skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
One local place here served haggis nachos. The lungs, heart, and liver of a sheep boiled, ground, seasoned, mixed with oatmeal and stuffed in its own rectum to be boiled again then chopped and sprinkled over corn chips with salsa and cheese and served with sour cream and guacamole. What's not to love?
Akbar? Of all people...
Given the state of world and history of war in the 20th and 21st centuries, I’m honestly surprised anyone would suggest a centralized energy system that requires the maintenance of a stable state formation for 1-10,000 years. You think the US (or any country) is going to exist at that level for a thousand more years? We’re better off leaving around a bunch of abandoned solar panels than nuclear materials.
Same! '11, never saw a single person use it. Old prelims > graded psets > notes, to me anyways.
Right now, science has an emphasis on causal discovery. Showing that X is a mechanism by which Y happens. That includes finding the different X's for a Y and finding evidence for the relationship between a given X and Y. Once you know how a thing works, that doesn't necessarily make it easy to work with it. For example in quantum mechanics, a common phrase is "shut up and calculate" because the mental models are all messy.

But as we all know (especially those of us who have refactored many systems), every once in a while you find a new way of looking at a thing that makes it all much simpler. A geometric way to look at an algebraic thing, or vice versa. Or a unifying structure to combine disparate pieces. Or just a "wow that was dumb" undoing of unnecessary complexity. It makes further progress easier.

I could imagine that, as the boundaries of science get more complex, there will be more scientists working on making the rest of it less complex. Meanwhile, maybe we get smarter and live longer. The calculations involved with many areas of modern science have already outpaced what we can do by hand, but we invented computers, so I can take the mean of a zillion numbers without much effort and spend my time elsewhere.

And in med school, apparently they say "half of what we teach you will be false, but we don't know which half." As science progresses, you don't just add, you prune too.
Awesome work and explanation from Katharine! It's really cool to see the ITensor people come to julia from C++ land and I'm glad they're finding the transition was useful.
If you really think through the implications of every individual in America owning a pony, it gets a lot more interesting than that! It means that everyone in every city would own a pony -- would that mean that perhaps a proxy ownership situation would occur, where you had a certificate of pony ownership, but the pony would be housed and maintained anywhere in the country that could do so cheapest? It would cost a lot more than 2-3k/year to house a pony in NYC! Let alone the sudden demand for housing about 5 million of them...

My guess is that these ponies would be kept in horrible conditions similar to the way domesticated cattle are raised for milk and meat. I would hazard that all of our assumptions about the actual price of ponies and maintenance would come down if we all needed to have a pony, and would come down by a LOT.
All my upvotes sir
I think this comment is tangential to the article.

The author happens to use ActiveRecord (an ORM) in their query object. They might as well have used raw SQL, a simple query builder, or anything else. The more crucial point is that the data access code is isolated from the web related code (the controller) and that the interface relates to the domain, instead of to DB details. This is good practice in any moderately complex code base IMHO. I have seen horrible Rails codebases that just use database calls everywhere in the application, often even in templates.

I think it's a good pattern, but in general (after having written quite some Ruby in the past), I still don't understand the aversion of many Rubyists to consider "architecture" as anything more than "the names of the folders of your Rails app", instead of thinking about layering, bounded contexts, etc.

(As for ORMs, they definitely have drawbacks; but handwriting SQL leaves you vulnerable to other issues too, such as code injection, runtime syntax errors, lack of type safety (admittedly, not relevant in the context of Ruby), etc. These days I mostly just prefer a simple query builder with the option to drop to raw SQL when necessary.)
Oh.. arstechnica always finding a way not to talk about Tesla.
I think you're misunderstanding what the issue is with the loudness war. The problem isn't making a loud master - it's that the dynamics are crushed and the audio signal clips.

Spotify normalizes volume to a LUFS level, which is not nearly the same thing as overly compressing dynamics and causing clipping.

https://www.sweetwater.com/insync/what-is-lufs-and-why-shoul...
I've been looking into Carbon offsets. The chief criticism against them seems to be "they're just paying for your sins; they don't actually reduce the carbon", but as far as I can tell, that's not a valid criticism since the offsets directly fund projects that reduce carbon. As far as I've been able to discern, the most legitimate criticism is around governance and quality assurance--how to make sure the funded programs are actually achieving the results you're paying for, and specifically how to make sure those results wouldn't have been achieved without those programs. I would really like to hear from people who are more knowledgeable than me.

Beyond that, I'm also considering buying solar power.
You say "stealing" when really you mean "working around a racist and sexist policy to deliver a service at an agreed upon price".

Surely the far more offensive item here is that we still have legally mandated discrimination based on race, gender, etc.
HAHHAAHA so good
Everyday household tripping hazards will do.
You haven't addressed the core of my comment that we usually don't stop just because we failed a few times. Are you arguing we should stop all research that hasn't produced results after a certain time or budget? The argumentation you're basing your opinion on is circular: we couldn't do it > so we shouldn't do it > so we couldn't do it. It also relies on the assumption that investing in nuclear research prevents us from investing in solar and wind power, which it shouldn't. There's no reason to stop research into better alternatives just because we have something that "works".

> It's already happening. In scale.

Again, you are evading the fact that (the as of yet unfulfilled promise of) better nuclear power would actually deliver more than that. In the mean time our energy needs are increasing faster than the efficiency of PV cells and generators is. There's nothing wrong with researching even better alternatives.

Just over a decade ago so many were insisting EVs were dead in the water. We had tried and failed and ICE tech was delivering and constantly improving. You're not arguing that nuclear is bad, you're arguing that we should not even attempt to make it better or good. Why build cars when we can already do it with horses and horses scale...

You could be correct but not based on the arguments you brought so far.
The snow storms are pretty bad I imagine.
The problem is not that human are resources. They are.

But from a production point of view, the problem is when you think that a human is equivalent to another with the same title and they are easily interchangeable.
If you're going to do SIMD, you have to care about memory alignment. If you're going to do high-performance without SIMD, you still wind up caring about things like cache misses. So you'd want a Lisp that 1) lets you control memory alignment, and probably 2) that doesn't garbage collect. At that point, is it really a Lisp?

Now, you may say that "performance-oriented" doesn't have to go as far as SIMD or caching tweaks. And that's true. But if you want a performance-oriented language that can reach all the way up the performance curve, I don't see it being Lisp.
Mesa 20 Will Have SDMA Disabled on AMD RX-Series GPUs, Expect 0-4% Slowdown
Netflix offers all cash comp (plus options, not the same)
Stradding is an artifact of very wide interfaces. On the Ultrascale+ parts, the PCIe gen 3 x16 interface comes out as a 512 bit wide interface. Every cycle of the 250 MHz PCIe user clock transfers 64 bytes of data. The issue has to do with how packets are moved over this type of interface. If your packets are all a multiple of 64 bytes, no problem, you get 100% throughput. However, if your packets are NOT a multiple of 64 bytes in length, you have a problem. What byte lane do packets start and end in? The simplest implementation is to always start packets in byte lane 0. The interface logic for this is the simplest - the packets always start in the same place, so the fields always end up in the same place. However, if your packet is 65 bytes long, the utilization is horrible - it doesn't fit in one cycle, so you have to add an extra cycle for every packet, and bus utilization falls to 50% as you have 63 empty byte lanes after every packet.

Straddling is an attempt to mitigate this issue. Instead of only staring packets in lane 0, the interface is adjusted to support starting packets in several places. Say, byte lanes 0 and 32. Or 0, 16, 32, and 48. Now, when you have a packet end in byte lane 0, you can start the next packet in the same clock cycle, but in byte lane 16 or 32. This increases the interface utilization. The trade-off is now the logic has to deal with parts of two packets in the same clock cycle, and it has to deal with multiple possible packet offsets.

The specific annoyance with PCIe packets is that the max payload size is usually 256 bytes, but every packet has a 12 or 16 byte TLP header attached, which really screws things up when combined with the small max payload size.
This is the key. When I was interviewing, I had an offer of $150k + $20k stock, and another that was just straight $190k (these are fake numbers, but pretty close.) I told the first company about the $190k offer, and they matched it by upping the stock to $35k, and I took that offer. Then the stock nearly-doubled in value over the first year.

Now it's worth mentioning that the stock could have also gone down, and frankly I am extremely skeptical of my own ability to predict this. So I wouldn't say I selected this offer based on the potential upside of the stock. But still, it's a nice upside.
Hi Keith!

UX Guru here, the name's Jordi. I can deliver PSDs, interactive prototypes, or even responsive HTML + CSS code.

Check out a bit of my work here: https://www.behance.net/joquerol and feel free to contact me at dg.jordiquerol@gmail.com

Thanks!
If this was a joke, it's a pretty good one
Interesting, but...

The Wikipedia article gives 2 proofs for Rice's theorem.

a) As a corollary of Kleene's recursion theorem. This proof seems to rely on quines, and therefore relies on the same principle of self-referential paradox?

b) As a proof by reduction to the halting problem.

I'm not very confident in my interpretation of (a) ...
I won't judge URLs, but we are talking about DNS and hostnames here, which predate URLs and we're ment to give human-readable names to hosts.
Would this only be a problem if they vest in non-uniform quantities? At the company (Shopify) I work for they vest in even amounts over 4 years but you have to wait 1 year to get 1/4 of them then every quarter after that.
By the 1960s, contemporary military capabilities were such that wiping out all of humanity was possible. It's absolutely unwise to dismiss old military tech.
In some countries I could see this being an issue, as the Internet can be shut down entirely for any number of political reasons.

In the US, if the Internet is out everywhere for an extended period of time, Bitcoin will be the least of anyone's worries.
Well, there goes the afternoon.
Hey this is an unrelated comment but I wanted to get in touch about this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20834105

Is there any way to reach you? You can drop me a line at: m [at] eveo [dot] org

I want to understand your pain points more concretely and what would be valuable to you.
There was a fair bit of ego.

Turns out when you have a project staffed with extremely high up engineers and no real production deployment, it's easy to keep up engineering standards. The idea that a normal team with normal issues wasn't as good seemed to really upset one of the midori people I worked with.
This seems very similar to the FreePascal approach.

It's tempting to give this a go, but there are so many languages out there... Maybe I'll try a Ludum Dare in it.
David Patterson didn't work on MIPS.
Also, try really hard to not have your dog present when you get raided.
I’m always curious why folks think acetic practices like sitting in pain and not taking your meds are helpful with meditation.

It’s if you think taking an antihistamine is going to screw up your meditation, you’re probably on the wrong path.
My only experience with D is getting the free onedrive client to run on linux[1]. What's more frustrating than the small ecosystem is the fact that the reference compiler, DMD, is limited to x86/x86_64 and you need a working D compiler to compile the primary alternative, LDC2 which can't bootstrap itself.

In order to get something like that to compile for aarch64, you have to build a recent GCC with the very old dmd frontend enabled, and then you can compile LDC2. This all to use one app!

[1] https://github.com/abraunegg/onedrive/
Designs can be improved, processes adapted, and people trained better, but that will not prevent accidents from happening

That premise requires more convincing evidence for me. Nuclear reactors have an incredible safety record, given that most current reactors have their design roots in the 60s, and have been operated for longer than initially anticipated, on MBA-style shoestring budgets. Given that scenario, yes, accidents are bound to happen. But where are the improved designs you mention? What processes have been adapted to improve reactor safety since the 60s? Which reactors have been safely decommissioned at the end of their planned lifetime instead of running beyond their age?

What we have now is the result of thirty years of political (and economic) languishing: no firm decision had been made either way. I applaud Angela Merkel for finally making a firm decision on that subject, but I also think the decision was the wrong one. I applaud India's decision to actually develop and build 90s-era reactor designs.

whatever means you put up to prevent catastrophic events, they will never be enough

As evidenced by the impending climate catastrophe, you are correct. But even ten Tsjernobyl meltdowns will be less impactful than what we are facing now.

we have yet to find a working way to handle our nuclear waste for the next 10k-100k years

No, we already have that solution: Gen-4 breeder reactors, another 90s-era reactor design. We just never had the political will to build them, thereby perpetuating our 10k-100k year problem.
I'm not sure there's a switch we can flip that turns people from apathetic to supporting a panic-driven set of aggressive and durable legislation to address climate change. The effects of climate change are too long term and stochastic for voters to link policy with their everyday lived experience. Even in Australia at this very moment, only about half of people think Australia should do more about climate change, and it's unclear how many of them would actually prioritize that over other things they value.
I was going to post a criticism along the lines that all the historical examples given by the author were from the 19th Century until I saw you point this out!

The date definitely changes my perspective but I still think the essay is a little too waffley - it doesn't to give any actual examples or indications or where the author thinks important scientific problems lie. In fact it kind of begs the question. In response to a concern over whether there are important scientific problems left to solve, it simply lists some historical important scientific breakthroughs.

I suppose the point is that breakthroughs are unexpected...
Bluetooth already supports hearing aids
Has anyone had luck building a D program with static cURL? The D distributions ive seen only supply a DLL, and I have messed with some compiler flags but it always wants to search for a DLL.
"Surfing" came later afair it's traced back to some Australian librarian who had a surf board on here mousepad while looking for an analogy for an article she wrote. [Citation needed]
French people are about as Frankish as Bulgarians are Bulgars or Hungarians are Magyars (i.e., not very), right?
Deep dive into AWS S3 bucket access logging
I grew up very near Bash Bish and–while always a popular local spot–it has really succumbed to the the instagram must-have-selfie phenomenon in recent years. There are thankfully plenty of other beautiful places nearby!
How does one quantify the methane leaks from well heads, pipelines, and facilities? Are we speaking of known loss of primary containment? LOPC is EPA reportable. Or are we saying there are other leaks which are not being reported but we somehow know those figures?
I'd like to comment here just to say that you're my hero.

Signed,

Another Bitcoin early adopter who became totally disillusioned with the BTC/Bitcoin Core project due to precisely the BS you've highlighted in this thread
Ramón Y Cajal was a contrarian when this was written, but he had great timing. In the late 19th century, it was fairly popular to believe that all the laws of physics had already been established—remaining progress would come from improvements in experimental methods. There's a famous "physics is over" quote misattributed to Lord Kelvin (actually said by Michelson, the guy who measured the speed of light).

A few years after this was written, Planck proposed energy quanta. And in 1905, Einstein published his four Annus Mirabilis papers, introducing the photoelectric effect (applying quantum), special relativity, and the mass-energy relationship.
I wish to see more research on stuff like this. I believe I've seen similar studies showing different learning styles were more effective depending on the topic, not the person.

In my experience, a lot of learning is a back and forth between rote memorization (like vocabulary) and building concepts/associations. Rote memorization can also be a lookup table to focus on higher-level concepts--like memorizing your times tables. Spaced repetition (like Anki) focuses on rote memorization. Lectures and note taking, like this, are a mix focusing on concept building while homework is both generally focusing more on rote memorization.

But there is some difference person-to-person. For example, many people I know work through things by talking out loud. I struggle with this and feel like I have to ruminate on my own to flesh out ideas.
I don't recall having too much difficulty getting the VS WPF XAML Designer to basically function with F#. Some features just don't light up like event connecting/code-behind, but that's fine and what I wanted anyway (taking an MVVM-ish approach).

There's a hope that with F#'s upcoming move to the "shared project system" that a lot of the pains will go away in hopefully the near future.

(That said, Fabulous has piqued my interest and I'm debating rewriting my big F# GUI in it, at least in an exploratory branch.)
A Reckoning over Abuse of Children in France
Yep, but now we refer to chips by their cost, instead.

AMD Threadripper 3990X : $3990
StudioOne has gained a ton of popularity in home and small studios over the past half decade as well.

The DAW market has very healthy competition right now!
Running Firefox in an Alpine-based Docker container. What could go wrong?

Well, for starters: Alpine's ESR appears to be on 68.3.0esr.

Is there perhaps a better way to run Firefox in a Docker container?
Will clean water be our biggest source of conflict in the future?
Nicely put. In fact a lot of the field of quantum foundations (and interpretations) could be seen as an attempt to work towards this sort of perspective/paradigm shift.
(This is unrelated to the article, but given that Vinge is one of my favorite authors I couldn't resist replying to this.)

It's been a few years since I read "Deepness", but I don't recall that the Spiders were ever referred-to as genetically-engineered. I'll definitely look into that.

re: the perception of color - I took that to be the Focused translators' interpretation of the spiders' vision, rather than a literal description of the spiders' cognitive process. I've always read the portions of the book that take place on the spiders' world as being a narrative created by the translators, in which the incomprehensibly-alien spiders are made more "relate-able" by analogizing alien concepts with human concepts.
I'd rather say he's criminally underrated in Spain.

It is definitely easier to hear casually about Ramon y Cajal in "anglo countries" than in Spain. For example, I have spent my childhood in the spanish state, and I first heard about Ramon y Cajal during the first conference that I attended, in Switzerland, from a lovely presentation by an English professor.

One of the dramatically few spanish first-rate scientists, and he's not a household name. Very, very sad state of affairs.
It's a play on the last syllable resembling "rat", popularized by Rush Limbaugh's radio show.

I do remember hearing "Republican'ts" and "rethuglicans" from dems but in my experience it's extremely rare.
>Even given your maximum implausibility example of all silos ordered to launch all nukes, to get even one launched a number of people in the chain of command need to be convinced that risking the destruction of human civilization is justified.

IIRC there was even one such incident where a nuclear unit got some sent some routine training codes that turned out to be the codes for "launch against China" codes. They basically called back and asked to triple check the code and eventually it all got sorted out without any nukes being launched.
don't mock what you don't own, IMHO

the classic approach is to use your own domain abstractions, mock those in unit tests, test the domain abstractions e.g. with an in-memory DB, and have some integration tests verify that everything is plugged together correctly

making assertions about your own, domain-inspired APIs makes your tests less brittle and more readable than using "receive_message_chain"
> It would be so much easier just to create the ideal environment in a large, rotating cylinder instead of having adjust a planet's environment to our needs.

Yea but people want to go outside.
The author is also German, thus has less protections than in the US (which would be the case if your raided by the Secret Service)
Thanks for the context. Thought that this was contemporary. The language did seem antiquated.
Well, Germany expanded the share of renewable for electricity production from 6% in 2000 to 46% in 2019. I think that's quite remarkable.

https://www.strom-report.de/strom
It's not any harder to pay for journalism than it is any other product online. I have subscriptions to a couple of newspapers I respect and getting those set up was no harder than buying a hoodie from a web store.
Great books to start:

- Rubicon by Tom Holland
- SPQR by Mary Beard
- Dynasty by Tom Holland
- Caesar by Adrian Goldsworthy (more of a bio on Julius C, a bit drier than the above, has section on Alesia)
Are you mixing up the Atari 800 and ST, the 800 didn't have MIDI ports.
Really? I seem to not know what sounds good to me? Okay, then.