skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Seems like an obvious time to invest in long distance passenger train infrastructure. Speaking for my self personally I would rather take a longer more comfortable train ride, then a plane ride anyway. Construction of train system would help the economy, emissions go down, less cars on the road. Everyone wins. This is another area the US is behind the rest of the world on.
What I can't wrap my head around: how is being packed with 100s of people inside of a plane a few times a year seen as more dangerous than being even more packed with even more people in the metro every day during commute? I feel like the risk of getting infected in public transport is undermined comparing to planes/hotels/restaurants.
Meanwhile, I know someone in his late thirties who died of a stroke from covid as we're starting to see a lot more of.
No matter what the topic, there seems to be no market for writing articles about minor changes or slight adjustments. The world is always ending, there is always an impossible deadline, and the worst possible projection is absolutely the most likely one. This state of affairs is a consequence of the usual culprit: advertising. Society/the media needs to develop a new business model, and fast.

In reality, airlines will probably have a tough year or two, airports will adopt some new health measures, and things will mostly continue as they were before.
You have a C program on your 404 page. That program should return either -1 or EXIT_FAILURE :)
There is online play for that, mainly at backstabbr.com.
Contrarian opinion. Air travel may actually get better for the first time in decades.

Ever since 9/11, there was a steady decline in comfort of regular passengers. Now airlines actually have to court those few remaining passengers. I fully expect to see of the room to come back ( even if it is with a fee ).
I haven't read the book, but do you know where the expected returns (the straight line you mention) come from?
I'm not an expert but I thought a large part of motion sickness comes from the fact that you perceive motion visually but there is no confirmation from the inner ear (as in real life these two sensory inputs work together to maintain your balance). The other way it's also true (sea sickness), where the inner ear registers motion (the ship bobbing due to waves), but you don't see that you are moving (doubly so if you are inside) so again there's conflicting sensory input.

I don't suffer from seasickness normally, but a few years back we had a knotted up anchor chain so I went in to service the winch and there was a bit of a swell outside. In about 30 minutes I was quite ill. Once I fixed the winch and went out it all dissipated quickly when I could see the sea & horizon moving again.
>"What pathetic nonsense. They feel threatened by western aggression. Stop with the propaganda bullshit. They aren't threatend by "democracy" and "personal liberty". They are threatened by people hiding behind "democracy" and "personal liberty" to attack and destabilize them."

The CCP is indeed existentially threatened by freedom and liberty because their absolute rule is predicted on its antithesis. Open your eyes, friend.
Well, perhaps flying should be unpleasant, given its negative externalities.
Possibly. it's an interesting point.

I'd say no, though. My experience so far has been that my government has had no problems repealing (to various degrees) things like health care, education/student loans, or public ownership of various things. From my limited knowledge this has been similar in much of the Western world, at least.
I played this with colleagues, with a move every lunch break. Not a good fit for every personality type on the team....
> I sometimes wonder if the people claiming to hate client-side technologies or disable JS in their browsers have actually ever had to build a complex website to put food on their table. My bet is the answer is often no, or they are a contrarian in general.

I have a 20 year history of building websites, and a recent three year stint of building front-end applications professionally using mostly React, which I'm now proficient in. I also normally use a strict whitelisting policy for Javascript using NoScript. If it's not a tool that depends on it that I really want to use, or if I find no obvious reason for it to be using Javascript, websites don't get added to the whitelist.

Javascript, as far as I'm concerned, is a wide open vector for an ongoing large scale attack on my privacy. Not only that, but I also have to pay for it in battery life and memory. The occasional blog built in React without a static fallback will usually go unread on my end, and no one is losing sleep over it.

I also think that you are fundamentally missing the point of the article if you your experiences building native applications vs building web applications is supposed to offer a counterargument. It's a false dichotomy in this case; the blog was never a native desktop app. The marketing site was never a native desktop app. They're collections of documents and I have no idea how anyone could come to believe that arranging that using a framework designed to facilitate reactive web applications is easier than just delivering the documents using technology designed to do so.
Moreover it appears that at least some of those pieces have been put there deliberately.

And at the same time none of this is obvious for anyone who's not "in the know".
With 80% of an average finnish paycheck, you can live a really great life in one of the southern or eastern european countries, with a car and tools too.

> But the biggest benefit of ubi imo is that if you want to spend your time, say, building a new product or clearing your mind in order to be more productive in the future, you will have that option. Tho I do see a lot of people just sitting around doing nothing, and ubi leading to inflation.

How many "normal" people, above 40, with minimal education, currently packing meat, cleaning the streets, or picking up produce will spend that time to build a new product? You and your 'startup buddies'.. maybe. Most, not.

> Imo the best way to implement ubi is by automating as much as possible, to increase productivity
> If a robot makes 10 times more shoes, then taxing that bot the equivalent of 5 full time workers is fair.

But we're already doing this.... a washing machine cost a couple of paychecks here (former yugoslavia), and now i can buy one for less than 20% of an average paycheck (not yugoslavia anymore, but i haven't moved). If we tax the automation "difference", then we have to go back to old, pre-automation prices.

How much profit does VOX make on this: https://www.mimovrste.com/pralni-stroji/vox-wm-1051-pralni-s... 221.90EUR washing machine? 22% of that is VAT, a part of the price pays for "free" transport to the home, then the seller has to earn something, import duties, transport from china(?) to slovenia, manufacturing, raw materials, testing, development + 5 year guarantee (anything happens, a technician comes to your home to fix it... just the cost of that is probably more than the whole washing machine profit). + all other cost (loss, items destroyed in transport, returns, etc. I don't see a lot of profit for the manufacturer here... and and tax would just be moved onto the consumer who'd have to pay a higher price (so they'd need higher UBI, higher tax, higher price,...).
Yep, that combined with an orphaned DNS record
This was not what bothered me. I needed to see how this puzzle does not contradict my intuition that if i flip a coin to choose between two last doors i do get 1/2 chance of winning whatever are the chances for each door. So with 1000 doors: (1/1000)/2 + (999/1000)/2 = 1/2 chance of winning. And in general (A+B)/2 = 1/2 if A+B=1.
SOLID design principles in C++: Open Closed Principle
In high-level play the countries are essentially equal because high-level players adapt to compensate - powerful countries are early targets. Doesn't mean the advantages don't exist.
First things first: lol.

After that: at this point it's easier to pay a random person to follow you and steal your whole bag/backpack and wallet and make it look like the usual theft.

Or just break into your house/office or whatever.
> - how much of the burden of writing the proof falls on me, and how much falls to the compiler?

The compiler in Idris can do some magic, but usually the burden is mostly on you to write proofs. Idris (and similar languages) have assistance in editors to help you automatically write code and proofs.

> What are the full range of things I can express?

Dependent types as present in Idris, Coq, Agda, etc. can serve as a foundation for mathematics, so… pretty much anything!

For your example, most such languages don't have quotient types, so you'll still need to use setoids or similar to model quotients.

> - how huch more effort falls to me when structuring my code, in order to pass the properties or proofs through?

It's pretty much the same situation as Haskell or Rust, but I think having to write fromJust / unwrap is great. It tells you when you're reading the code exactly what assumption has been made, and it doesn't seem awfully burdensome.

> yet for programming I have to front-load all this complexity to express something so utterly trivial.

What's "all this complexity" that you're referring to?
Theoretically, drawio can be used from command line too! (it involves puppeteer though)
Does library-support-wise (well, software-wise). Trying to find a developer with phpbb experience now, would be a totally different story.
Synthspace recreates the physical presence of a modular synth in VR
Firstly, please let's drop the hostility. I'm not here to win arguments or score points. I engage in these discussions to test my understanding of the topic and further develop my knowledge, and to share my perspective with others who are open to it.

In response to your comment:

> You decried those examples as handwavy

To clarify, I didn't say the examples were handwavy; I pointed out the crucial distinction between disorders specifically attributable to specific gene defects (like Huntington's and cystic fibrosis), vs. conditions that arise through the interaction between positively-selected genes and environmental triggers. It's a category error.

What I referred to as "handwavy" was the sentence "There's lots of obvious bad stuff floating around in our genomes" - specifically the phrase "lots of obvious bad stuff".

I was calling this out as an unexamined assumption, rather than a the simple incontrovertible fact that it was presented as.

> and pointed out that moreover this ground had already been covered in the article and that the article concurred with those examples

But the article doesn't concur with those examples.

The commenter listed illnesses caused by specific-gene defects, and the passage you quoted names several psychiatric conditions that are known to not be caused directly by specific-gene defects. Again, a category error.

> Your reply to me misses the point that I was making and argues against a point I wasn't making – which strikingly is the very thing that prompted me to counter your top-level post.

You seem to have read my top comment as directly critiquing the article itself, rather than the approach that has dominated the field (along with the rest of medicine) for decades. (Fair enough that you read it that way.)

I acknowledged to you that the article conveys that some researchers are rethinking the approach, but I don't see evidence of enough of a rethink.

Most importantly, they're still looking at things mechanistically; studying brain structure, going deeper trying to find particular genetic "causes" (after the many years of looking at genes have yielded little useful insight), and proposing some mysterious "p factor" and asserting: "if it is real, it has a startling implication: there could be a single therapeutic target for psychiatric disorders". That's what I mean by the "mechanistic lens".

The core position I'm arguing against, which is presented in the article and by several commenters, is that mental "illness" is likely caused by "bad" genes or biological processes "going wrong". My position is that we should generally assume that the genes are meant to be there, and focus on what in the person's life is causing the genes or biological systems to express in an undesirable way (which is what the practitioners I've named have been doing for years/decades with great success).

I've expressed my position at length in other comments. At the time of writing, the position I've articulated in detail hasn't been refuted. I'd welcome anyone to do so, so I can learn more about the topic.
Pretty cool! Is this how Kemper amplifiers work when they do a capture?
People do dumb things with SQL, but depending on the query/set of columns, 2k is a pretty quick line count to reach.
Just dont use select *, have a wide table, do more than a few trivial operations moving data around, and you'll get to 2k pretty quick.

That being said, people do dumb stuff with SQL all the time;
The worst query I have ever seen was 11MB, megabytes.
The worst query plan I have ever seen generated a plan that was ~130MB.
I regularly have people ask questions in #sqlhelp (https://sqlps.io/slack/ SQL Server focused) like "Why can I only have 2100 parameters to a stored procedure?" (dude was super mad that I asked if his design might use some rework.)
Show HN: Color2k – smallest color manipulation lib, 3x smaller than tinycolor2
As someone who has an Australian friend, the avoidance of that word is definitely not universal.
> Carnival is reporting 200% surge in bookings over August 2019.

These are optimistic bookings to take advantage of sales. Booking a cruise doesn't mean they're going on a cruise on that date.

Travel companies have gone all-in on deals and flexible rescheduling to keep money coming in the door. They offer deals to book now with the explanation that you can rebook at a later date. The catch is that you have to book now, and August is among the first dates that they allow you to book.

In fact, the article you linked to buries that point in the very last line:

> Of course, the fact that you can also book a Carnival Cruise for as low as $28 a night might have something to do with the high number of August bookings, too.
> I frankly don't get where the misunderstanding is. If you take 1000 deaths and spread them across a 6months or a year instead of 2weeks, no lives have been "saved".

That is not the effect of a lockdown. There is your misunderstanding. The proof is in the linked article (or data for Hong Kong, Korea, Taiwan, Hawaii, all of whom also contained the virus before reaching herd immunity).
Thank you, it is easy to understand when explained like that! Maybe there could be a programming language where these concepts were used but slightly more explicitly, verbosely or in general easier to read fashion. A lot of successful languages are big on ergonomics or low barriers for entry.
Yes, god forbid if anyone tries to post something that needs some kind of knowledge!
The Power of Prolog [video]
Java's bytecode is also more information dense than assembly is. Even if you only support a single architecture, a pure-Java Android app is going to almost certainly be smaller than a pure-C one, and by non-trivial amounts.

If you start adding things like the Kotlin standardy library or Jetpack libraries or whatever then yes size balloons. But so too will the C app's size as its feature set expands to match.

For example if this framework supported text[1] its size would explode as it grew ICU, FreeType, etc... dependencies, which are "huge."

1: yes there is a CNFGDrawText function but it uses a static map ( https://github.com/cntools/rawdraw/blob/a2a9f3c88b5caf92ef3c... ) which I'm pretty sure is ASCII only, and obviously doesn't support fonts. Or internationalization of any kind. And similarly for text layout it only "works" because it's always monospace with a known "font" ( https://github.com/cntools/rawdraw/blob/a2a9f3c88b5caf92ef3c... )
It may benefit negligibly from optimization -- or rather, the overall program may benefit negligibly from optimizing that code site -- but it's still gotta be executed a lot more frequently than it is compiled right? Unless it has only one or two users, who both compile it all the time, or something.
If we had enough power though we could do away with the performance hacks and just use one 'correct' way to draw the scene. This combined with accurate representations of materials would make building scenes easier and result in more coherent worlds.
> Some people were held on cruise ships for a month or more weren’t they?

Depends on when you start counting, but yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_on_Diamond_P...
DDR4 DRAM draws about 1.5W per 4GB, regardless of chip counts.
One-Click User Authentication Flow
If you want more detailed models and more complicated scenes, you should really look into raytracing.

The problem with raytracing is that it mostly depends on your resolution, not on your scene. Right now, we're just on the edge of being able to do raytracing at practical resolutions in realtime. But once that's possible, the rest is basically free. Rendering 10M polygons is almost as fast as rendering 1K polygons.

And writing a path tracer isn't that hard - most of the math is quite trivial. You get all the magic shadow / reflection / caustic / lighting stuff for free.
We're getting quite close to being able to do movie-level graphics on consumer machines in realtime, and all that without any of the tricks required for okay-ish looking rasterizer shading.
Best of all, it's even easier to work with for artists as well!
I get the appeal of UBI, more self determination, personal fulfilment etc.

Whenever I hear the arguments for UBI, the arguments for personal fulfilment are usually predominant and financial aspects are usually left out. I'm always interested in "how to pay for all this?", which proponents of UBI often classify as a conservative talking point, but that is clearly not the case.

Another point I usually bring up is "how much is necessary to achieve that? and why?" is $1000 each month enough and how should this be adapted over time.

My biggest concern with UBI and I haven't heard a convincing answer to it yet, how to prevent the baseline from being moved permanently and eating up all the additional income. If you make low income jobs less attractive, employers must pay more to keep their employees so they have to raise prices accordingly or go bust. So how to avoid that UBI is not just massive inflation in the long run.
I really wish as consumers we could just pay the actual cost for air travel, rather than it being hid in smoke through all sorts of subsidies.
I think this is overly optimistic. I used to fly regularly and I have no intention of getting on a plane anytime in the next couple years. Maybe we will take a road trip in a year or two, but the idea of getting in a plane is completely out of the question for the foreseeable future.
Do you also wear tinfoil hats?
It was a common technique on the Atari VCS (2600), generally called interlacing. On the VCS it may be a bit more straight forward, as you have to write the entire kernel (the code for rendering a video frame) anyway, hence assigning alternating pointers for sprites in between frames doesn't result in much of an overhead or specialized code.
One possibility, historians say, is that the coronavirus pandemic could end socially before it ends medically. People may grow so tired of the restrictions that they declare the pandemic over, even as the virus continues to smolder in the population and before a vaccine or effective treatment is found.
This argument came across as pretty silly to me. It seems like he's being hyperbolic to make a point, which is unfortunate because I actually agree that our industry needs to be more responsible for the consequences of our code.

To argue against the headline explicitly: coding is not inherently complex, either technically or ethically. You can code an app or game in a browser in the next couple of hours, mostly by copying and pasting internet examples.

The technical complexity arrives gradually as either the novelty or the scope of the program increases. If the program is heavily used, technical complexity is almost inevitable.

The ethical complexity, however, may never appear. It tends to be tied to promises made about what the program is suitable for. Zoom is a great example. It's not at all unethical to build an unencrypted video chat service, as long as you're clear about that. It is very unethical to build one if you've promised end-to-end encryption.

> "Coding isn’t the only job that demands intense focus. But you’d never hear someone say that brain surgery is ‘fun’, or that structural engineering is ‘easy’. When it comes to programming, why do policymakers and technologists pretend otherwise?"

Comparing programming to brain surgery or structural engineering is nonsense. You cannot professionally practice either surgery or structural engineering without the opportunity to kill someone.

You can easily be a programmer for your whole career without building anything that has life-or-death implications.

And then consider your first program: it might be really fun to write it quickly and naively. You might even write it in the first few minutes you're learning to program.

But your first brain surgery or structural engineering project is going to be years after your begin learning the skill. Not at all comparable to programming.

> "Insisting on the glamour and fun of coding is the wrong way to acquaint kids with computer science. It insults their intelligence and plants the pernicious notion in their heads that you don’t need discipline in order to progress."

This is where I realized the author probably has no programming experience. His LinkedIn profile seems to bear this out[1].

Showing kids that something is fun is a great way to acquaint them with it, whether it be computer science, brain surgery, or structural engineering. Obviously they can just jump right in to programming, but it would make sense to get a kid started on the path to medicine or engineering using basic, fun, educational exercises.

1. https://www.linkedin.com/in/waltervannini/
> to not be worth a context shift

who says Twitter/HN doesnt constitute a context switch? In my experience, though very boring, sitting and waiting for the tests to pass is much more productive than even the slightest diversions. I believe this is due to focus and memory.
Porn Has a Lot to Teach Us About Safety
Agreed. I’ve always found it rude and demeaning.
If you provide something that the society wants, they're willing to pay for it. If you make good beer, people will buy it, if you make good music, people will pay for tickets to listen to your shows, if you make great art, people will buy it,...

Tax revenue is just a percentage of the income you make.

Is your work/activity/service really worth anything, if noone is willing to pay for it?
Spotting Red Flags with Clients