skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I share your position, but the obvious counterpart to this is that many regular people need access to gasoline as part of their daily lives. not so with phosphorus.

in general, I don't think citizens should have to answer "why do you need this?" to the government, but you're not really comparing apples to apples here.
> section 4 (1), in the 1883 Explosive Substances Act, which says that anyone who makes or has in their possession explosive substances is liable to prosecution unless they can show that it was “for a lawful object”.

> But two other judges ... declared that “to say that something is done for one’s own private education is not a sufficient object for the purposes of the section 4(1) defence, as it does not identify the use to which the explosives will be put in order to provide such education.

In my epistemology these judges have committed blasphemy. Private education is not just a lawful object, it is a primary motive and purpose of human action.
It makes a tremendous difference, so don't downplay it. Infection due to smear (secondary droplet) is really high IIRC and washing hands is a huge countermeasure.
It was covered in the WSJ earlier this week: https://www.wsj.com/articles/italy-with-elderly-population-h...
Private labs face obstructions and delays in performing coronavirus tests
If FAANG does it better then why does it matter? If their business was successful enough to get copied by FAANG then they probably already made enough money to move onto something else.
Current analytics for COVID-19/Coronavirus
i don’t know how your hosting plan works, but on every plan I’ve looked at, traffic costs money. if your web based business depends on traffic to serve advertising, then no, you’re not doing it in good faith to make the web better.
That's it, we're going back to core memory.
There should be some adjustment for expected exposures, no?
Thanks! Hadn't noticed that the icon was mirrored, thanks for pointing it out!
That might mitigate Rowhammer, but does it really remove all side channels?
Electric fixed wings conceivably are a lot cheaper to maintain than a helicopter, but a lot of the infrastructure costs etc. seem like they'll be similar. You already have helicopter operating out of small pad locations with out security and line ups, etc. All of that has too look pretty similar.

I can see how you might change a $200 15-20 min helicopter ride into a $120 15-20 min VTOL ride profitably, but hard to see how it becomes a $60 ride any time soon...
I misread this at first and thought it said "man's experiments with explosives were awful"
Japan didn't really test much. Lots of elderly die alone even without virus, people used to it.
Every time I make a comment that garners a large number of replies, moderators 'detach' it from the article, which I suppose leaves it in some Netherworld where it can only be accessed from members' profiles. I'm not sure what the point of that is.
Sure. I've left you an email.
The famously nimble NY Department of Corrections did so in like a week. So I'm guessing the startup costs are not too onerous.

https://qz.com/1815496/ny-forces-prisoners-to-make-hand-sani...
Do you think you could elaborate why you believe this is "heavy-duty" new research (or even new research at all, rather than a new meta-analytic synthesis of old research)?

My quick read of the study suggests that they examined several outcomes, got null or low powered results on most of them, and chose to highlight the single result which did show a significantly positive effect on recovery; that result was based on a meta-analytic estimate of the pooled sample of just two studies. In particular, my understanding is that this study found a null on "percentage days abstinent", a null on "longest period of abstinence", a null on "drinks per drinking day", a null on "alcohol-related consequences". For alcohol addiction severity they report the results of one study without doing any original analysis. And for "rates of continuous abstinence" they found a positive effect. In most cases these are graded as "low certainty evidence". The positive effect is claimed to be "high certainty evidence", but the CI / p-value for the positive effect is not adjusted for multiple comparisons -- I don't think that's fatal, but it does speak to the fragility of the outcome.

The other concern I have is that they separate "manualized" treatments (e.g. AA treatments administered according to a protocol) from "non-manualized" (e.g. ad hoc administration of the AA treatment) treatments. This is fine -- we would expect to see that if something about the protocol was useful, the non-manualized treatments would display an attenuated version of the same effect. Instead we get a null on the original positive effect, and a positive effect on one of the original nulls

Finally, the authors seem a little loose with what the comparison groups are. They claim they recruited studies which compared AA to no treatment, but the results are all motivated as being AA versus CBT. What happened to the no treatment studies? Perhaps these are buried in the full text. The rate of spontaneous remission of addiction is believed to be fairly high and most of the past criticism of the efficacy of AA has been motivated by comparison to spontaneous remission.

It strikes me that there is significant distortion of the study findings from the Cochrane write-up to the Stanford press release, and from the Stanford press release to the NYT piece, and that in both cases the distortion is in favour of claiming the study has found affirmative evidence that AA works better, rather than just no evidence to claim it works worse. For instance, one of the thrusts of the NYT piece is that the past Cochrane review was based on a limited number of studies... but the operative finding in this review is based on an even more limited number of studies, even if the pool of studies from which they drew has become larger over the last 15 years.

All of this is from a quick read of the review -- I am off campus right now and don't feel like VPNing or pirating the full text to deep dive the analysis.
Blah Blah Blah. My startup is better than the rest (pun intended) of the entire universe claims XXX. Such narcissistic (Trump level) drivel.
Making those proofs is nice and all, but they rarely take side channels or processor bugs into account.
There has to be some line where we say that an item is too dangerous for any random individual to own. Glassware should be unregulated, but if someone wants a nuclear bomb, I want to know who they are and what they plan on doing with it.
They’re overwhelmed because the media is deliberately creating mass hysteria over what would have otherwise been rightly responded to as if it were just another random cold. Everyone with the sniffles thinks they’re going to die and wants to get tested for COVID-19. Of course they’re overwhelmed.

If you want to argue at least stay logically consistent with your own argument. Say that everyone should work from home from October to February.

Every argument you’re making applies even moreso to influenza. So, should we all work from home from October to February ???
Ibogaine is amazing at dealing with addiction, considering that it can blow away a serious Heroin addiction after one good trip.
This is why I'm pleased to announce my new Petahertz Rock Computer line. Not only are they the fastest computers in the world, but they are also the most secure. No data will leak from a system implemented on a rock computer, ever.

Buy one now and it will ship with a complementary write only ssd for all your secure storage needs!

Terms and conditions apply.
It would be even more awesome if they were actually focused on that and not primarily on hoarding wealth.
It's a fun read, but:

1) Urban areas have a lot of towers and wires to fly low

2) A single accident with pax will kill an air-taxi business

3) comfortable 4 pax helicopters are $2 million each, so aerospace and affordable don't go together. Eclipse tried to make a cheap jet using "friction-stir welding", so that was the gimmick last time around.

4) FAA has "one level of safety" - there's no exception for wannabe "disrupters"
“It’s just an element” is not good enough as a discriminator, plutonium and polonium are elements, and I want them heavily regulated.

Now, I a bit skeptical of putting Phosphorus into the drug law, it has too many uses and not too many inherent ills.
Some first hand detail would be greatly appreciated.
It's not even clear that his definition of hoax is. It applies to anything he doesn't like. He's basically ruining the word.
I remember an anecdote I'd heard a while ago; long before Starbucks was ubiquitous, and before coffee culture was what it is in North America, a cafe owner heard that Starbucks was going to be moving in down the street. He was worried, because he thought Starbucks was going to take all his business, so he called someone he knew who also ran a cafe, who'd had a Starbucks open in his town, to ask what he should do.

The friend told him this was the best thing that could have happened to his cafe, for a simple reason: Starbucks, and all the media surrounding their launch, will tell potential customers what the whole deal is with cafes and coffee culture, and people will flock to them in droves, and Starbucks will be insanely busy. A lot of those potential customers, and a lot of customers who really get into the coffee culture Starbucks brings, will come to the smaller cafes for more personal service, more handcrafted drinks, and a better atmosphere.

I heard the story in the context of Apple adding a feature to iOS years back, I forget which one. The point of the story is that Starbucks, or Apple in our case, is going to make a feature with mass-market appeal to a broad range of people. Customers who've never thought about it before will try it and see the benefit; customers who like it, but don't necessarily like Apple's offering, will go further afield to find better offerings from third-party developers.

Typically, the companies that tend to get completely Sherlocked are the ones who make a simple product with potentially mass appeal, and don't go beyond that, or who go beyond it with features that aren't practical or useful to most people.

Take Growl for example; a great notification framework that everyone used. Suddenly Apple adds support for native notifications, and push notifications, and Growl is thrown by the wayside, because all it did was offer notifications. No deferment, no forwarding to other devices (e.g. your iPhone). The only features it had were the obvious features that you would imagine for a notification service.

I think John Gruber said it best[1]: "when a utility is designed to compensate for a hole in Mac OS X, the developer should not expect the hole to remain unfilled by Apple forever".

[1] https://daringfireball.net/2003/10/commandtab
If the water keeps running, no toilet paper isn't a real problem. If the water stops running, you've bigger problems.
"The Explosive Substances Act was quickly passed by parliament in 1883 in response to fears of Irish nationalist bomb attacks and because previous offences were thought to provide insufficient protection for the public."

Looking at the above list, it seems that terrorists are going to make bombs despite this venerable law. Who would have thought!
You need to get some better sources.

The earliest case was found at the start of December but it wasn't correctly identified till the end (they went back and tested existing patients).

It wasn't confirmed as being able to spread person to person until the 17th although there was some evidence that it should have been identified on the 11th. (So a delay of either 5 or 10 days rather than 2 months)

The doctor didn't raise public concern. He told a few friends and told them not to tell people. The official announcement was made the following day.

If you look at the timetable it is significantly better than the SARs response or the N1H1 response so we seem to be learning and making progress which is good.
Get me one too while you’re out there
Deus ex machina is unlikely. But we aren't even at the stage of admitting this is going to be anything other than a bad flu season, for sure not like the 1918 flu.

Fauci said today that if we don't get aggressive, the death toll will be many millions.
Very likely true re dark cases. China had at least a million positive cases of the virus.

China has 23 times the population of Italy, but only saw eight times the cases (eventually that will narrow even further). It's obviously absurd, especially given China moved slow to stop the spread in the early going. Every day that goes by we're getting confirmation that China lied aggressively about how extremely infectious the virus is, how easily it is spread, how large of a population it could infect and how quickly. That information would have helped the world a lot.

Italy's mortality rate is extreme right now, at 6.6%. Most likely they have a lot more cases than have tested positive thus far, probably at least two to three times as many are infected vs the official tally. I expect this will be a common theme almost everywhere, including in the US.
It's about the societal costs of denial vs. the risks of availability. Restricting gasoline to only certain individuals would cost millions to billions of dollars and would save us from a few fires a year. Restricting access to nuclear bombs costs almost nothing and saves huge risk.
Rather than calling out the troops, who after all are also humans who can spread disease, why not think about money the government could spend in less destructive ways? They could pass a law that allowed CDC to designate particular counties "at-risk" for particular periods. Any resident of such counties whose cell phone records document that she or he didn't leave her or his home for a whole week during the period could get paid say $1000 tax-free for that week. Sure, it wouldn't be 100% effective, but it would be more effective and probably cheaper in the long run than violent national guard police actions.
Core memory has temperature issues.
I use the AGPL myself, and over the decades become obvious both it and the GPL have a flaw: they don't define when their most contentious aspect (them being "viral"), is triggered, so most of the time it's a hope and a prayer. I have no doubt Stallman thought the term "derived work" was pretty clear at the time, but the amount of wriggle room it provides in the hands of the wrong people this could be devastating to business. (Think: Oracle trying to stretch the definition of copyright to cover API's.)

The occasional rare project does go out of its way to define the demarcation line. For example, the kernel's authors have made it very clear the demarcation line is the user space API, so anything that relies on it is not considered a derived work. I have no doubt that is one of the reasons you find the linux kernel everywhere. But even some top tier GNU projects have similarly clear lines: not only are programs complied with the GCC not considered derived works, programs that statically link the libraries needed by the GCC compiled code are not considered derived either. And so unsurprisingly, using the GCC is not considered dangerous, despite it being GPL.

Personally, I'd like to see an [A]GPLv4, that formally defines what is a "derivative work" is or at least provide a list of choices users could include. It could, for example, exclude programs that use output of another when that output is intended to be readable by humans, and it could exclude header files and similar things that define API's. Doing that would remove a lot of the uncertainty about when the GPL is "viral" and when it isn't. As it stands, Google's blanket ban seems like a reasonable response.
> But I honestly don't see how anyone wins with that outcome.

Then you presumably aren't aware of how abusive religious people can be towards atheists, and that includes in AA groups.
This is nice, but it's not $59 nicer than Inconsolata.

Expensive proprietary fonts are for graphic designers where the right font can pay for itself. It doesn't make sense for developers where Inconsolata is free everywhere, and Microsoft and has Consolas which is free as in beer. Apple has a very well received developer font as well, although I don't recall its name.

Can anyone justify this price tag for me? Devil's advocates accepted.
How expensive would 16 GiB of refress-less "4 nm" SRAM placed on the CPU package flip-chip style be?
Chemistry sets were emasculated right around 1970. I know because I got one of the good ones immediately prior. Had lots of fun making stink bombs, burning various chemicals just to see what would happen, dissolving things in acid, generating hydrogen gas, etc.

The ones after 1970 were like "hey, watch salt dissolve in water."
Yes, and the author is misinformed to think that Peloton can lose the customers who take their online classes to Apple free options. People take classes for the inspiration and guidance from the teachers. Before Apple there were plenty of free options so this isn’t new, fitness is and will continue to be a very competitive market.
Another benefit to the consumer of Apple offering a first party option is that the third party apps keep getting caught selling consumer data.

For instance, third party menstrual cycle tracking apps.

https://www.cnet.com/news/these-menstrual-tracking-apps-repo...
I think it is apples to apples, since as you say, the "why do you need this" question isn't relevant. Gasoline is easier to cause harm with and would be more readily accessible even if phosphorus were totally unregulated; regulating ownership of phosphorus nets a society nothing. It's as inane as banning switchblade knives when machetes, handguns, rifles, etc are all legal and available. Does anybody need a switchblade? No. But does banning them accomplish anything at all? I can't see how.

Phosphorus and gasoline even share the same potential for substance abuse. Just as you can make meth from phosphorus (apparently) you could huff gasoline. I wouldn't recommend either, but you could. Both can be used for arson, and both can be used as drugs. One you can buy anonymously in large quantities with cash in literally every neighborhood in the country.
As long as Apple makes great products, the truth is that people will support a monopoly. I always think of the Microsoft-IE antitrust debacle as karma for making a truly horrible product.
I wouldn't let that get in your way. Try it rather than let your preconceptions tell you "no."
Large-scale extreme response measures are a disaster waiting to happen.

1. 38% of nurses have children at school. Shutdown the country and 1/4 of the US healthcare industry will choose their children over work in a blink. We don't want to put any more pressure on the people working in healthcare.

2. 75% of US companies have now a disrupted supply chain. Yes the cons of outsourcing core economic functions like manufacturing drugs, hospital supplies etc... Mass mania followed by ongoing shopping sprees will set in further draining a crippled supply chain.

What we need more of is hygiene education (with strict fines) and detailed data about who, where and how they are affected by the virus. Being politically correct in a time where the world is at the brink of chaos is not going to save anyone. Sometimes hard debates need to be had and tight restrictions enforced. It's sort of like the Trolley problem.
> you cannot host your own global social network with millions of users, your own search engine with billions of web pages indexed, your own online shopping marketplace, not to mention your own online banking, insurance company, med lab result site, drivers' licensing site, government tax site

The key emphasis was on your data. You can't run your own Facebook clone, but you can run your own version of Google Docs that you use on your own data.

There is simply no licensing solution that could fix the software freedom problems of such services, so it's unsurprising that the AGPL doesn't help...
No need to unplug when a piece of tape or folded paper will do it. I'd be more worried about the microphone.

Unless maybe the requirement is to catch you looking elsewhere?
I think all social classes today would consider the term ratfucking obscene, and believe that using obscenities is inconsistent with a high standard of behaviour?

It's interesting to look at the older roots of the word and see links to social class there but I'm not using the term in that sense. The definition I referred to is a modern one from Mirriam Webster.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/classy
Isn't doing that doing something?
> I think the problem is that, much of the time, there's no way to know _if_ someone is planning on causing harm

In this case, the judgement was to decide if it's lawful to make a damp-firework's worth of explosives even if everyone agrees there's no harmful intent, or even any realistic capability to cause harm ("small amounts to produce insignificant detonations").

You can see this in the dissenting judges opinions, where they conclude that it's unlawful when only asking about "personal experimentation or own private education". There is no mention of balancing personal freedom against risks to greater society, or evaluation of whether it might be used for harm, or if the quantities produced could ever cause any real harm to anyone.

I find the quoted summary of the dissenting opinion strange:

> “to say that something is done for one’s own private education is not a sufficient object for the purposes of the section 4(1) defence, as it does not identify the use to which the explosives will be put in order to provide such education.

> “Similarly, personal experimentation is not a sufficient object for this purpose as, although it identifies in very general terms what is to be done with the explosives, it does not identify any purpose for so doing.”

Reading that, I can't help thinking that personal experimentation is what is to be done, and private education is the purpose for so doing.

But I'm not a judge, and that won't be the whole opinion.
Time yet to add support to encrypt memory transparently in the DRAM controller?
Where is 'here'?

And can you id some such events? I think the 'organizers' need to feel some pushback for their lack of responsibility.
Your local store vets products?
Regardless of a myriad of safety, insurance and licensing questions: how much more energy will it use (that will just add to climate change) than ground transportation?
AMD EPYC Rome Server Clusters for HPC Now Available
Yes! "databases" are all overrated too. Slow expensive pieces of shit. No way you could do 50 billion inserts from Python to SQL server on a single core in a day!

I'm so glad k isn't a "database" like that.
This is great!

I do think you have a formatting error. For me, all matrices appear on one row, like so:

> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

> The above matrix contains 9 elements arranged into 3 rows and 3 columns.

You also use / without defining what it does, in day 4.
bad news for the church of uckerland
Project Silverblue (Fedora + Project Atomic) is trying to move in that direction, I believe.
Twelve Dot One Factor Apps
What you wrote is basically Hans Rosling's "Factfulness" [1] and the other person wrote the rhetoric of 1984 or whatever. I guess we see what we want to see, and the news focuses on the negative. Consider, for example, computer security. You'd think with a recent RCE in Bluetooth and in Windows SMBv3 the world is insecure. Well, it was way worse 20 years ago, and even worse 30 years ago. Heck, barely anything used strong encryption back then. Everything was MITMable! But the news does not support that statement. Only if you look into the details (which does require some specific expertise, knowledge wise), you notice such. I also don't believe this to be a conspiracy; people are generally harmless, and good. Perhaps, in a case like this, we need to figure if there were clear harmful intentions. Same with USA's Espionage Act though.

[1] Full title: Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World--and Why Things Are Better Than You Think