skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
What if governments define every output to a mixer transaction to count as receiving stolen goods if any of the inputs are the result of criminal activity?

Apart from that, every option you suggested just hands the problem off to the next person. Eventually people won't want to transact at all because they don't want to receive tainted bitcoins.
"Is the $100 indexed to inflation?"

> In 2009, the list price for a 10-milliliter vial of Humalog, a fast-acting insulin made by Eli Lilly, was about $93. Today it costs closer to $275. Similarly, Novo Nordisk's fast-acting insulin Novolog cost almost $93 for a 10-milliliter vial in 2009. Today, it costs about $290. - https://www.businessinsider.com/insulin-price-increased-last...

If you've got any evidence that the inflation rate between 2009 and 2019 was 300%, I'd love to see it.
Huawei denies German report it colluded with Chinese intelligence
Better Code Review Practices
The limit is practical, not legal. (IANAL).

In practice, the law is not trying to 'get' people who innocently receive stolen money or goods. In the example you gave, it would be up to prosecutorial discretion what to do; trying to claw back one salary's worth of already-spent money is probably not worthwhile.

But if someone shows up and tries to deposit a couple grand worth of marked bills, they can expect to be taken into a police station for questioning, and should fully cooperate: this makes it unlikely that the penalty will extend further than confiscation of the stolen cash.

The important thing to realize is: if any of this goes to trial, the prosecution only needs to prove that the money is stolen. It doesn't need to prove the receiver knew it was stolen; that's not what the crime is here, that knowledge makes it a worse crime, accessory to robbery.
London is basically a temperate rain forest.
The law is not all about intent. Lawyers carefully worded a contract with a lot of very specific details. The lawyers' employer clearly intends to enforce that specific contract, and they attached a signature in a way that in my opinion, does not prove he agreed to that contract.

If there's intent to be discussed here, it's State Farm's intent to enforce a one-sided document as though it was a legally binding contract. If they pull that off, unfortunately the law starts caring an awful lot about the actual content.

So fuck them and fuck anyone who defends them. This is exactly what is wrong with the US health system and we don't talk about it enough.
If bitcoin is not treated as legal currency, then the person you bought the car from would be required to return half the coins you have them to the original owner as they would qualify as stolen property.

This risk would have to be managed by contracts, insurance, and/or quick exchange for safer assets.
It's very limiting, and for many other reasons than the lack of a package registry. My advice is to not lose time with it and go straight to C#, unless your projects are throwaway game jam entries.
You might (justifiably) not like it, and it might inspire you to boycott the business or plead for regulatory relief, but it's not an "incident" from their perspective to be intentionally doing what they do to run their business.
> research funding is dwarfed by marketing for example

i really believe pharma advertising should be banned
>To make a case otherwise is to claim one of two things: either that humans have access to morally relevant data, which is in some way fundamentally inaccessible to computers, or that humans can engage in a kind of moral reasoning which is fundamentally uncomputable.

I remember some quotes about metrics and stats that are something like:

"What is easily counted will be deemed important, what is difficult to count will be deemed unimportant."

Regardless of the intent the data is going to tilt AI in some directions purely based on the data it has and at the exclusion of other information.

And of course Goodhart's law:

"When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."

I'll admit that I don't fully understand the entire paper but it would seem to assume that computers would just magically have all the perfect information, and/or human behavior would not change to skew the results...
If the scraper contacted the client, said what they need the data for, and (probably) paid for api access, then my client would probably go for it.

My client is under no obligation to make access to this data easier. It's not really their data either; the information is property addesses, owner names and addresses, and tax assessments and payments. My client wouldn't want to make it easier for scammers to get that data. So they're not going to do anything unless they know the scraper is legit. If that's the case, the api would require authentication, and any fees would be for the server load, not the data.
Alpine makes Python Docker builds slower, and images larger
> About 80% of a solar panel module can be recycled

Operative word here is 'can'. The reality is that this is not happening for the most part and there is no standard solution in sight.

> The Electric Power Research Institute notes that long-term storage of used panels until recycling technologies become available may be the best option for dealing with this waste stream. Ultimately, it’s an issue that will need to be addressed as solar panels become more widespread and reach the end of their 25-plus year lifespan, much like the issue of nuclear waste. But it’s an issue that we should be able to resolve with smart policies and technologies.

Unlike with nuclear waste, this is not actually regulated or managed, most of solar cell waste is simple general electronics waste and gets resold to Africa where kids can get to take it apart. Solar also produces about 1000x more waste in volume.

In comparison not a single gram of the wast from nuclear escapes into the environment. Its all captured and accounted for, and in most countries already financed by part of the electricity price. The US already has a huge saving account with money (that is politically deadlocked).

I really don't see how this is a defense.

> But that’s only a problem for broken panels, which are relatively rare except perhaps in the wake a natural disaster like a hurricane or earthquake. In a disaster area, leaching of metals from some broken solar panels is the least of a city’s problems.

I agree that that is not to bad of a concern.

This articles seems to basically say, 'well, Michael Shellenberger, was right' BUT technology can eventually solve this. This is incredibly weak defense when it comes to the nuclear critics. They are right on some of the EV stuff, but that's not what we are talking about.
"Yup, you were cut up by the same guy that did that acid throwing two weeks back. Our AI says so. We'll give you a heads up if we ever catch him."
Some fascinating maps on there - e.g. this one of the 1746 Battle of Culloden, the last pitched battle on Britain:

https://militarymaps.rct.uk/other-18th-19th-century-conflict...
> I think you mean transmission, not distribution, presumably because you don't know the difference.

Any and all problems from production source to consumption fall under the category of energy distribution. That includes long range transmission, storage, last mile and so on.

> This demonstrates how poor the humans are at reasoning about exponentials. In September 1918, the flu was still a tiny part of global mortality; not a single industrial country was anywhere close to having flu as their primary cause of death. By December it had killed several percent of the global population.

Environmentalist have predicting the raise of solar since 1970. Around 15-20 years ago they started arguing 'its actually cheaper' and 'exponential growth is coming'.

Maybe humans are bad at exponentials, but they are also bad at predicting when exponentials will happen.

And as far as I can tell growth of solar has not been on that aggressive of a curve. If you want to see exponential growth of energy policy go look at the first 20 years of nuclear.

> I would rather say that the fundamental failure of environmental policy is a failure to think through possibilities and consequences using knowledge and reason, instead acting based on gut feeling. Your comment betrays a similar lack of knowledge and reasoning. I suggest you level up your game before you lose all your money in a pyramid scheme.

The difference is that my ideas are actually proven in reality. You know the thing we live in. And it has been done with technology from the 70s. So its a simple fact that if the political will exists a massive nuclear build out can be achieved very quickly and historic data is also totally clear on the fact that nuclear plants, like basically everything else, get massively cheaper if built in high volume.

Carbon energy production had a solution and it had it for 50 years. As anybody knows, carbon that escapes earlier in time is more harmful. Countries like France have done a huge service to humanity by not polluting for the last 50 years.

And not admitting the complete and utter failure of environmental policy in light of this fact is just denial. If nuclear had been adopted on a large scale, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Your solution basically says 'well hopefully this 5-10 industries will be able to show exponential scales in the next 30 years' because only if that happens to you have even a small chance at actually reaching 2050 goals.

> 250 GW
> 400 billion dollars

If we want 250 GW of reliable power at the times we need them will require lot more then just panels.

For that same money we could just build the same basic nuclear plant over and over again, literally at the same location as current coal plants. Requiring almost no broader infrastructure change. A fraction of environmental disruption. A fraction of land use. A fraction of overall resource use. And I would be willing to be, less overall cost.

France build close to 50 GW in the 70s.
Yes, dentistry is in many ways different from the rest of medicine. It's kind of separated from it.
However, that is not the source of the problem. It's the fact that average person uses dental care more often than any other medical care, and dental treatments are in vast majority medical operations rather than drugs.

Let's focus on the second part of that statement. It means that majority of cost of dental care goes to the practitioner, rather than to drug makers. This means they have more reason to cheat. The payoff is higher.
Scam PAC fundraisers reap millions in the name of heart-tugging causes
In the IRA's campaign in the mainland UK in the 1970s, they would provide a codeword along with the tip, after the first bomb the receivers would know that subsequent calls with the same codeword were legitimate.
Absolutely, but I think it's time to start asking:

1. Is that ok that we accept this sort of Pavlovian training from anyone, much less for-profit companies?

2. Is it ok now that the entities are so easily able to completely track the effectiveness of their advertising and thus empowered to amplify whatever works to increase their success rather than some metric like human happiness?
So, the whole Google's search is based on scraping publicly accessible information from public web-sites. Nothing to be surprised about that the practice is declared legal. Otherwise they should have demand for Google to basically liquidate Google search unless it signs an agreement with every single site in the index.
Well there's two ways you can be in trouble. The first is if you knew the money was stolen, then you can go to jail. The second is if you didn't know it was stolen but it's then seized - leaving you with no money.

As for your example I'm not sure. Said repairman would unlikely be in legal trouble, but I don't know if the money would be seized or not.
When it costs billions to develop a new drug due to onerous testing regulations, that's what happens.

Ultimately returns in every industry tend towards zero. If we made it cheaper to develop new drugs it would extend the lifespan of the industry somewhat but not indefinitely. At some point diminishing returns take over and investment must go down.
You misunderstand. I'm not saying "If the manufacturers decide it costs $110". I mean, if it costs $110. You can't force someone to create things at $110 and sell them at $100... or at least, you can't for very long.

Others are observing that the current prices are not currently anywhere near $100. That's completely unrelated to what I'm explaining.

I'd also point out that is a temporary fact, not a permanent fact. If, let's say, in two months the Coronavirus has mutated into a mark 2.0 and is sweeping through Illinois [1], getting insulin may become much more expensive due to all the measures needed to prevent spread of infection. If it becomes more than $100 worth of expensive, it's going to be difficult to distribute. There can be supply disruptions due to source contamination, whoknows what else. Even if today this seems like a generous cap, an inflexible cap can still be a problem tomorrow.

Of course, the last few years being what they are in online discourse, a large number of you will be inclined to read this as a defense of high prices, rather than what it actually is, which is an observation that price fixing has certain effects and that we don't know the future very reliably. Screwing around with insulin prices just because you can is evil and should be the grounds of a presumptive collusion, oligarchy, or monopoly investigation. But that doesn't mean that fixing the price is a good idea, or going to fix it. Personally I'd suggest getting a few state attorney's together and digging into why the price is so high, with an eye towards criminal charges or anti-trust action, would be much more effective. You might even find that "feels better" than mere price caps. Remove the incentives for people thinking they can get away with this sort of thing scott-free, rather than trying to treat the symptoms far down the pipeline from the root cause.

(Downvoters are invited to consider my replacement suggestion of criminal charges or significant antitrust action before deciding that I'm "defending" anything. This is a silly papering over of the problems by people who ought to have the power to do a lot more.)

[1]: A totally absurd, impossible scenario, of course. https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2020/01/24/first-case-of-corona...
The home buying paperwork process has improved post-housing crisis. There is less total paperwork, and much of it changed to be easier to read and understand. I've done it 3 times, once before the crisis and twice after, and I've never felt rushed. If the closing company makes you feel pressured you should push back, they should appreciate the gravity of the process.
>The developer claims the wall – made up of a mix of plants – will generate seven tonnes of oxygen in a year and extract nine tonnes of C02 annually among other benefits

So the plants in the wall get bigger and heavier each year? Presumably there's a limit, structurally as well as visually. I'm no expert, but I believe 9 tonnes of CO2 means an extra 2.5 tonnes of carbon every year.
Thanks you for iPad v1. iPad hardware has made possible Animation CPU software. I'm developer and I love iPad as development tool. iThink future for iPad is comming soon...

https://twitter.com/acpustudio
Thanks for clarifying, it was a genuine question.
Worth noting that your reference is from 1993, and although your argument still stands for a modern reference:

"Around 10% of the world's electricity is generated by about 440 nuclear power reactors" [0]

[0] https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-an...
Thanks for the link.

The guarantees they present in that article seem a lot stronger than the HN submission. They explain what they intend by "self limiting" and then it turns out that it doesn't work anyway (with a 4% survival rate of Female carriers in the wild).

In the HN submission (a later experiment) they don't seem to be anywhere near as careful. They just say it's "self limiting" but that the genes are passed onto offspring (of which, the males survive).

I'm not an expert in genetic biology and my differential calculus is rusty but, intuitively, I'd expect that if you had even a small percentage of matings that didn't produce Female offspring then the overall proportion of males would rise. It's not immediately clear what the equilibrium point of male carriers would be.

...so how does it "self limit" in the case where the limit is not merely "all (female) moths have died"? Do all males end up infected?

What is the range of these moths? Can they fly to other places and gradually spread out over a geography?

I have so many questions and, to a non-expert, it all sounds rather scary!
I thought the M stood for module?
Money laundering is a thing for this reason.
Good question, it doesn't really need to be, those numbers are partly just to visualize it. But we do have some reasons to keep it with more surface area:
- less digging
- less reinforcing needed - it's more stable
- In some cases we're interested in floating solar on top of the reservoir which wouldn't work well if the reservoir was too deep.

But it's certainly not out of the question to go deeper instead.
> I'm a diplomat working on international norms for cyber and information warfare.

I didn't know any such norms existed. What are some of the existing agreements, and if you can talk about it, what are some of the new ones you're trying to push forward?

Your career sounds crazy...in a good way! Was your initial involvement with the UN in a technical role?
You can read about the results of Australia's 70+ year experiment here: https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2019-11-25/medicine-costs...
Won’t happen as dozens of folks have already explained.
I don't think "popo" is a problem in the U.S. or the U.K.

Maybe people would have a problem in Jamaica or the Philippines or other minor market.

So far as "cops" are concerned, consider the word "pig" which is a slang for cops. My neighbors have pigs, there is "pig iron", the word is used plenty and unless you have some site which exists to defame the police ("Clips" of police acting badly) I think you don't have to worry about obscure slang.
So more statistical processing and comparisons in the end, and the final decision is still left to the user? Seems like the proverbial Elves in Tolkien's world where it is said "go not to them for advice as they'll say both yay and nay..."
Given that the police wanted information after having already received the threats, they had to have requested some combination of historical and future data. They almost certainly wanted historical data primarily so that they could find the person who sent the threats.

There's no way to satisfy requests for historical data without capturing data from everyone.
except it doesn't in this case. Manufacturers keep the price artificially high by continually patenting more and more esoteric parts of the manufacturing of this drug. They then cross license the patents to each other, preventing any third party from joining the marketplace.

Insulin is NOT rocket science, and it's necessary for some people to live. It's almost as simple to make as beer. It is unreasonable that people don't have access to such a simple life saving drug.

Fuck the pharma companies. Fuck the patent system for keeping it this way. Congratulate the legislature who is tackling this problem.
This is probably a confusing on your part between energy consumption and electricity consumption. For a fossil free future we also have to replace fossil fuels used for heating and transportation. It's likely that we won't need a 1:1 replacement (by far) because heating and transportation can be done much more efficiently with electricity (thanks to heat pumps and the efficiency of electric motors).
> government negotiated prices

That's what we don't have in the US. You can certain make the case that we should, but that's a separate argument. Now we have a situation where we have a flat out price control, and it's going to have unintended consequences written all over it.

All these arguments for "look at Europe" doesn't fly in health economics. There are not subtle differences in the US legally, infrastructurally, and culturally.
‘Life of Brian,’ Terry Jones’s Legacy of a Surprisingly Historical Jesus
I can't really get irritated with this. Privacy is just one thing out of many that people can care about. Maybe online privacy is just low on their list of ethical issues?

People who complain about global warming still eat meat, people who complain about right-to-repair still give Apple hundreds of dollars a year, and people who complain about working conditions in third-world countries don't research every product they purchase.

If I got irritated at everyone who complains about something but does little to remedy the problem I'd be a seething ball of rage 24/7. There isn't enough time in the day for people to make informed decisions about everything they do, the world is far too complex for that nowadays.

I bet if we talked long enough I'd find something you complain about which you could easily remedy but haven't. Similarly, I'm a hypocrite too. We all are.
at $100 a month they would still be making 10x markup
Probably not much more than regular transmission lines. Making transmission lines higher in voltage means that they can carry more power over the same amount of current, which means the same amount of aluminum. You just have to put them further apart.

A lot of the costs of transmission lines have to do with safety: it's dangerous to repair them, even when you take expensive safety measures. AC and DC lines have different safety characteristics. You've probably seen the videos of helicopter transmission line mechanics working on HVAC lines like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x94BH9TUiHM — you see those meter-long arcs when they establish and terminate contact with the lines? Those don't happen on HVDC lines. But HVDC lines have their own special safety concerns. We just don't have the century-plus of experience with them, so it wouldn't be surprising if they were more dangerous at first.
I run a distributed Node.js Express app that has a media folder mounted (fuse) across all node instances. GlusterFS runs with replicated volumes. As GlusterFS is not super fast, I use an Nginx cache in front of all media files. (I should probably use a CDN) PostgreSQL does not run over GlusterFS for the reasons you mentioned. For ease of configuration each node has an HAProxy instance that knows where the master PostgreSQL instance lives. Patroni as well as the Node.js (typescript) app uses Consul for leader election.
Medicare?
> for example when all men are blamed for not doing the dishes as if all men are dirty beasts: prepare to get burned down by horde of feminists.

citation needed
There’s a difference between “my information” and “the public webpage that I went through a publishing workflow to create from a curated selection of my information.”

Let me put it this way: if I have a Wordpress blog, I’d certainly be miffed if Wordpress let bots see my drafts... but I’d also be miffed if Wordpress didn’t let bots (Google, for one!) see the published blog itself. It’s a blog; a public website! Anyone or anything with the URL is supposed to be able to retrieve the page! It’s not “my information” any more†; it’s been broadcast!

† You might want to mentally analogize to copyright, but I don’t think it’s the right model for the intuition people have here. Instead, try mentally analogizing to confidentiality. When a classified document is published in the public sphere (e.g. as evidence in a trial, as testimony before congress, etc.), this forcibly declassifies it. No matter how much the originator of the document might want to still keep it a secret, the legal protections of confidentiality don’t apply to it any more: it’s out there now. Anyone who reads it could plausibly have just read the public-sphere copy, so there’s no longer any way to charge people who have knowledge of the previously-classified information with any crime.