skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There was a planet money episode about this too: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/03/22/705914833/epis...
Yeah, I mean, who needs kidneys anyways #deleteFB
In all actuality, it’s probably Fox News. They’re one of the few remaining “big” newsrooms with a heavy conservative bias. Nothing wrong with that, but when people take what them and Trump say as doctrine, well, that’s a problem.
It will be raw bytes, format depending on what mode you're in. Usually 32bpp. Expect RGBA, but it might be ABGR or anything else. But you'll be able to figure it out quickly enough. Older hardware or weird modes might be more or less (16/24 bpp modes from the past, or maybe 10/10/10/2 for HDR out? I've never looked into that), but as it will be uncompressed it won't be much work to figure out.
A lot of people, sooner or later, discover that the margins on morality are shockingly poor. They make their own choices from there.
Yeah, after one of those, hundreds and sometimes thousands of people die.
There needs to be a distinction here between SCOTUS rulings on constitutional issues versus rulings based on statute.

Many if not most of the decisions that the Supreme Court hands down could be changed by the legislature. These are based on interpreting statute. For example, recently the court unanimously overturned the conviction of two New Jersey officials who were involved in a scandal involving shutting down an interstate bridge for political revenge. The majority opinion, that again was unanimously agreed to, went out of its way to say that their acts were reprehensible. But the statute that was used to charge them didn’t cover their acts. This is something that can be changed by the legislature easily and there’s no issue at all.

The issue comes with the constitutional ones. These get the most press and tend to be the ones that are most controversial. But the alternatives aren’t much better. Besides the historic reasons for SCOTUS supremacy in this area starting with Marbury v. Madison, there are legitimate concerns with having the interpretation of your constitution being subject to the whims of the most recently elected body.

Of course, this has led to the current nightmare where Supreme Court seats are hotly divisive contests to be won. Changing the makeup of the court is a battlefield and for the life of me I cannot see a way to fix that. Changing the number of justices or setting term limits will be seen as court packing by whichever party attempts it. It might result in open rebellion. Things are very fragile here and we are teetering on the edge.
And the worst thing is that despite this surcharge they still can't manage to be profitable.
Congress has the power to enact new laws to replace rulings they fundamentally disagree with. It feels like the only difference is what happens when the legislature is too divided to do anything.
How to Nab Unethical Hotlinkers?
Radaris.com is one of those scummy personal information aggregators. It shows up in searches for my name with the image from my public Google profile. I was going to hit them with a DMCA takedown request but I noticed they're hotlinking to my profile pic and to other peoples' Facebook profile pics. I'd think Google and Facebook would want to block them and I'd love to see that happen.

Does anyone know how to go about notifying Google or Facebook or have any connections to make this happen?
Yep. And there are no more "checks and balances" because POTUS stacks the SCOTUS, and POTUS and SOTUS work hand-in-glove. The last remaining hold-out is HOROTUS, but that can flip any session.

Even so, D and R are both beholden to the American aristocratic wealth class for support, legitimacy, and power, so there is effectively no difference beyond a few, token, mild progressives in D who don't hold sway over the majority of neoliberals.
dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23397915
> are very good at criticizing things [but] not as good at proposing clear and workable solutions

This is definitely true, but not actually surprising. It's much easier to notice that, say, a violin performance or plumbing repair is done very badly, than it is to actually do it correctly yourself.

Which also leads to a great deal of exasperation when people (either apparently or actually) don't even notice that what they're doing is insecure. There's a big difference between "yeah, it's broken, but it'd be a huge pain to fix and we'd probably get it wrong anyway, so we'd rather take our chances" versus "there is no problem".
in conjunction with a bankruptcy-driven reorganization.
And which of those groups votes?
Glock 43
> ... and who didn't anticipate the development of the two-party system ...

Actually they did. The Federalist papers contained some strong warnings that we must strive to prevent factions / parties from taking over. They were painfully aware it was a potential failure mode in the system they were designing.
It's wrong to call it "malware". They should say it's unknown and you shouldn't install it unless you're certain about the creator.
Indeed. I can't count the number of times I was trying to pick a restaurant and bypassed because they either didn't have an online menu at all or wanted me to start an online order before showing it to me.
AES which is the encryption standard for asymmetric crypto and used everywhere (including by the gubment) was designed by the NSA. So what's your point?
Linux Sucks 2020 [video]
> The redirect number can also appear higher in Google search results (including the Google panel for that business) than the restaurant’s own line.

This seems like a pretty fundamental failure on Google's part. The whole value proposition of Google is that they'll find you the best answer for you search, not just 'an' answer that could be misinformation. This is the problem with the way their ranking algorithms tend to favor information aggregators. It's easy for second-hand sites to out-rank the source of truth. It reminds me of the way Pinterest has degraded the Google image search experience by polluting the results with their own low-quality entries.

Now I get that automating the gathering of this information must not be easy. How do you verify the legitimacy of any one page claiming to be the site for a restaurant? What I don't understand is how Google can see that sites like Grubhub are exploiting the ranking algorithm to re-route users, but they don't do anything about it. Why don't they penalize those sites?
> Populism has always, from day one, all the way back in Ancient Greece, been a threat to democracy.

In Plato's republic democracy is a result of populism and is seen as one of the lowest forms of government.
Matrix mitigates the threat of a hub & spoke model by not being hub & spoke (particularly in P2P!) :)

> I am not sure that spanning trees or gossip protocols solve the problem I'm describing, but, if they do, I'd appreciate if you could elucidate further.

Perhaps the confusion here is the expression "hub and spoke" which sounds to me like a static centralised star topology routing model.

My point is that if you have 1M nodes trying to share data (e.g. follow a celebrity's personal pubsub topic), you clearly need a smarter routing algorithm than full mesh (where the celeb's node would have to do 1M parallel pokes to send its messages). You're completely right that one solution is a hub-and-spoke model (where the celeb's node would poke a big centralised hub somewhere, which would then relay the poke out to 1M followers on spokes) - but as you point out, the hub becomes a centralised chokepoint of failure/control/privacy-violation etc.

So, the main other options I'm aware of are either to arrange your 1M nodes into a spanning tree (or overlapping spanning trees) of some kind, as Yggdrasil does (their current one looks like https://yggdrasil-map.cwinfo.org/#, although only ~300 nodes are live atm)... or you let the nodes self-organise into some kind of hierarchy based on gossiping and fan out the messages that way (as per https://blog.ipfs.io/2020-05-20-gossipsub-v1.1, and some of the experimental routing stuff we've been doing with Matrix).
It has seemed much better but anecdotally I was just about to talk to my friend about how much better Matrix had been in the last few weeks and....

Unusuable between 14:20 and 14:28pst today :)

Is there a public ops page for those perf numbers?

-thanks for fixing e2e, cross signing was huge improvement
my greyman/lil'basterd kit
<--
Well, thanks to social media, we can now see the message that greets a looter powering up their new device: “This device has been disabled and is being tracked,” it says. “Local authorities will be alerted.”

-->

This is scary. Especially from a company that prides itself on individuals' privacy. I know that Apple needs to defend itself but if this type of tracking can be turned-on on thieves, who is to say that they won't turn it on anyone they wish to follow for whatever reason.
Shamir's Secret Sharing algorithm [1]. 4 people have shares, with 2 shares required to reconstruct the key.

How the 4 shareholders store their shares is up to them. Mine is in a secure note in 1Password.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamir%27s_Secret_Sharing
It's definitely not the primary role. It's principally a consequence of stare decisis. And even though stare decisis is the defining characteristic of the common law, in actuality many other jurisdictions apply the principle, including in Europe, just without formalizing it. The promotion of consistency is a nearly universal characteristic of all human legal systems, and stare decisis is consistency reified.
[1]

In terms of the exercise of de facto law making powers the United States is somewhat of an outlier owing to the fact it was one of the first to explore how to apply the principles of 1) separation of powers and 2) to do so in the context of a Federal system. Also, the concept of Parliamentary Supremacy solidified in England after the American colonial legal system had begun to evolve on its own. So for these reasons it's unsurprising we ended up diverging from England, and that other former British colonies didn't end up with lawmaking powers quite as extensive as in the U.S. Similarly, it's unsurprising that the evolution of European Union legal rules arguably mirror much of what happened in the U.S.--de facto application of stare decisis, de facto judicial review powers of top EU courts, etc.

[1] Here's an interesting 1988 law review article that includes an exploration of the legal system of revolutionary France: "Tort Liability in France for the Act of Things: A
Study of Judicial Lawmaking", https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic... The French so despised the practice of judicial lawmaking that they made it a criminal offense for judges to disambiguate the law, mandating that courts instead refer any legislative ambiguities to the Congress for interpretation. Guess how often that happened. So if you start from the premise that an intrinsic function of the courts is disambiguation, and combine it with the principle of consistent application of the law, guess where you end up. See also "Why Europe Rejected American
Judicial Review
and Why It May Not Matter", https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...
Never-before-seen “black nitrogen” plugs puzzle in periodic table
Those aren't the restaurants paying a fee. Non-partner restaurants are going to get full menu price.
The barricade was put by the protestors in front of them, and they were apparently responding to a call.

Yes, they should have backed up. My point is that they were attacked first, nothing else. It was kind of a play stupid games scenario - if you do that to someone chances are they’re going to freak out and at best be unpredictable.
Good luck with how subjective “violent oppression” would be used. The Nazis would claim that
There is no reason the US government couldn't function in this manner in principle, but the lawmaking process is deliberately glacial and easy to disrupt. It is fairly difficult to repeal or modernize lawns in general, it's not a feature unique to court decisions. The SCOTUS usually rules on issues of federal law, which requires the majority of the House, 60% of the Senate, and either the President or sizable majorities of the other two to be on board with revising. When SCOTUS rules on constitutional law the bar is absurdly high, 75% of states. In niche scenarios as little as 2% of the population of the country can block a constitutional amendment.

https://lawliberty.org/scalia-and-ginsburg-on-constitutional...
Aside from the official docs and wikis, I find the nixpkgs repository[1] extremely useful as a reference and is definitely one of the things that make me love Nix. It helped me a lot to get started.

Any official package from Nix belongs to this single repository, making it easy to see what other packages are doing. If I want to see how python packaging is done, I simply search "python" in the nixpkgs repository.

It's also easier to grasp what is going on in nixpkgs than other packaging systems. The Nix expression language offers better readability than say, RPM spec files. Meanwhile the nixpkgs repository includes support for numerous build systems and frameworks. This combined allows you to create packages with minimal effort most of the time.

[1]: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs
Respectful? Most definitely not. He chose one of the most provocative ways he could.
Credit Card Companies Expanding Options for Cash-Back Reward Programs
Jesus, never thought I’d live long enough to see Ehrlichman reputation astroturfers.
>and the ruling directs how the government implements the law for the next 50 years.

The legislature and executive could pass a new law the same day as the ruling (well, maybe not if the new law required a constitutional amendment) if they really needed to and there was sufficient political will. In practice what you see is that the judicial branch only weighs in on controversial issues where there tends to be a pretty even split so it takes a long time for things to change enough for side to build the political will to get law passed to overturn the judicial precedent.
https://vincent.bernat.ch/en/blog/2019-pragmatic-debian-pack...
The "problem" is that it doesn't "scale" and there is not much opportunity for "growth" and "engagement", so VC scum will never do something legitimate like this and will instead attempt fraudulent practices like impersonating the restaurant's website and outranking them.
It's why we're perpetually bewildered when one of the Bush family goes into a foreign country to "liberate" it and find that democracy is not the same thing as fealty to America.
Don’t know where you got ‘riots all over the world’ from, Mr Throwaway? And you seem to be saying that ‘prior convictions’ excuse this appalling act? Again - for shame.
Their point is that judges sometimes rule on cases beyond what the law explicitly states. Gay marriage was one such case. Abortion another. I would argue the Eminent Domain (for private construction, to eliminate blight) ruling from a few years ago was also another example of judges ruling beyond the law.

Their rulings create de facto laws or regulations many times beyond the letter of the law. I don't think it's right but whether you agree with the Supreme Court's position is often dependent on your political leaning in that particular case, even if the ruling does go against the letter of the law.
ok true they did a reunion show as Celestial (had tickets to it even), but iirc they didn’t change their name up to that point.
Or a Justice Bork, for that matter.
A double spend is generally what people mean by "rewriting history".

A 51% attack only lets people steal money by taking back recent transactions and sending them elsewhere. Transactions that have been received a long time ago are generally safe. (An attacker can reach further back in time if they run the 51% attack longer or with even more hashpower.)
The issue is, when its the police who determine whether someone is acting correctly, it's trivial for them to do this, as they can just rule that they were right and the protesters were wrong. The video from the Seattle protest yesterday was a great example of this. Fuck the police.
From briefly looking through the results and the survey design, I have some practical concerns with the design of the candidate choice survey part of the study as they relate to the “party over democracy” conclusion, specifically, the fact that there were no "pro-democratic" candidate positions, only "undemocratic" and "generic". This lets the voter faced with a choice between an undemocratic candidate and a candidate who has nothing to say on the "democracy" issues project the undemocratic positions onto the "generic" candidate. This seems especially problematic because anti-electoral fairness positions and rule by executive order, widely used in America by both parties, make up half of the undemocratic positions used. For many Americans these seem to be intractable issues because (1) these abuses are already widespread, and (2) almost no political candidates, aside from more fringe single-issue ones, run on ending them or can be expected to do anything to oppose or end them if perpetrated by their own party. So to me it seems perfectly reasonable to vote for a candidate of who explicitly supports gerrymandering and rule by executive order over a candidate less aligned with you on other policy issues who has nothing to say about them. Chances are, the other guy supports those things too. Am I missing some part of the study that accounts for this?
I mean, India is more democratic. And there's more than two viable parties.
The largest list of free arabic programming resources
They also forgot to mention a huge one - supports suppressing the political speech of your opponents. Both parties are guilty of this, but the Left is outright determined to regulate speech, shut down the sharing of information they consider dangerous, or deem hateful.

Also the paper might want to examine the executive branch leaders of each party to see who actually, consistently legislates or attempts to legislate through executive order (hint, it isn't Republicans).
AT&T has a partnership with HBO. I get HBO for “free” as part of my phone bill. So by nature of that relationship they need to have a fat trunk to HBO’s content.
They'd get McDonald's.com fast enough to make your head spin, and I'd be pushed out of that business.

If McDonald's were a mom & pop restaurant and you were a multi-billion dollar, VC-backed startup, then you can be sure McDonald's would not be able to do this so easily.

That's the difference.
The Founders deeply distrusted democracy, but loved big government. That's why they built the ability in for constituent governing bodies to construct and maintain a state apparatus for the totalitarian control of a mass slave population. Moreover, they built into the Constitution the ability for the federal government to assist in the operation of that apparatus.
The statistics show a rapid decline in police violence and do not support a racial bias in violence
Thanks for the info, though I would have imagined that the government, which already has a trust deficit, might have mentioned this somewhere.
Hasn't it always been like that? It took like fifteen years of sustained investigation just to identify DNA as the substrate of genetic transmission in bacteria. We've come a long way since then, but isn't it a bit much to expect that we'd already have effective, automated, catholic simulations of cellular biology?
There's still no need to aim for close range headshots like this and many other incidents https://i.imgur.com/medV8y6.gifv
Is there any direct democracy in the world? Maybe Swiss cantons? The default is a constitutional representative democracy. It's sort of a non-clarification because that's exactly what everyone is talking about when they say democracy.

He's absolutely correct that American courts are, in actuality, through the precedent system and novel interpretation of law around cases, a defacto legislative body. They're sort of like a House of Lords. Examples are Schenk v US and Roe v Wade.

Overall, I think this has been effective in practice in the US, but it isn't quite in the spirit of the judiciary as you describe it.
So they can charge you if you never pick your food and they have to throw it out.
Understanding Shapes in PyTorch
Opening:

"Whether we like it or not, but Java is one of the most widely used programming languages. However, since most of the applications in Java are either too boring or too complex - not every Java developer has enough curiosity to look under the hood and see how JVM works."

I don't think the author contradicted what you just said. I guess you may be confused by the "whether we like it or not" part? I feel like the author is commenting on Java the language (vs the JVM).
I think you are both correct. Judges are not lawmakers but they sometimes come up with completely new interpretations of a law like for example Obergefell v Hodges, or Roe v Wade or citizens united etc. The current Qi is also a Supreme Court construct that has deep practical implications but is not reflected in law.

I think one of the issues is that it is almost impossible to pass any controversial law in the US today, so it is hard for congress to come up with laws when judiciary changes interpretations.

This is also why we have presidential orders.
This is a great service also:

https://www.eatnyc.org/
haha surveillance state go brrrr
They can't both lack permission and charge a single business. If they're charging, they have permission (though possibly the contract was misleading). If they don't have permission, they have no ability to charge.
Actually, it absolutely is the best deterrence.

Numerical advantage of firearms means the first person to shoot downright loses. Both sides will do everything they can to not be the aggressor.

When you have disparity in ability to apply force vs ability to weather the response, that's when the violence actually happens. Nobody comes looking for a fair fight. Therefore you never find them when the stakes areas high as they are.
The problem is that the claim that nothing is as cheap as proof of work as made in that article is only applicable if you think cryptocurrencies have value in a way that is comparable to tangible goods in reality, like the electricity they burn to have proof of work.

I don’t. Your “lost interest“ on a currency that has nothing beyond speculative value is literally worthless to me. The increased energy production and subsequent pollution that proof of work costs, however, has a real value and does real damage to the environment.

Proof of work currencies need to be shut down, for environmental impact reasons if nothing else. You keep playing with your speculative assets all you want. I don’t subscribe to the idea but it doesn’t bother me, until you start damaging the real world with it. Then I have to insist you stop.
So the only case where you think it's a step too far is if the company is doing the thing that this article is about them doing?
I think the favorable interpretation of his comment is that by normal he means secular.
So it’s getting better, but still sucks for everyone?

Well...let’s just quit right now.
A common monarchical canard, argued all over the world, including former colonies. Monarchism set Mexico back a hundred years.
on the bright side, it's now easy to compete with google
Citation please?

Also, even if there was no racial disparity, the current situation is not ok.
Firefox Sync is federated? I only ever saw an option to sync using my Firefox account. (Which is a non-starter for Tor; since my Firefox account is tied to my email address.)

I also didn't realize it was an open standard. Are there any other implementations besides the one in Firefox? I couldn't find any information on that.
There's no code for GPT-3. Also, you don't need GPUs to run it if it's ever released. You just need a server with 350GB of RAM. It's going to be slow (probably a few words per minute), but you would be able to run it at a reasonable cost (e.g. r5.16xlarge spot pricing is ~$0.6/hr).
Dirichlet Process Mixture Models in Pyro
Wouldn't YOU like to know?