to a rich family and that prevented me from doing a lot of things rich people got to do, for example.

I agree that it can be disturbing that traits that you have no control over make you different from others, but its normal and just part of life. Certainly nothing to lose sleep over.
That’s great to hear. Believe it or not, visual impairment usually leads to delay in speech and other development, so I get a sense of where you’re coming from. All the best to you guys.
I tend to avoid valleythink, but Slack's brand value is definitely elite, it pays extremely well and is widely used, even if it is just a glorified Bay Area chat app.
Dunno why the downvotes. Like you say, the balance is up to you. Kids are a lot more durable than you’d think.
See: "The Man That Corrupted Hadleyburg" ...
From my experience, I also had energy before having kids, but otherwise I can relate. Kids are just super high maintenance in their first years of life.
> What I didn't notice, because they tend to be much quieter, were all the great moments parents had with kids. People don't talk about these much — the magic is hard to put into words, and all other parents know about them anyway — but one of the great things about having kids is that there are so many times when you feel there is nowhere else you'd rather be, and nothing else you'd rather be doing.

This is definitely a phenomenon to be explored, the "unshared" tacit joy that people experience in their lives (not just as parents).
The problem with this setup is once the kid is off to school, the mother might not enjoy all that extra time. Work is somewhat of a good distraction, a socialish environment etc.
I wasn't putting that behavior in the category of "inactionable"! I had also thought there were more discrete conversations, but rereading it's really excerpts all from (presumably) the worst one. But, the article does provide its own accounting:

> text-chatted with 17 men ... and seen the genitalia of 11 of those

So even though two thirds are doing something that could be straightforwardly prosecuted, it seems like one third are still abusive in some way that isn't necessarily easy to write into law, especially one that won't be worked around.

FWIW "regularly prosecuted" doesn't necessarily mean that the chance of an individual prosecution is high!
The model you've presented doesn't account for a lot of other effects which we want as a collective want to account for. Let's break it down.

We can't assume perfect humans, so we must assume that sometimes, some of the people will act irrationally or make mistakes. Introducing this "error rate" into our actors means there's an un-removable noise floor of cases where we issue fines to our actors for breaking the law.

This noise-floor of mistakes leads to some very unfortunate side effects when we use constant fine pricing. Assuming an income distribution like what we have in reality, this means that a certain percentage of our population will have so little income that the fine will ruin their life, making them less effective and thus our population less effective. And there's no way we can remove this by adjusting the price of our constant fine. If we remove the fine, then everyone speeds. Even at the best sweet spot, we'll have a system where some people will always speed, and some people will never rationally choose to speed but will be economically "killed" by the fine anyway.

These two inefficiencies are what variable fine pricing are meant to address. By scaling price with actor income, we are able to maintain a similar relative (dis)incentive across income levels, and we remove the cases where we are sentencing a portion of the population to economic "death".
>Speeding is either a misdemeanour or crime, that means it is simply prohibited. Period.

Why not set the fine to a million dollars for everyone, then, or at least significantly boost the fine? Under my framework it's easy to answer, since it's inefficient to disincentivize speeding that much.

>The state of affairs you refer to, where the speeding ticket is considered just a cost of doing said activity is exactly what we want to avoid

Why?

>Punish

What is the benefit of punishment outside of deterrence? And for deterrence, the clear economic answer is to have the same amount of deterrence for everyone, which requires a constant fine.
100% this. Throw in some obstructive sleep apnea for good measure and an unhealthy level of ambition.

Feels like just an impossible combination of things. Can't turn off the kids. Can't turn off the ambition.
Also some research finds that humans like loosing money a lot less than not getting it.
> You continue to claim that VictoriaMetrics is backwards-compatible with Prometheus and only include a side-note that it actually is not in all cases

* There are a few controversial cases where VictoriaMetrics' implementation for PromQL intentionally diverges from the original implementation in Prometheus. This discrepancy is needed because VictoriaMetrics tries hard to make PromQL more user-friendly at edge cases, which aren't solved for a long time on Prometheus side [1].

* Of course, there may be non-intentional discrepancies in PromQL implementation for VictoriaMetrics, because it is implemented from scratch without using Prometheus data model and source code. Such discrepancies are usually fixed as soon as users report about them.

> It's not about competition (we welcome and love that from all sides)

I see. Facts mentioned in this topic shows the real love :)

[1] https://github.com/prometheus/prometheus/issues/3746
One professional project that really changed some of the ways that I thought about programming was writing a PCIe Linux driver. Learning how the kernel lays out data structures and how they provide callbacks and passing data back to the 'user' was really just different than I had thought about things before. Definitely a lot of pitfalls, but lots of learning.
I admit I didn't read the entire article, I've been reading only the text around instances of argon and PBKDF, but:

can someone ELI5 how they do 882 hashes per second if PBKDF2 is set up to take 2 seconds, for example? What's so broken about PBKDF2 that they get a > 1000x speedup?
what I'm saying is that it just doesn't matter how billionaires drive (on the rare occasion they even drive their own vehicle). billionaires speeding does not meaningfully affect your safety on the road. hitting them with a huge fine just indulges your jealousy.
"Lords of the desert" by James Barr. It's an eye-opening 20th century history of the Middle East.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36592392-lords-of-the-de...

(technically published in 2018, but I only read it this year)
Yes ideally you would be some kind of indistinguishable Borg creature.
Corporate Cancer. It's a book all about how to keep a group of malicious individuals from infiltrating and taking over your company.

https://www.amazon.com/Corporate-Cancer-Miracles-Millions-Co...
Don't most Linux users use Chrome and Firefox..?
Trains too, there are some experimental fuel cell lines replacing diesel locomotives in germany and they ordered more, so it seems to be working. Presumably it's cheaper than electrifying branch lines.
I think it's simultaneously true that opportunistically skipping sleep can benefit you in acute circumstances and that chronically skipping sleep is unhealthy and unsustainable.

It feels like this weird shift from machismo in business to woke-ness. Everyone wants to be the person working 20 hours a week and yet somehow still running a highly complex, technical company having huge impact.

As far as science is concerned, people who work more are still more produtive until a cross over point at a very high number of hours a week. Are we sure we aren't just deciding to stop believing in agency and free will?
Is it, though? The first link is just the HN thread on the third link, which contains some debate about whether the criticisms from the third are accurate, and the Independent _cites_ "Why We Sleep" throughout - not debunks it.
People jump for complex and overly optimized solutions too quickly, IMHO. From a conceptual perspective, I enjoy these sort of challenges but that's where it ends.

For product demands where deadlines are constantly unrealistic, underfunded, underscoped and demands are ever changing, I'm a fan of providing the simplest conceptual solution to the task at hand and not focusing on developing complex abstractions and optimizations too early.

From my experience, that time is typically wasted until functionality is zeroed in and real money is available to pay for the work, as the early complex abstractions typically fail to meet pace with demands and the optimizations break when ever changing requirements.. change. That's just my experience, YMMV.
>I flatly stated my experience and that women are generally unaware of this experience.

Yes but the subject at had was, specifically, womens' experience with harassment. There was no reason to make it about you, or about men not being engaged with by women. Sure, maybe some women don't understand what men go through in that case... it's not relevant, though.

The situations aren't even equivalent. Women have a right to expect not to be harassed online, men don't have a right to expect women to initiate contact with them online.

And this sort of thing happens all the time. Almost any conversation relating to women will result in someone trying to turn the conversation towards men, or calling such conversation sexist for not including men. It's as if we're not allowed to discuss women here except in relation to men somehow.

>If you want men, who experience no initiated contacts to fully understand that women experience large amounts of harassment, might it be critical to approach them with the understanding that they have a completely different experience?

No, it shouldn't be critical. Men who don't experience contact from women should be able to comprehend that women are often harassed despite their own personal experience being different. If anything, such men should perhaps consider that the amount of harassment women receive and the degree of personal contact women are willing to initiate are not at all unrelated.
Yeah, I have trouble believing this article isn't quite a lot of fiction. If trapping pedophiles is this easy, the police need to get off their asses and do their damn job.

The fact that it takes three letter agencies multiple years and inter-country coordination tells me that it isn't quite this simple.
The submitter made an honest mistake. Please don't snark on HN. It breaks the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Whenever the talk comes to equality and so on, I actually do think about women, or mating partners in general. While you could perhaps try to distribute property to everybody in equal amounts, so that (in your theory) nobody would have a reason to steal anymore, what about mating partners?

It seems some socialist communities actually tried to make it mandatory for women to sleep with everybody, but I don't think that is a good solution (not sure if that needs to be discussed).

So mating partners to me show that that equality in society you describe is not really attainable.

And even if everybody would own the same things, it wouldn't imply that nobody would want other people's things. If you would steal stuff from somebody else, you would still have more things than before.

I also don't think it is generally true that only poor people steal. Many criminals seem to become rich and they don't change their mind afterwards.

And there would be all the other issues with socialism - some people would work more, some would work less, yet all would get the same things. That would be another recipe for dissatisfaction and social unrest.

Your story of "men preying on women that fulfill the standards of the rich" also doesn't ring true to me. Why would non-rich men find other things attractive about women than rich men? And why can't they have normal relationships with women, why is it preying if a poor man contacts a woman? It is also definitely not true that women depend on men to make a living these days.

Of course you can consider the long-term effects of whatever morals you want to instill in society. For example Christianity seems to have done quite well with their monogamy mandate, providing most people with a mating partner. In reality, presumably the few attractive men and women would be happier if the attractive men could mate with several women, and the women could get to only mate with the most attractive men. It would just leave many men (the majority) in the dust, again causing social unrest. Other societies try that model, and have problems of their own.
Hah... just noticed he's in a "Grandmaster League": https://fantasy.premierleague.com/leagues/35182/standings/c

Sergej Movsesian (FIDE world #136)

Yúlia Movsesjan (Slovakian female #1)

Radosław Wojtaszek (World #27)

Jon Ludvig Hammer (second to Carlsen in WCC 2013)

etc.
The great boon of the internet is that it allows the small voices to be heard much more loudly.

The great bane of the internet is that it allows the crap voices to be heard much more loudly, too.
Either the key is stored unencrypted on a physical device, which can likely be seized by an attackers who has access to the ciphertext, or is encrypted with a passphrase. This isn't doing anything the master key and passphrase isn't already doing. (The key you input is not the key used to encrypt the data.)
"Sorry my credit card machine isn't working" is usually the go-to line for on the spot pricing.
I find it hard to make such a clean cut.

Even within these sociological aspects, how much is nature? What is nurture?

So far, I remain unconvinced by any “blank slate” theory to explain gender expression (or anything else for that matter).
> This is part of the nature vs nurture debate that has been argued for millennia. People try to decide which is more critical.

If you read the article, though, it isn't. The article claims that sex differences are large; it explicitly makes no claim as to what causes them.
That's...weird. I seriously hope you're joking.