skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> I understand why it costs this much. I don't understand why we think it is worth doing. Rather than fabricate a flying White House, why not deputize the vice president to carry out presidential duties while the president is in the air?

We have a national airborne command post, ultimately, in case the ground based command (the White House) is destroyed or under imminent threat requiring it to be (temporarily or permanently) abandoned. It's used for routine transport, and command and control while being used for routine transport, since it is desirable for it to be near the C-in-C at all times, and it doesn't make much sense not to use it.
To understand virtue and why it’s important to Stoics, you need to understand its little brother, sacrifice. Sacrifice is the act of doing something, with the expectation of something in return. Sacrifice is therefore transactional, and a form of deferred gratification.

- You study hard to get good grades.

- You show up at work on time to keep your job

Virtue is simply sacrifice without expectation of any reward or gratification. And since a reward (or gratification) is a form of external validation, something a true Stoic tries to avoid at any cost, virtue is the only option left.

- You study hard because being educated is important.

- You show up at work because it is important to be a productive member of society.
Typescript is relatively new, and I think a lot of those companies are still trying new things and experimenting with what works. I expect that we will see more refined content and books about TS-at-scale in the near future though.

However, for those looking for a great way to learn Typescript from a beginner's perspective I can fully recommend Execute Program[1].

[1]: https://www.executeprogram.com/
https://didtheyhelp.com/ maybe?
Double slit experiment. There's a lot out there detailing what happens but relatively few explanations go into why observing the state of a photon results in it "choosing" one slit over the other. I suspect many come away with the impression that it's magic despite there being a reasonably simple explanation for what's going on.
What's the point of defining summation methods for divergent series? Do they have any connections to any other area of mathematics or physics? Is analytic continuation of complex analysis relevant to these things? How about p-adics?
I don't mean to be too hard on Stress. They're good guys, we both had the best interests of the design at heart. Their manager paid me a great compliment by wanting me to join their team. But I liked design work too much.
Doubtful. Those mathematically optimal surfaces look like a complete nightmare to manufacture out of optical glass.
Add a clock on each baseball.

Turn "clock + baseball" into a light of increasing brightness.

That's what nature sees.

It's easier to speed up your clock so you get an extra second, move, and slow down your clock than just move.

Einstein did not differ between a mass's gravity and "wanting to move in a straight line unless acted on by another force."

Before Einstein, Planck proved an object needs energy before glowing the next color, from red to orange for instance. Einstein came along and said you have a start, you have an end, you have a particle.

The photoelectric effect requires photons of a minimal wavelength to produce a voltage in material. The photon sees the material all at once. No matter how many photons of a lesser energy you fire, no electricity until you hit that wavelength.

Not differing between gravity and inertia allows Einstein to talk in terms of photons instead of clocks changing.

Today our questions involve reality and locality. Do we transfer heat into everything at once? Or does heat go one way, and we can't trace it without smudging the trail.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

So my view of gravity is "something already exists". We got to account for it. If we want to generate something from nothing, we have to convince everything out there.

What stumps me:

Can we convince everything out there something exists? If so doesn't it just pop into existence if everything agrees something should exist there? What happens when we do? Does whatever pop into existence give us an accurate picture of everything out there?

If so, does everything that's out there just part of the material here? Galaxies precipitate in existence if we leave the Hubble on too long. They are only real when humans from Earth touch down on them.
This exists: https://www.nylas.com
This is the reason why ORMs and SQL generators typically quote all column names in statements.
Ask HN: What Book for JavaScript Beginners?
I am complete novice, to both programming and JavaScript. I do not know programming fundamentals, JavaScript basics, or any programming language. I only know HTML and CSS. I was looking for a physical book (paper) to learn JavaScript. I did a number of Google searches and read reviews but most books seem to presume that the reader knows at least the fundamentals of JavaScript and has some experience tinkering with it. Could you please list some books to learn JavaScript from the ground-up (starting with fundamentals), the book teaches from ground-up and assumes no previous knowledge on the reader's part except HTML and CSS? In addition, while I will practice writing JavaScript along with reading the book, the book, while starting with basics, should be packed with enough information so that I can build a cool web app by the end of reading it. with Furthermore, if possible could you link a webpage with a good list of books to learn JavaScript for a complete novice, to both programming and JavaScript, having never written code except HTML and CSS. If possible, the book should teach ES6. Please do not suggest Eloquent JavaScript and You Don't Know JS Yet by Kyle Simpson because I have already taken a look at it and it is a more 'intermediate' book in my opinion. The author himself notes - "If you are new to programming or JS, be aware that these books are not intended as a gentle "intro to JavaScript." This material is, at times, complex and challenging, and goes much deeper than is typical for a first-time learner. You're welcome here no matter what your background is, but these books are written assuming you're already comfortable with JS and have at least 6–9 months experience with it." . Thank you for your help!
I keep reading/hearing about the relationship between psychedelics and Silicon Valley, but I have yet to meet that many people in real life who work in the SV software industry and use psychedelics.

I'm a SWE who has spent over a decade at various large companies in SV.

I know one fellow SWE who has used it at Burning Man.

Several other SWEs gave me a neutral or negative reaction when I mentioned using psychedelics.

If there is a side of Silicon Valley that involves using psychedelics to enhance your work, it's either a lot smaller than the media makes it out to be, or I'm in the wrong place.
Regarding your edit, it was my typo. You write well, maybe you will be the next Bogost.

I read Bogost article (the Goose one) and I really liked it, that was the style I was looking for.I see he has published some books and many articles, so I will try to read more . Researching a little bit more about him, he has some weird positions, but classic for an academic (i.e "videogames cannot create good narrative") and so on.

> um I'm not sure what you're getting at here, that's not really my experience with games academia at all.

My problem is not with academics per se, just with academic writings. When you write an academic article you are constrained to a set of implicit rules, things like clearly show your "contribution" to the field with the paper, quote lots of relevant literature, not ruffle the feathers of other academics, especially those with perceived power over you, try to sell up the cultural significance of your article and so on and so forth.

An example is better I suppose:

> Liminality and the Smearing of War and Play in Battlefield 1
by Debra Ramsay
Abstract
This article interrogates how war and play are smeared together in Battlefield 1, the first AAA game set in World War I. It advances liminality as a conceptual framework that goes beyond the notion of hybridity (Giddings 2005, Keogh 2014) in addressing how videogames destabilise spatial and temporal relationships and facilitate play with the memory, history and cultural meanings associated with World War I. In contrast to the tendency in games studies to focus either on single-player or multiplayer, this article analyses form, content and player responses in both to answer the following questions:
What happens when the spaces and temporalities of two liminal phenomena merge in Battlefield 1? What affective intensities are generated in the play with cultural notions about WWI, and what emerges in the tensions between game form and historical content?

http://gamestudies.org/2001/articles/ramsay
It's accurate. QC is just linear algebra with complex numbers, plus probability extended to the complex domain. Why that's useful is something I'm still struggling with as well.
I think this goes against the basis of the scientific method. There is a reason why they say everything is a hypothesis and nothing is every proven. Anyone can propose an alternative model explaining something you call proven; you calling something proven does not inherently make that explanation correct.

This is not mutually exclusive with being against the attacks on science. Just because we shouldn't treat things as proven doesn't mean we can't come to a general consensus on a topic and act as if it was true. Climate change is real. Evolution is real. Don't inject yourself with bleach. Having a small number of quacks say 'its just a hypothesis and actually god is responsible for climate change and evolution' without any evidence doesn't change the general consensus and doesn't mean we have stop everything until we prove the negative.

Ultimate I think most of us agree in principle. Most of what we're discussing here is minor semantic differences in vocabulary.
Ah, letting scientists take the lead would explain why WA State shut down the Seattle Flu Study's efforts to pivot to investigate Covid-19.

https://komonews.com/news/coronavirus/seattle-flu-study-alle...
>What exactly does it mean that light moves as a wave or a particle?

One idea is known as the Copenhagen interpretation.

It basically says that the wave-like effects we associate with matter is merely a wave of probabilities. Or in terms of the double-slit experiment and in other words, light behaves like a particle, but the wave-like effects you see is just the result of probabilities where the particles end up. Dark areas are areas of low probability, and lighter areas high probability.

One might imagine the light particles streaming through the slit end up having slight variation in trajectory from one particle to another (for various reasons such as interference with other particles), which results in areas where most particles end up and others where few end up... representing a wave.
> In Spain

GP says. What you describe is very much an American phenomenon. At least I haven't heard anything similar happening in the rest of the world.
"The distance from brain to leg is too long, for example, to accurately control motion from "central command"

As a dancer, I have been fascinated by that fact. It means that dancers do not dance to the beat as they hear it - it takes too much time for the sound to be transformed by the ear/brain into an electrical pulse that reaches your leg. Instead, all dancers have a mental model of the music they dance to that is learnt by practice/repetition.

Dancing is just syncronizing that mental model to the actual rhythm that is heard. When I explained that to a bellydancer friend she finally understood the switch that she had made from being a beginning dancer to an experienced dancer who 'dances in their head'
I've done plenty of layman reading into QFT, and I'm truly good with this. All particles are really waves. There are no particles. There's self-interaction, and all other kinds of weird stuff. (it's important to qualify that stable orbits and molecules and stuff exist)

But for the duality, there's something bigger that the responses always seem to blow past. Is wave-like nature for explaining behavior (wavy double-slit intensity pattern), or is it something to have a mathematical mapping to measured probabilities?

Quantum stories always seem so backwards. The root phenomenon is some sort of irreducible probability. But then the mechanical part (inference in double-slit) goes a totally different direction. Instead of just turning the situation into a probability of one-or-the-other slit, it STAYS as a wave.

Okay, now you have a new hole in the story. If the photon refuses to choose just 1 slit to go through, why does it choose 1 spot on the photo paper to land on?

Why do we not still have to consider interference in outcomes after the photon makes its mark on the paper? Why does there appear to be like a limit on entanglement, such that it goes away beyond a certain scale? Why are quantum computers hard?
Thanks for sharing the video.
Very interesting.
If the whole thing is too long to watch suggest to start 17:30.

Here is my layman interpretation (disclaimer: I am not by any means knowledgeable in biology, and just wikepidyed most of the terms used):

1) our immune system has T cells that are responsible for
recognizing if an antigen is 'foreign' molecule/substance or something that's generated by our own body (self).

These types of T-cells are called 'Regulatory T-Cells' [1]

2) Cancers, as an example, trick these types of cells to think that the cancerous cells are 'self'

3) For these type of regulatory T-Cells (T-regs) to get activated, they
need 2 signals:

-a- signal that says -- here is a pathogen

-b- signal that says -- this pathogen is foreign (if not, immune system will not get activated).

Toll-like receptors help with -b-.

They work, in a way (this is my analogy, sorry if it is lame), like RegEx (regular expression), that have evolutionary encoded patterns that indicate the origin of a given antigen.
And that's the core of Ruslan Medzhitov's research

4)
So if we get the regex match of the antigen structure (which is being sliced 'prepped up' for the check, by slicing its proteins into peptides) -- the signal 2 is generated, and immune system will activate.

If the match did not happen -- no activation.

5) Another interesting thing, (or may be I misunderstood)
Is that those TReg cells, each do not have 'all the patterns'. Instead, our body generates, randomly, many of those cells, and each one just have one of those 'RegEx'.
So another key, is that our body has to, in parallel, so to speak, apply multiple of them to the foreign body. And so some of those TReg cells would never get activated (as they did not have the pattern to induce the -b- signal). But others, hopefully, would get the match and the -b- signal will happen, and immune system will get activated.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_T_cell
The title says "house" for a "family", and the pictured structure is not normally what people think when they hear that, being significantly smaller than even a typical townhouse. In particular, a "house" suggests something larger than a small apartment.

Obviously there's nothing wrong with an apartment or microhouse, but it makes the quoted rent less impressive.
I answered this here: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/287101/where-doe...

The basic answer is that the extra energy that goes to the rocket comes from harvesting the kinetic energy that the fuel itself had by virtue of being in the moving rocket.
Surface Reconstruction by Layer Peeling
As someone who’s been photographing for a few decades now, it looks like the recent iterations of lenses from the big brands are basically “perfect.” 70s and 80s lenses had tradeoffs... with today’s lenses from Canon/Nikon/Sony, those made in the last 5 years or so, the optical quality after digital correction is so high that for any non-extreme form of photography they can be considered perfect. And that goes from lenses like Canon’s 35 1.4 ($1800) down to their 10-18 ($250). The gearheads can natter online but the returns here are now nearly fully diminished.
That assumes all products are of equal value to all people. Which is clearly not true.

What makes this situation hard is that there are two problems:

1) Even if you make a good product, it is not reasonable to demand the world to just inform everyone about it on your behalf. Getting the word out takes effort. Money is the potential energy of human effort.

2) There is so much money to be made from various products that trillions of dollars are being spent getting the word out about various products. That makes it hard to rise above the baseline noise if you don't happen to start with large amounts of money.

As a result, I've seen many investment deals based entirely around "You have a good product. We have money. We'll put money into advertising your product in return for owning part of it."
That's unfortunate. Yes, I think it is clear too, but to so many it isn't that I have to figure out where is the truth? What circumstances cause what? Is it worthwhile to really avoid all psychonauts given the path they are on? For the ones with positive experiences on the total other side of the spectrum that take them into the spiritual mumbo jumbo, is this worth listening to? Is there a functional difference between the path the microdosers are taking and the ones that use 1000ug occassionally (ie. after smart people's 2.5 year stint at Google are they all on the path to a mental hospital?)

So many questions.

Where is the medical journal that says your conclusion "vast majority of mental health patients have a self-reported history of drug use of these specific drugs". I guess it can't exist because its crazy people self reporting a variety of substances that even the user would have no idea what was actually given to them.
Slightly offtopic of this discussion but I am wondering if you (or anyone) knows why Home Depot does not set up every single store the same, identical way? Sometimes stores are mirror images of each other and sometimes electrical is in the front and sometimes its in the back.

It seems so inefficient. I can sort of understand having the garden center on either side of the building depending on the lot but the inside of the store being different from location to location is baffling to me.

Wouldn't the entire ecosystem from people who stock shelves, to customers to store managers benefit from an identical layout in every store nationwide?

I'm picking on home depot here but the same question could be asked of any big box store.
Writing in Your Journal Is the Key to Finding Yourself
It looks like a competent and thoughtful implementation but, as best I can determine and not to take anything away from it, using an old design. The performance and scalability is throttled by the use of secondary indexing structures. You would have to use some pretty expensive hardware for the performance cliffs to not be immediately evident.

I don’t do a lot of work on graph databases these days, but I’ve seen state-of-the-art implementations do 10x this many inserts/sec/server on EC2 VMs where the local data model size was 100x the available RAM. And in principle these architectures could easily scale-out. Indexing structure and storage engine design figure prominently, both usually need to be built for the purpose.
Actually... yes, which just makes it worse that something about that presenter's style really rubs me the wrong way. Do they have their content in text format somewhere? Anyway, thanks!
To understand this, you should start by understanding the limit order book, which will give you a concrete model with which you can visualize the supply and demand.

In simple terms, when you want to buy 100 shares of a stock at no more than $4, you place a limit order into the exchange’s order book for that stock. Other buyers do the same, as do sellers. The order book is a sorted structure with the orders and their sizes on each side. It may look like this:

Sell 100 @ $7

Sell 300 @ $6

Sell 300 @ $5

Buy 100 @ $4 (your order)

Buy 200 @ $3

Buy 100 @ $2

Notice the gap between the highest buy (“bid”) and the lowest sell (“offer“ or “ask”). This is called the ”bid/ask spread.” Whether we’re talking stocks or eBay or a local outdoor market, buyers always want to pay less, sellers always want to earn more, and there is always a bid/ask spread.

If instead of sticking to your $4 limit, you said “forget it, I just want the stock” you would enter a market order instead of a limit order. In doing so you’d “cross the spread” and pay $5 per share. For a trade to happen, someone has to cross the spread.

If you entered a buy order with a limit of $100 in this example, you’d still buy at $5. If you ordered 400 shares at $100, you’d buy 300 at $5 and 100 at $6. The $5 offer would come out of the order book and the $6 offer would be reduced in size.

When you think of the market as all of this upward and downward price pressure focusing around a spread, you can see that the price the market values the stock at is conceptually the midpoint between the highest bid and the lowest offer, also known as the “mid.”

As prices change, the spread’s price level moves up and down, it narrows and widens, but the price you see always at least indirectly reflects that midpoint of price interest between all buyers and all sellers. There will always be intricacies in price reporting (based on the price feed, the price you see is the last trade made, the mid, or something more complex), but if you understand the order book, you’ll have the basic idea and can build from there.

If you’re really interested, you can google how and when the various exchanges calculate and report their prices, who they make them available to directly, what vendors provide raw and aggregate views of those prices, and more. There are many flavors varying from real-time tick-by-tick reporting to end of day feeds and more.

All of them ultimately begin with what you can now visualize as an order book.
Frame dragging. How does space know a body is rotating if the body is "smooth"?
Get Started with Vim
Layers: Molecular surface peeling algo and its apps to analyze protein structure
Your comment is funny. Have an upvote.
You can publish from any device that can load the WP web interface (or run an app built to talk to WP), instead of having to be at the one device that has the generator and the source files and everything else.

You don’t have to ever touch the command line or FTP or Git or anything technical like that. You can if you want to but nowadays it’s a one-click affair in the control panel of most hosting services. Who will also probably auto-install some cache and security plugins for you because this saves them a shit-ton of support tickets. Yes, YOU are comfortable with all this technical shit but most people are not.

WordPress has had auto-updates for years and years. You only have to manually intervene to upgrade it when they do a major version bump that may break things.

WordPress has a lot more themes available than any static site generator ever will.

WordPress has a ton of plugins to do stuff, some simple, some complex.
Layer peeling algorithm for reconstruction of long-period fibre gratings