skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I work for a state government and we've actually implemented exactly the solution outlined in this post. The business side of things still created that big document, but then we have a product owner who broke that down into things that the development team can consume. As a developer I can just look at what's next on the list and implement it how I want. There is still a lot of red tape, but it is definitely getting better.
I mean youd probably have to iterate. Either that or use a package with proper array support.
It's not necessarily one or the other but definitely skews towards the aesthetics/fashion element. That said, the best designed sneakers often rank highly on both of those dimensions. Another poster mentioned Nike's rise in running shoes. They're highly functional, often the best in the game, but also designed with enough attention to aesthetics to be seen on the foot of many executives in their day to day lives. That's good design.

To the gp's point, the single pair of UA sneakers I own are highly functional and sport-specific that only come out at the gym...but picking them out of a crowd of UA's lineup is difficult.
Imagine this: you set your browser to download only the first N bytes of each image, showing you a decent preview. If you want more detail on a particular image, you tap it, and the browser requests the next N bytes (or the rest of the file, if you prefer).

And to enable this, the site only needed to create one high-resolution image.

Seems like a victory for loading speeds, for low-bandwidth, and for content creation.

I think FLIF looks incredible.
This all fell from Eugene Wigner's ideas, https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/experiments... -- and he was convinced (quite rightly in my opinion) that "consciousness" causes wave function collapse. The only mistake there perhaps is thinking that consciousness is unique to humans (or any "living" thing.) Consciousness itself has traditionally been defined as a product of the brain; I think at some point we'll figure out that the formation of the brain is more likely the result of consciousness. This implies that everything is "conscious" (i.e. any quanta), and that consciousness is better defined as something that is capable of updating its state as a result of observation, rather than something uniquely human. Integrated Information Theory (IIT) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory - a more recent view on the nature of reality, moves in theses lines and is something I myself subscribe to. Ultimately I believe that reality is subjective from the ground up, that there is no such thing as objective reality. This is hard to comprehend since we are hard wired to state things objectively. It's a form of the "many worlds" view, except you must remember that the idea that there "are" many worlds is an objective statement, and in a universe that is entirely subjective from the observer's point of view, this utterance is not compatible with that view. It's a form of solipsism, yes, but a strict one nonetheless.
You can't really use the busses in Orange County because of the routes and the traffic. Cars are pretty much required unless you're <5 miles from work, then biking is a decent option.
My response is why the modern one is not the Roman variant
Except when we do the experiment in the real world we can't keep the quantum superposition for macroscopic objects from collapsing and now we're claiming it just happens because we don't know the answer.

That's the difference between declaring entangled photons be in superposition and declaring a tossed coin being in superposition because I covered it with my hand without looking.

One is state of the universe, the other is my lack of knowledge.

But sure - we can go on declaring everything entangled all the way up. Then we declare that the whole universe except the conscious observer is in a superposition of states until the observer decides to observe it or not.

The problem with that is that I'm a part of the universe and I have no proof that I have a free will independent of everything else. It just feels like it :)

So assuming everything waits for me to decide seems very self-centered and unjustified by the evidence as opposed to everything happening when it happens and my decision being predetermined like everything else.
> They absolutely do, but batteries have physical limitations that result in lower power output over time.

The same can be said of SSD media. It's well-known that flash memory is under-provisioned to allow for inevitable degradation: Defective sectors are flagged and re-mapped. This so that your 500GB SSD still has 500GB in 5 years.

This can be applied to battery tech as well. However, that would require either thicker, heavier phones, or less run-time between charges.

I would say Apple's "crime" is producing hardware where one particular component has a well-known failure mode that makes the entire device virtually useless after 3 years of moderate to heavy use.
Any USB audio interface such as those made by Focusrite, MOTU and many others. That plugs into your computer.

Any XLR mic, such as the Shure models mentioned in the article. That plugs into the audio interface.

Any (analog+wired) headphones (you'll have my MDR-7506s over my dead body). These plug into the audio interface.

Done.
The next line in that paragraph:

> This proposed mechanism may be similar to anabolic pathways for the synthesis of reduced organic carbon (e.g., carbohydrates) in phototrophic organisms, which convert photons from visible light with pigments such as chlorophyll whose energy is then used in photolysis of water to generate usable chemical energy (as ATP) in photophosphorylation or photosynthesis.

Again, I don't find it surprising that an organism has managed to metabolize a form of EM radiation, as plants serve as a handy example of evolving to do precisely that.

Perhaps the ionizing nature of Chernobyl's radiation helps generate more selection pressure towards it, even.
I think 4-5C is a pretty reasonable assumption, over the next century.

The thing is that most of our current action plan for climate change consists of reducing CO2 emissions, and this is woefully inadequate for a world that the most recent science indicates has already passed the tipping point. Among the second-order changes that we should be preparing for:

1. Migration as the new norm. A 4-5C temperature rise will shift equivalent biomes over 1000 miles northward/southward, and inundate large coastal areas where major populations are currently located. Major densely-populated areas will become uninhabitable, and currently uninhabitable areas will become fertile.

2. The collapse of governments, and of the nation-state system. When migration becomes the new norm, borders become irrelevant, as do settled homogenous populations. What's the new political organization look like?

3. Large temporary food shortages. Higher temperatures, higher rainfall, and higher CO2 levels actually mean that in the long-term, plant growth and agricultural productivity will increase, and the earth's carrying capacity should go up. But in the short term - a lot of our current crops are hyper-specialized to their existing climate, and land rights, water rights, & physical crop location become problematic. Food distribution becomes critical - we'll likely make enough food to feed everyone on the planet, but the people who grow it may not want to share (or may have the inability to trade) with the people who need it.

4. Expect to see more diseases emerge. Large migrations, changes in biomes, and increased human habitation of formerly virgin ecosystems all spell chances for pathogens to jump from animal hosts to people and spread widely.

Overall, I'm a lot more scared of the likelihood that humans will kill each other than that the environment will kill us. We have a unique tendency to blame each other for unwelcome changes rather than to adapt to them.
I appreciate this comment, because it demonstrates a solid approach to simplify the code.

That said, regarding:

> safe-language-trend-of-the-day.

I agree that rust advocacy can sometimes be a bit misguided and over-enthusiastic - however how often is an out of bounds write not a bug (or a too clever by far hack)?

We've had pretty efficient ways to deal with this in c like languages for a long time (eg Pascal, Ada).

(c-like in the sense of being relatively low-overhead, close to the hardware wrt memory layout etc).
You could possibly surround the material with the fungi to naturally absorb the gamma radiation.

Also some genetic modification to the fungi may yield interesting results.
We have been struggling with the siren song of no-code ideologies for a while. We have managed to make so much of our platform data-driven that it seems like a natural evolution to make it 100% so.

Unfortunately, the closer we get the more dragons seem to appear. The hardest thing I have seen that will need to be addressed is handling the mapping of business facts from an internal representation to representations required by external systems we are interacting with. In many cases this isn't a simple 1:1 map, and we have to write imperative code to handle that last mile of wiring various things together. Also, developing business rules and validations is incredibly difficult without proper code if you are dealing with any sort of complex logical combinations of facts or entities.

The most sustainable model I have been able to come up with (at least for our products and customers) is to push as much we reasonably can into the data-driven realm, and then explicitly expose standardized coding contexts for mapping/validating/etc various combinations of data-driven entities.

For our purposes I would say the 80/20 rule applies fairly well. Approximately 80% of our platform can be data-driven, with the remaining 20% absolutely requiring code to connect the dots.
> Whether it is server side rendered, a single page app, or statically rendered.

Nail meet hammer. Seriously though, what why you need a JS framework for static pages? What if your backend is in Go? What if you're doing heavy duty numerical analysis? What if your users want a Wordpress-like site? What if your team uses Rails or Drupal to quickly build sites?

You're saying React is better at everything?
Again, those are headphones. OP was talking about earphones, I think.
The question is always, 95th percentile of what? I'm involved with a series of physics competitions, that winnows ~5 million high schoolers down to 5.

- 10% of high schoolers learn calculus well in high school

- 10% of those also learn calculus-based physics well in high school

- 10% of those sign up for the first round competition

- top 10% of those qualify for the second round

- top 5% of those qualify for the final round

- top 20% of those end up on the final five

Which of these stages is supposed to be "easy"? Because the conjunction of all six certainly isn't.
Congratulations on publishing! I'm looking at picking up some Go best practices. What level of Go/coding experience do you feel your book is pitched at?
The reason I asked is that I believe this behavior is what Emacs does by default (actually don't know if by default, but saw this from code produced by Emacs users) e.g.

<tab>(inserts 4 spaces)<tab>(replaces 4 spaces into a tab that is 8 columns)<tab>(adds 4 spaces after the tab)<tab>(replaces with two tabs and so on)

Unless I misunderstood what formatting you were using.
This topic always reminds me of the opening scene[1] from Waterworld where a guy on a raft out in the sea passes his urine through some kind of filter that turns it into drinkable water, and drinks it.

I was a little kid when I watched it and wondered why he would drink his own urine when he was surrounded by such vast amounts of water. With this type of technology, maybe he wouldn't have had to do something so gross! XD

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16txiqRoVNQ
1. sets don't use the new dict's implementation

2. IIRC the new dicts are no(t significantly) slower than the old dicts, however they use less memory, and iterate faster

The iteration order is actually a side-effect of implementation details, the original goals were a more compact representation and a faster iteration: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-December/1...
The message of that ad has nothing to do with introducing their product to the five remaining people on Earth who do not know about FB. The message of that ad is, "Hi we're Facebook, sorry about the whole election thing, oh and please do not regulate us."
First, cPython is 99% of Python deployments. So much that if a script works on it but not on another implementation, people often consider the later broken.

As this post proves that most people don't even know about this feature, you can be pretty sure the vast majority of people don't know about pypy, micropython, etc.

Secondly, even if you want to nit pick, Python 3.7 made it official more than one year ago. We are currently in the 3.9 alpha.

In fact, 3.7 didn't touch the implementation, just merely declared "yep, good idea, let's keep it that way".
I don't think anybody seriously thinks Schredringer's cat is in superposition in real world. It's a living macroscopic thing at room temperature, it interacts with the universe and would collapse immediately. So would the recording.
The fundamental problem with the Carbon Market is that we are missing the entire second half of the equation. There is no viable large scale carbon removal technologies that would allow us to set a price per ton of carbon released. The market doesn't work because it is all supply and no demand.

If we were serious about this there would be hundreds or thousands of companies competing on the most cost effective way to remove carbon from the atmosphere. All companies would be required to buy enough carbon removal to make them zero net emissions. When you buy a gallon of gas it would have whatever the current market value of 5.5lbs of carbon removal factored in right at the pump. Or that would happen at the refinery and be reflected in the final price of the gas.

Unfortunately if you wanted to jump start this market it would be very disruptive to the global economy. Governments worldwide (it's too easy to export pollution, this needs to be a worldwide solution) would have to agree on a very high price to get the market started to avoid undercutting companies wanting to get into it and let the money start forming a pile so terrifically large that people would be scrambling to develop carbon capture technologies faster and cheaper than the competition. There would be a lot of cheating and lying that would need to be policed worldwide. Our current system of governments is not capable of pulling this off.

Carbon markets are something people try to entice capitalists with, but only because they don't think people will look at the details. To actually implement them would send those same capitalists howling and screaming to their nearest governmental body with exceptions and rollbacks in hand.
Why do these articles never have pictures or diagrams?

edit: I just missed them :(
Louis Rossmann Dismantles Apple's PR Stunt “Repair Program”
This is interesting. I've been hoping for someone to really come up with a Tetris-like game where you can get into the zone and just play. You know, simple to learn, hard to master, based on a single fundamental algorithm of some sort, etc. Lumines was close, and fun, but got a bit repetitive after a while. But since then, nothing I've seen has really done it. Anything I'm missing?
Apple's security is heavily audited in a lot of ways. They give special phones to researchers that make it easier to audit them, and there are significant bug bounties.
I consider The Economist to be a high-brow, high-status publication, but when I see them misspelling in the title, I have to reconsider. “Loth” is not a word. “Loathe” is the word they’re looking for.

Find a better educated editor, y’all.
I agree with you that it is a shame that perfectly working hardware is left highly insecure after just 3 years (that is actually worse for some other manufacturers).

The worst part is that people keep using the phones because are not tech savvy or grossly underway the risk and they do not feel that they need to spend money on a new phone.
Sometimes I look at my closet filled to the brim with expensive boardgames, sometimes packed with well-honed mechanics and expensive miniatures, and consider the irony of the fact that in our age of ceaseless digital distraction, we have more offline entertainment than ever before. Surely someone in the 18th century (AD or BCE) would more greatly appreciate the embarrassment of board-gaming riches we have today.
Point of order: Ruby’s hashes do preserve insertion order. Python dicts are now the same.
The Regional Connector project, responsible for the giant holes currently in the streets of Little Tokyo, will directly join the Expo and Gold lines together, which will solve many of these "west Downtown/east Downtown" transfer issues. Due to open in 2022.

https://www.metro.net/projects/connector/
Anomaly detection in graphs is a critical problem for finding suspicious behavior in innumerable systems, such as intrusion detection, fake ratings, and financial fraud. But most of the systems in place focus either on static graphs or on entire graph snapshots if they consider dynamic (time-evolving) graphs.

However, to minimize the effect of malicious activities and start recovery as soon as possible, we need to detect anomalies in real-time or near real-time i.e. to identify whether an incoming edge is anomalous or not, as soon as we receive it. In addition, since the number of vertices can increase as we process the stream of edges, we need an algorithm which uses constant memory in graph size. Moreover, fraudulent or anomalous events in many applications occur in microclusters or suddenly arriving groups of suspiciously similar edges e.g. denial of service attacks in network traffic data and lockstep behavior.

In this work, we propose MIDAS, which detects microcluster anomalies, or suddenly arriving groups of suspiciously similar edges, in edge streams, using constant time and memory. In addition, by using a principled hypothesis testing framework, MIDAS provides theoretical bounds on the false positive probability, which earlier methods do not provide. Also, we are up to 644 times faster and 48% more accurate than previous state of the art approaches.

For more details, read the paper at: https://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/~sbhatia/assets/pdf/midas.pdf

If you are in New York, you are welcome to attend the talk at AAAI in New York Hilton Midtown on 11th February at 2pm.
samsung s10e is the only phone that checks all those boxes and its also the only "small" phone too. I always said I would never buy a phone without a headphone jack or a notch but i made an exception for the s10e since its a punch hole and spent really take away much screen space.

but the way things are going I can't see a phone like this ever being made again. so ill be using this for the foreseeable future and will probably have to start using a custom rom in a few years
If the bus comes every 5 minutes nobody asks the questions you asked. Comfort waiting only matters when the bus doesn't come.
It's not the same thing. Compare two OrderedDicts that weren't constructed in the same order and the comparison will fail. Compare two dicts that weren't constructed in the same order and the comparison will pass.

The difference is whether order is part of its identity.
A dict is still just a set of pairs, not a list of them. It just happens that it also guarantees now that if you _iterate_ over the set you'll walk the keys in insertion order.
The only head-to-head range test that's been published to date shows that a brand new Taycan has about 3% less range than a 2-year old, used Model 3, at 95 mph on the Autobahn (and other tests show that the Model 3 has about 15% less range than a Model S).

The Taycan does significantly beat EPA in low-average-speed, "spirited driving" tests with the A/C and heater turned off (usually in the mountains, and never head-to-head against another EV that might also be its EPA). "Car people" are impressed by these tests because gas cars are known get poor MPGs in sprited mountain driving. "EV people" are unimpressed by these tests because they know the true test of an EV is high speed cruising, where aerodynamics matter and regen doesn't.

So, while it's impressive that the Taycan comes close to (but does not beat) its EPA range in real-world highway cruising, it still has less range for 3x the price.
There’s no need to be condescending.
This has been true since 3.7 why is this such a seemingly major revelation on HN?
If you write code that doesn't work in 3.5, you should check the version at startup and exit
That limp home mode is not offered as the real fix, is it?

This Apple situations has a good analogy in car industry history: the Ford Pinto.

Speaking of car industry, Apple might have gone through a cost-benefit analysis reminiscent of the Pinto Memo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Cost%E2%80%93benefi...

Ford converted the likely injuries and deaths that would be caused by an unfixed issue into a dollar amount, and the compared that dollar amount to the cost of fixing the flaw in every vehicle.

Apple might have done the same sort of cost-benefit analysis: as in, just let the throttling cover up the flaw so the phone doesn't abruptly shut off, and then we only have to deal with the lower cost that comes from any complaints about performance, from those who notice.
I wonder why we’re still in emitting large amounts of greenhouse gases now instead of trying to fix the problem later.

40% of the worlds electricity is generated using coal.

If we changed this 10 years ago, we’d have less problems today.

If we change this today we’ll have less of a problem in 10 years.

We’re coming up with all kinds of clever ideas to deal with the problem in 2050. This is a slow train wreck happening over decades.
Good for Ruby! Nice to hear.

I'm pretty sure they didn't in Ruby ~1.8 though. It's been awhile :-) Can't remember exactly which version, but it bit me more than once so I'm pretty sure :)
crobots[0]?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crobots
yeah sadly it is pretty typical of US transit buildouts - half ass vision and implementation and then everyone wonders why it fails.
Modular mode JPEG XL has MAANS (meta-adaptive ANS). It's indeed faster to decode than MANIAC, though a bit trickier to encode.
I've seen a real-world regression in the performance of a site I develop [0]. It's math-heavy, so maybe that's not "real-world" enough for them. Filed a bug [1] but it's finnicky to repro, and the V8 team seems unable to replicate it in-house.

[0] https://noclip.website/

[1] https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=104449...
> Was this not the case?

From the origin to Python 3.2, iteration order was arbitrary but deterministic (in CPython, it was not guaranteed to be determinstic in other implementations)

From Python 3.3 to Python 3.5, iteration order was non-determinstic (across runs, it was deterministic per-process instance)

In Python 3.6 it's unspecified but deterministic and follows insertion order (in CPython)

In Python 3.7, Python 3.6's behaviour was specified and documented