skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
No, we aren’t using computers with logic gates that have 10 discrete states. Even if you’re programming to decimal, the underlying representation is still binary. But there are numerical differences between using decimals represented by rationals with binary integer numerators and denominators, vs floating point with binary mantissa and exponent.
> Ra-226 is mostly an alpha emitter and can't reach you through a piece of paper. Don't drink it though. Ra-228 is primarily a beta emitter which can't go through a metal tank. Also don't drink it.

What about being in constant contact with the skin via let's say you have a bit of it your shoes?

> the rest of the uniform hardly offers protection from brine. “It’s all over your hands, and inside your boots, and on the cuticles of your toes, and any cuts you have — you’re soaked,” he says.
Yeah my wifes complicated birth coat 70000 usd and I paid zero. Most people are going to have it covered. And the price listed here is not actually what one would pay of they found themselves in the situation of paying in cash.
Hacker News Mirror (With Preview)
If this video of dead people on corridors of a Chinese hospital is true, it supports the skepticism towards official data and the gravity of the situation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nC_VN2SgzU
What exacerbates the spread of these viruses is the lack of indoor heating in South China during the winter. I wonder how much china could reduce these problems by just allowing people to heat their homes the way they do up north?
The GP asked about "a fly simulation that works", and I think we won't need anything similar to your proposed demands. I'd wager that we can approach this decently well with a "basic" mathematical model run at discrete steps on the order of 0.1ms.

I suppose that we'll hit a big wall once we reach simulation time frames which involves changes in protein expression, but I think we'll have a decent simulation of what a "static" fly long before the end of the decade.
Sounds like you're trying to correct something that is already correct in the article, as soon as in paragraph 4.

> The Earth’s crust is in fact peppered with radioactive elements that concentrate deep underground in oil-and-gas-bearing layers. This radioactivity is often pulled to the surface when oil and gas is extracted — carried largely in the brine.
Writing a bf interpreter or compiler is the first thing I do in a new language. I have taken to representing the tape as a linked list which allows for a one-pass optimizing pass whereamong other things +++ is turned into +3 and [-] into tape[cur] = 0.

I really liked reading the code since it is a problem I am familiar with.

Edit: here is a link with some simple optimizations http://calmerthanyouare.org/2015/01/07/optimizing-brainfuck....

All these are just pattern matching, which make them all simple!
You could also say Wealth is the value you build for others. If you build a lot of value for others you get very wealthy. That does not mean you saved money, you invested money to build value for others.
> You'd have to be really trying, in order to have no income with high wealth.

Invest heavily in a startup that goes bankrupt. Or go big into real estate right before the market dips. Same for stocks.

You have no net taxable income if your losses exceed your income in a tax year.
I understand the point you're trying to make, and feel you are missing something fundamentally important. Note that the KPIs currently tracked (and consistent with history) are[0]:

- People baptized and confirmed

- People with a baptismal date

- People who attend sacrament meeting

- New people being taught

Some missions track hours of community service, but typically to ensure they are kept under a cap, not maximized.

These are sales funnel goals given to missionaries. This unfortunately discredits your point that lots and lots of other people have different goals -- organizations track those things they care about. And the Mormon church wants to continue growing membership, as that was seen as successful during the formative years of her oligarchy.

As an employee (I suppose technically a volunteer employee) you can have any motivation for showing up you like. But that doesn't mean you have any say whatsoever in what your managers and leadership want to accomplish. And the goals your holding to a pedestal are certainly noble, but not aligned with what each of these young volunteer salespeople are being encouraged to accomplish.

I believe you have conflated BRT with normal friendship and friendliness, which is not what BRT was used for. BRT (no longer specifically called that) was step one in a commitment pattern to grow membership in the Mormon church. There is a big difference in the two, which is where I contend you're conflating -- friendliness isn't something used to sell people a lifestyle group, but BRT is.

[0] https://www.ldsdaily.com/church-lds/major-changes-to-preach-...
Past that, it is various forms of chiplets, 3-d stacking, high bandwidth memory to intensify densification at some cost.

In the wings there are a few semiconductor materials, from Si-Ge to In-P and Ga-A and Ga-N that are used in optical transceivers, cell phone base stations, power electronics, and military electronics. Silicon is a good, not great superconductor, and it dominates because we are good at making things out of Silicon.

An In-P microprocessor as complex as a 6502 should be able to clock upwards of 80 GHz and could run with a fully populated address space of static RAM on the chip and be able to react to fast events in real time like nothing else.

Such a chip would replace 16 5GHz cores for more mainstream computation, so if cost gaps narrowed, the In-P part might compete with a Si part in a complex chiplet architecture. (e.g. the In-P chip can be built at 1/16 the density of the Si chip and not have all this multiple-patterning and lasers trouble that Si is getting into)
There's a lot. A lot more than I imagined according to a DOE seminar I sat through.

It's interesting because an incredibly small fraction of coal (coal varies a reasonable amount in composition across geological regions) contains various radioactive isotopes with long high-lifes.

When you burn/combust coal, especially without care and consideration in the process, a lot of these small components are released in the air as particulates.

Now at first thought, it doesn't seem like much (were talking 1ppm/1ppb or less levels in some cases depending on the coal type/geological area), but when you consider the entire volume of coal combusted worldwide, that small fraction turns out to be more radioactive waste than is produced by all controlled nuclear energy in the world at the time (about 8-10 years ago).

I wish I still had the slide set with all the reference material and derivations.
Thank you, exactly the informed reply I was hoping for. Now let's hope the rest of HN sees this buried half-way down the thread.
Why not ask some questions in the sign up form and make the process more straightforward instead of having users ask for invite in random places?
The article does a good job. I'm referring to the headline. For example, nuclear reactors produce radioactive material by fissioning barely-radioactive uranium into highly-radioactive fission products but take great care to not release it. Fracking releases naturally-occurring radioactive materials.

Also: "is peppered with" does not imply naturally-occurring. Someone biased to think all radiation is man-made could easily assume it's from us dumping waste.
> in a typical year

And then they'll net very high income in other years. Take the average of all those years if you want useful information.
I found it interesting. Maybe there’s an avenue to better remediation via using the waste as feeder to another chemical process, which ends in more value?
Journalists today don't even need any instruction, credentials, or experience to be "journalists". It's a media arms-race over who can monopolize territory in the information-space, and companies will take whoever gets them results - not only who is best at their job.

Who cares about paying for a staff of $60-80k/year well-seasoned investigative reporters that take weeks-months to produce vivid, informative pieces only for them to be forgotten about for another thing in the 24hr news cycle? Why not just pay a bunch of young people $18/hr to "rehash" 8 articles/day with a bunch of fluff and opinion to pump out more stuff to get more dollars? Why even bother going out into the world to gather information when I could just copy-paste the first story to come out, add a few pictures and edits, then release it to catch the demand-wave for content monetization while it's riding high, and call it a day?

The proliferation of 'fake news' is basically just "full-throttle" digital journalism that said, "Fuck it, why even wait around for real-life happenings to report on when I could just create my own and make money?"

Journalism is not anymore some "sacred art" or "esteemed profession", like a doctor or lawyer or scientist, it's just another avenue to make dollars from society through supply-demand.
I think the article missed the part where Microsoft basically went to sleep and stopped doing anything with the browser.

Just like the 1st edition of Bill Gates book, Microsoft decided the internet thing wasn’t as interesting as whatever they had cooked up. To their credit, they figured out they were wrong.
I feel like the conversation is lacking a journalist point of view so I'm going to pitch in :) I usually don't say anything in this kind of debate (especially on Twitter ;) ) because it's pretty useless, but I love reading the community here and it's the first time that a debate disppoints me. I feel like it's one sided and completly lacking the usual counter-argument and debate. Also, bear with me if I make english mistakes - I'm french and it's not my native langage.

First I'd like to adress there's very different kinds of journalism, different set of skills associated with it and of course, a company they work for. As a job, working for the New York Times, for a local journal, for a tech magazine or for travel channel is completely different. I don't think people realise how different the job actually is from one media to the other. You can't say 'journalists' the same way you can't say 'engineers' because there's people doing software, people doing tests, people building machines, people advising companies and many other people doing many other things and having no idea how to do some other engineer job because it is... entirely different. We're not interchangeable and we don't all do the same job at all.

All medias are also different. Which implies different owners, rules, and bosses. As a journalist, you're like everyone else : you're an employee. You can have ethics, you can have thoughts or a list of rules. At the end of the day, it's a job and if your boss asks you to do something completly stupid, you can either say no, loose that job and possibly die of hunger. Or you roll with it and hope very very hard it will not stay on the internet. (Spoiler alert : it will and you'll be ashamed of it all your life.) You do have rights in some countries; but first, like many rights, not everyone know them; and second, those rights don't necessarily protect you. Maybe the media can't fire you right away or because you refused working, but a few months later, when they're considering reconducting your contract, you'll just get cut. It's just sad math. Not everyone can afford to be a hero.
That is a bit difficult because the field is very broad, and I don't tend to read popular science books. Mostly, I'd look up recent review articles on Google Scholar...
Another point is that there's this image that being a good journalist means investigating. Movies or tv shows never mention the actual money you're getting for publishing online. I often see discussion here on how much engineers make. Everytime I read those, I can't believe the numbers.
So let's talk money. In France the middle ground for an online paper is getting paid between 40 dollars for a short piece and 120 for a long one. That's usually 8000 characters for long ones, so more or less 800 to 1000 words. If you want to do a good job, it requiries usually two days : you have to research, get people's contacts. Agree on a time for three or four interview which are going to last between 30 minutes and an hour each. Then if you have everything (rarely happens) you have to write. If no one answers or you realize the subject was actually much more complicated than you thought, it might take a week or a month. The nature of the job makes it hard to know how long exactly something is going to take if you want to do it right... But at the end of the day, the amount of money you get paid doesn't change and you might just get paid 100 dollars for two days work, and that's before taxes.
I'll talk about my own experience as a freelancer for a year here, and I'm actually one of the very lucky ones because I had work. I calculated that this year, I often got paid 1 or 2 euro the hour. I earned 300 or 400 a month - well, usually it's more 1500 a month, then nothing for two month, then 200, then 600, then nothing again... Often I got paid four months after being published - and sometimes on Paypal. I also worked for a big American media and they pay you the same amount as in France - except at the end you get a check and your bank at home will also cut its own share of it and you'll end up with two times less money. I am absolutely not exagerating.
Of course, I stopped being a freelancer because I couldn't make it work. Yes, my job was more interesting and I was travelling and getting to cover more exciting stuff. But it couldn't compensate the stress that came with having literaly no money and my savings going down and down and down and down. So now I have a job that is actually one of the rare ones where I can do a good job in France and get paid ok. I'll still never earn more than 20 to 25K a year after taxes. But I'm lucky. Really. So imagine how it is for mostly everyone else.
Early 2000s? "Jumping the shark" is from the 1970s.
A look at the Vampire v4 stand-alone FPGA, first impressions
The UX is optimized for insanely efficient mindless consumption.

Open, and you're immediately fed content with no interaction required. Not happy with what you see? Swipe.
Scientists use radioactive isotopes to find counterfeit whisky –over 40% is fake
So I'd like to take the debate here where I think it should lie: with the companies' management. The problem isn't the journalists - there's good ones, bad ones like everywhere and they can't shoulder all the trust crisis that's out there. The problem is that no one is really checking who posts what online. Medias have had a history of having an article go through 3 to 4 people before getting okayed and being published. I actually hate that you only have one name on an article because it is really not a solo work (or at least it never should be). Often I have read articles I wrote and was unable to recognize them. Or they were cut of a part I though balanced the whole argument I was making. In those cases I feel like it's unfair only my name get written down because I'll get all the criticism. In other cases, we were really two working on an article and the editing work was formidable. But somehow in the end, I'm the only one getting the credit for it, which also feels unfair to my colleagues.

All those problems are not easy to solve. They beg many questions : is there just too many people in journalism ? Should companies shrink so they finally get profitable again and the remaining staff can do quality work - at the expense of thousands of people that would get without a job ? Should there only be subscription-based info ? But then does that mean no one without money would get the right to good information ? Should every company sort out a way to be both a newsroom (one that doesn't make much money or even none at all) and develop multiple activities on the side like an ad company, so that they can stay afloat (some have succeeded that way but it's not a valid point for everyone) ? I don't have an answer and mostly every media is trying to figure out their way out of all this. The thing is it's easy to criticize from outside that the managment is shit... but the ships are sinking and when you're sinking, you're not thinking ahead as to which direction you're going to take, or what part of the boat you're going to make better. First you try to figure out how to get all the water out and keep all the people inside alive. It's not an excuse, just the context we have to deal with.

Side note : there's also a problem of journalist schools. That's my own opinion, but I actually think they are very bad for the job - because you won't learn more than in a media, and it makes all the journalists come out very similar. Problem is, if you don't do them, you have no network and, at least in France, you actually can't intern in big medias. Twitter is a similar bubble to the bubbles school create. Twitter makes journalists feel like what they see or talk about has a bigger influence than it really has. But that's not a problem that's only with journalists. It's also with the platforms and it's been argued that it's all over the internet.
Then... I want to adress one final fact which is that it's easier to say it's the "journalists" fault if information has gotten so bad. Journalists for sure hold responsability in this but the public that doesnt value the work, isn't willing to pay for it and will click on whatever is coming up without caring about sourcing... Well, that crowd also has its share in how bad the situation has gotten. I don't think you can blame journalists for all the fake news websites that came up and how they often became the first things you got to access. The tools for visibility that we have to deal with are completely not appropriate for responsible journalism and also require an amount of time that will never be worth the money (Google, Facebook etc). Those fake news website play dirty and of benefit greatly from it.

In one of the medias I worked for, it does say something that one of the most visited article of the year was about a tenia worm that was in someone's intestine and took literally ten minute to write, edit and publish. None of the very interesting piece of good journalism got as much attention. If you want to do good reporting that will shine, you need good keywords, a video, tons of links... And a long text for good SEO. They can't all have that.
And because of the lack of money, all those steps are often asked of the journalists themselves. How can you do a good job if you have to get a good idea while browsing the internet because you don't have time to go out, talk to people and take the risk it will be all for nothing ? Then you have to sell your idea to your boss. Then research. Then interview. Then maybe do a video. Then maybe edit it. Then write the story. Then also doing editing and all the linking. Then publishing. Then promoting it with your own media so you get recognised by your coworkers. Then promoting it online. Then get another idea. All that in one morning of course because where's your worth as a stable employee if you can't publish 5 articles a day ?

I'm not saying journalists are not responsible for what is happening, that all the points you made weren't good points or that I have any answers. I'm just getting tired of always reading hate and simplistic arguments like "Anyway, Buzzfeed is shit" and "Journalists are only caring about twitter". Those are the symptoms, not the cause of the illness. And it would do great to move the debate elsewhere if we want to cure this. It won't be done by journalists alone. A journalist doesn't exist without an audience and this will have to be a common effort or journalism is just going to die and well, it's only my opinion, but I don't think the world will be better for it.

Sorry that rant ended up being a whole book. But if you get there, I would love to hear what you think and we can discuss this outside of hate and "they" and "journalists" and "toxicity".
When I hear the extent that music has managed to use copyright to claim ownership I wonder what the chances are that the supreme court will make an exception for software. Copyright over the "feel" of music and copyright over samples sounds concerning close to the discussing around copyright of api and copyright of header files.
https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/technology_node

> Historically, the process node name referred to a number of different features of a transistor including the gate length as well as M1 half-pitch. Most recently, due to various marketing and discrepancies among foundries, the number itself has lost the exact meaning it once held. Recent technology nodes such as 22 nm, 16 nm, 14 nm, and 10 nm refer purely to a specific generation of chips made in a particular technology. It does not correspond to any gate length or half pitch. Nevertheless, the name convention has stuck and it's what the leading foundries call their nodes.
We've had network issues as well as forced shutdowns that have corrupted data. Their support was also terrible. We only spent a few weeks with Vultr because of this.
Having wealth does indeed require having income in the past. But simply having wealth does not imply having current income.

Just like being 5 miles away has no implication for how fast you're going.
There's plenty of political reporters doing excellent work. Get off Twitter and turn off cable news, they're a mess. But outside of that world there's no shortage of professionals who take the work seriously AND go through a fact checking process.
Leaving the car was probably not a good idea. The ones who left the car were lucky to be found alive.

I still remember this story where the husband left the car to find help.

https://www.oregonlive.com/oregonianextra/2007/11/kimfamily....

It is possible to survive a pretty long time in a car as it provides the shelter you need.

From the article:
The Kim family -- parents James and Kati and children Penelope, 4, and Sabine, 7 months -- disappeared Nov. 25, 2006 as they drove to Gold Beach from Merlin, just north of Grants Pass off Interstate 5. Kati Kim, 30, and her daughters were found Dec. 4 with the car after being stuck in the snow for nine days with few supplies. James Kim, 35, was found dead two days later in a creek. He had walked more than 16 miles in the cold and snow in a futile effort to get help.
https://help.duckduckgo.com/duckduckgo-help-pages/results/so...

“ In fact, DuckDuckGo gets its results from over four hundred sources. These include hundreds of vertical sources delivering niche Instant Answers, DuckDuckBot (our crawler) and crowd-sourced sites (like Wikipedia, stored in our answer indexes). We also of course have more traditional links in the search results, which we also source from a variety of partners, including Verizon Media (formerly Yahoo) and Bing.”

It is not false. The standard 10 links you see come directly from Bing and they don’t even attempt to hide that fact.
not sure why I got downvoted but in order to get truely wealthy you have to invest your savings and not just put it in a bank account that accrues almost no interest. If you do that then agree it will be eaten by inflation eventually.
Possibly the point they're trying to make is similar to this article from a week or so ago about theoretical physics:
https://iai.tv/articles/why-physics-has-made-no-progress-in-...

Namely that the field seems to be doubling down on increasingly hard computational problems, with deminishing returns, rather than generating wholly new avenues of exploration or insights.

Of course, I've no idea if this is a valid complaint about either neuroscience or theoretical physics.
Realtime Tracking of Coronavirus by Johns Hopkins University