skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don't know the specifics of etherum, I actually do think they are somewhat robust against the more trivial attacks.

However, in some blockchains it is absolutely feasible to become a majority miner for a short period of time by simply renting cloud resources.

If the network is further temporarily reduced due to internet connectivity flapping/segmentation, it might be cheap.

1) Situate yourself in a country with poor connectivity.
2) Trip a breaker to zap most of the connectivity
3) Spin up a gazillion cloud instances
4) Compete more-or-less only with national miners.
Do you have a reference for Feynman's title being a play on Webster's comment? That would be neat to have.
Employers aren't allowed to discriminate against you based on your national origin. But I don't think your nationality will fit in any of the diversity measures that companies are looking at. They mostly focus on gender, ethnicity, and maybe religion or sexual orientation.

Assuming you are a white male, there will not be any special initiatives for you. If you are female, there are some additional opportunities depending on the company.
It's strange that with major currencies having these high fees, people haven't moved to Nano since their entire premise is around being feeless.
The fee goes to the miner of the block with the transaction in it, the "next block" in a simplified sense.

If you've already mined the next block yourself, you can publish the transaction directly in the block itself instead of loose out to the network like a pleb. Then you'll be effectively guaranteed to get the transaction fee yourself.
im not sure why this is being downvoted. this is clearly the case here.

the user and the miner are colluding (or the same party). the user does not broadcast their tx publicly, only sending it to the colluding miner. since fees have no utxo history, this essentially launders the eth
Those darn COPA violations...
I'm disappointed this article didn't mention the MeetUp or Eventbrite sites, which are the two major sites that are used to organize user groups.

It's naive to think most user groups could avoid using one of these sites.
Most of the time, GET should not affect system state at all (other than caching, etc). Idempotent can still have effects on the first access. Even deletion can be idempotent.

I generally see PUT and PATCH classified as idempotent (for the same input).
Oh stop it. You know full well what he meant.
That appears to be the opinion of our impartial health officials, yes.
I feel like doing this would completely eliminate the environmental AND traffic benefits of public transportation -- you're effectively distancing people at the same amount they would be if they were driving cars.

I don't have a solution, unfortunately, but I just hope that a vaccine will allow us to break the 2 meter rule eventually.
> The action needs to be harmless to execute every time, not just every time after the first time.

You are correct, and the grandparent post has been updated appropriately.
Some of them were very critical, yes. Mostly related to the scientific background of the survey. That information was included in next versions in https://burnoutindex.org/about
Automating some tedious tasks to generate 1000's of image sets with python-fu was one of the things that made me love programming. Also was my introduction to lisp when i tried first with script-fu, but that was mostly incomprehensible to me since im dum.
I'm working my way through Ivan Savov's "No bullshit guide to math & physics" - https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22876442-no-bullshit-gui...

Would recommend it to anyone whose maths needs a bit of a brush up, or anyone who's interested in basic mechanics!

Oh and I'm using Khan Academy for extra practice, which I can warmly recommend as well.
> Imagine in hitler had access to this tech and simply purchased a database of "Likely Jewish" facial data?

This basically happened with lower-tech stuff; one of the ways that the Holocaust was facilitated was by conducting detailed censuses of the population, courtesy of IBM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
Here's a simple and practical solution:

Get a decent audio headset, have it record the audio to her phone, and spend hours talking to her about whatever. Preferably in a reasonably quiet environment.

Just spend a lot of time talking. You don't have to talk to her through a headset. Just make sure hers is recording her voice.

It would be easy, painless, and probably good for the relationship too.
masks only have very small contribution, perhaps 10-20% at most.

the thing is no one fully understand how this virus spreads, who is at risk, what exactly is the right course of action

so they latch on whatever the latest fad is,

it used to be lockdown, then it became social distancing, but then the riots came and cases did not go up, now it is facemasks that save us all
Being able to craft a statement justifying such an event, with all the mental gymnastics that might be involved if it's not a position you would support normally, is one step in recognizing those statements in real life.

If the student does support the action, accurately anticipating the objections of the other side and explaining why the action is justified in a way meant to mollify them is also useful.

Bottom line, being able to (or attempting to) write a PR document at that level requires a lot of understanding and thinking, and being willing to forego your initial prejudices to explore an idea as fully as possible. That's exactly what a good student does, so I can see why they thought this might be a useful exercise. I don't think a writing exercise causes "obedience" in any way.

Truthfully, I'm much more worried about what I see as the common trend of only viewing and reacting to the surface level of any event or topic, and immediately seeking others lend support and credence to that interpretation rather than trying to understand the motivations and purpose. That's always happened, but it seems to have become much more common.
German Covid-19 app did cost EUR 20M
TXR Lisp dates back to 2009 (actually later, because TXR didn' expose a Lisp initially). It's a Lisp-2.

I'm extremely well-informed on the Lisp-1 versus Lisp-2 topic; about as well as anyone can be, which makes me incapable of making a wrong choice. Yet, I made it fundamentally a Lisp-2.

However, I also imbued it with a way of expressing in a Lisp-1 style, because there is value in being able to work with higher order functions without clutter.

Lisp-1-like evaluation is implemented as a special operator called dwim. (dwim f x y ...) evaluates the argument expressions in the same way. If any argument is a symbol, it is evaluated in a combined namespace consisting of the visible function and variable bindings. Other arguments are evaluated in the ordinary way. The programmer normally doesn't write (dwim f x y ...) but rather uses the read syntax [f x y].

There is certain psychology at play in the [f x y] syntax. Objects other than functions are callable. For instance, a vector and array are callable. [vec 0] denotes the first element. Lots of languages use [ ] for indexing, and this plays into that.

There is also a rule that f may not be a macro or special operator. So [let (a b) ...] is nonsense, unless there is a binding for let so it resolves to a function. In any case, it doesn't refer to the let special operator. The [f ...] notation assures the reader that f is a callable object, and not an operator.

The symbolic arguments of dwim may be symbol-macros: (symacrolet ((a f) (b x)) [a b]) is equivalent to [f x].

The existence of separate symbol macros and operator macros is one of the arguments for Lisp-2. They are different. An operator macro M can only be used in the (M ...) position. Macros aren't stored in variables or passed around. A symbol macro and operator macro are processed similarly in that they are both replaced during expansion, yet differently; they do not have uniform evaluation.

The user of TXR Lisp knows that there can be no special operator f or operator macro f which intercepts the meaning of [f x y ...]. It is absolutely functional; the arguments are subject to the same evaluation treatment regardless of what is in the environment. In a block of code in which all parentheses are square, you know that there are no special operators or macros whatsoever; every name you see is resolved in the function/variable namespace (or else is a symbol macro) and all evaluation proceeds by application.

Looking at this backwards: the [f x y ...] application-only, no-operators syntax could be obtained very easily in a Lisp-1 dialect, and without complications, as a sugar for some (call f x y ...) form. Done! But since f has moved to the second position, Lisp-1 versus Lisp-2 is no longer entirely relevant to it. We can have that notation in a Lisp-2 if all we do is turn call into a somewhat smarter operator which knows how to resolve symbolic arguments across both namespaces.
Why couldn't you sue to recover the crypto?
Why do you manually enter your own transaction fee at all? Is it not just a percentage of the transaction amount? What happens if you enter too small a fee?
Tech Researchers Use Machine Learning to Build Taste Language for Whiskey
Yes, they are smaller, but north of the border in Scotland, the Glasgow underground system runs carriages that are smaller still.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Subway
They've done this before to me, too. First I tried `iptables -j DROP`, which made the machine somewhat usable, but didn't help with the traffic. After trying a few things, I tried `-j TARPIT`, and that appeared to make them back off.

Of course, sample size of 1, etc. It could have been coincidental.
In my worst trip (LSD), I started vividly experiencing other people's lives, including seeing through the eyes of a child, a heroin addict, and a dying old man among several others, and I was convinced this reality was just one of them and not the one I was supposed to be in, and that if I didn't figure out a way to end up in the right one by the end I'd be stuck in whichever I was in last.

I definitely had a panicked feeling towards those around me trying to help, and felt they were trying to deceive me and trap me in their reality, with one friend in particular being the orchestrator of the deceipt. Thankfully, I have good friends who worked through it with me and who were experienced in psychedelic use.

That said, I've done acid several times since, as well as mushrooms, and I do plan on doing them again. I feel like every time I do, there's new work for me to do on myself that they bring to the forefront whether I want to look at it or not, and that's been overall quite helpful for me. Psychedelics are no "party drug", but rather a serious thing undertaken for the purpose of exploring ideas like identity and meaning, and to be done in the right setting and with the right supports. I'm also quite interested in trying DMT for the same reasons, if I could find any around here...
Was just about to post the same. Not only is this an amazing thing to do for her, but this is one of the coolest threads I've seen on HN in a long time
I believe peer review should be supplemented or even replaced by social review methods where not only arbitrary reviewers but the whole scientific community might have chance judging, discussing and commenting any paper. Online.
The logic and safeguards may not be that easy to create in the first place but in my opinion it would worth the effort eventually!
Yes. You only broadcast the tx to the miner; who keeps it to themselves.
Lack of KYC (Know Your Customer [1]) and AML (Anti Money Laundering processes [2]) makes it more difficult to know who to pursue legally. Your US bank account or brokerage account is tied to your social security number and other PII. Who and where to process serve is much more accessible.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_your_customer

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-money_laundering_software
By only giving the transaction to one specific miner.
Plus typescript + auto generating queries from graphql-let is literally heaven.
To live a reasonable modern life you are in practice forced to buy a fridge.

You are not forced to pay taxes. Owning property and earning money are choices, if you wanna take it to this ridiculous extreme.
Had -- Microsoft has essentially had a no-easter-eggs policy since at least 2002 as part of their "Trustworthy Computing" initiative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trustworthy_computing

They have a blog post from 2005 on the matter: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/archive/blogs/larryosterman...

> One of the aspects of Trustworthy Computing is that you can trust what's on your computer. Part of that means that there's absolutely NOTHING on your computer that isn't planned. If the manufacturer of the software that's on every desktop in your company can't stop their developers from sneaking undocumented features into the product (even features as relatively benign as an Easter Egg), how can you be sure that they've not snuck some other undocumented feature into the code.
It's my understanding that, within a given cohort, we see more gender equality at graduation than later points in time.

If that's the case, and especially if it's more so than other industries, then companies are likely to blame for at least a portion of the difference, although not necessarily at hiring.
Like cash, these properties are also desired in many cases.
check these hits for an X-Purpose header or similar
It should already be abundantly clear that the current banking system and Western governments are one and the same thing so no surprises here.
The predicate calculus. I regularly review Predicate Calculus and Program Semantics[1] to increase my fluency in the techniques. I also recommend A Discipline of Programming[2] as a gentler introduction to the subject for those who do not consider themselves particularly mathematically inclined. For me it was a natural progression from doing TDD. I still code test first, but now the structure of those tests and programs is guided by a better understanding of program semantics, greatly increasing my code quality.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Predicate-Calculus-Semantics-Monograp...

[2] https://www.amazon.com/Discipline-Programming-Edsger-W-Dijks...
good point. I just double-checked and ours says:

> Copyright: © Cambridge University Press 2018

> This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

So I guess Cambridge is the copyright holder but it's available under CC, which I think qualifies as "generous reuse rights," as originally stipulated.
"83% of people won't be able to solve this" (some basic puzzle follows).
Microsoft won't sell facial recognition tech to police, echoing Amazon and IBM
It’s lonely being a Black scientist
To me it pollutes the discussion away from the messages and puts a bunch of thumbnails where it could just be a clean text conversation.

The thing that bothers me is also that I, as a user, have no choice - it just does it automatically.

Do you like IRC?
That won't fly because it is just as easy to lay claim that ignoring copyright is against the public because it devalues private property rights of which the creator did not assign to the IA.
It seems possible, although challenging; I'm curious for your take on this:

0. You run a large network with substantial hash power.

1. You submit a transaction that is broadcast only to your own mempool and don't relay it outside of your network.

2. You attempt to include this output in some/most/all attempts.

3. You finally solve a block with this transaction and distribute it to the rest of the network.

If this were happening, one way to surveil for it would be to keep track of every submitted transaction that a few nodes ever see. Is there a mining pool that is consistently mining huge fee transactions that were never present in your mempool?
Would the following theoretically work?

1. Monitor all transactions in the public pool for their fees.

2. As soon as their is a public transaction in the pool that has over 1M$ in fees, spin up as many cloud resources as possible and mine for the block.

3. As soon as the block is mined, stop mining and go back to step 1.
Congrats on the launch, and good luck! Looks fascinating. Looking forward to the future release that fixes the incidents as well, and just notifies us afterwards as a courtesy. =)
It could be useful for learning tho (but at that point it could also become a crutch).
> Going against the HTTP standard isn't a problem. For example, it's a good practice to ignore HEAD requests as opposed to responding appropriately.

That's only against the standard of you advertise HEAD as a supported method on the resource, which converts it from a good idea in some circumstances to a bad one, so if there is a good example to support your claim, that isn't it.
Mining pools are run by teams of people whose full time jobs are to take care of their pool. I don't think any significant BTC or ETH pool runs standard software without any modifications.

I wanted to get a custom coinbase message included in a block, and paid $500 to a pool for the privilege.
A bit of obligation binds us together, but too much breeds resentment
Road Trip? New Record-Crushing Battery Lasts 1.2M Miles in Electric Cars
One critical problem: The blockchain irrevocably records the recipient of the transaction fee.
the lack of awareness around nano is puzzling to me. I assume its because nano became known around the end of 2017 along with many scam coins, and thus became associated with them.

but today if you described implementing a gossip protocol with nanos features (permissionless decentralization, 0 fees, <1s tx), many people would say it is impossible, but here we are with a 4 year mainnet with no serious issues
I disagree. You can build conflict resolution on top of the database.

Can we say the same about voting or other data? That we don’t want consistency in the database? The flipside is anyone can change your vote or your balance as long as they get access to the keys.
Given how much we spend on the Pentagon, they should probably have a war plan for just about everything.
À la CitéU but down in Saclay.
congratulations for launching!
looks great!
I was also trying to do something like this with BugBlueButton but then found that to host it req higher configuration cloud machine and a lot of bandwidth so dropped the Idea

I am tech stack and how you are managing to give away free of cost
thanks
Mostly crawling through ml papers on arxiv. Also going over "The Theory That Would Not Die", though this is in the realm of popular science books but it's an enjoyable getaway from it all.

Edit: How to by Randall Munroe for the math-comedy realm.
Obviously JTAG access is not the only way get chip readout, but couldn't this entire channel be removed by a physical write-once fuse to ground of the JTAG lines?
Is fossil the only living comparable?

https://www.fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/fossil-v-git.w...
Amid pandemic and protests, Cloudflare is defending vulnerable websites
Release Notes for Safari Technology Preview 108
Gone with the Wind’s Removal from HBO Max Isn't Censorship
Cool. Like friendorfoe.us?
No, in fact there is reason to believe there's more of them.
Honestly I think this was inevitable despite any politics.

It's been over 2 months now since the lockdowns began and and a lot of people who were told 'flatten the curve' are asking when the curve will be flat enough.

> Mission accomplished only works when there is a vaccine, which is at least a year away.

A year with little if any time spent with family and friends? A year where a trip to the market means putting on your virus armor? A year where our kids get little education, little outdoor play, little social contact?

There's obviously concern about the economic damage of the lockdown, but with some justification there's also a mental health concern. What is the risk of covid vs. the risk of 'normalizing' isolation? When we all get out - can we pick up where we left off?

I'm starting to wonder when I just give up. My spouse is a virologist so we are a lot more stringent than most - but I see the neighborhood kids out playing basketball everyday and I can't fail to notice that they are all doing fine. Maybe they are going to prove to be the smart ones.
The cheapest way to deal with a Bitcoin rebellion is to use some of the military budget and buy and run Bitcoin miners to dominate the chain and then do stuff like double spending, etc to undermine confidence in Bitcoin.
You want decentralized you get these “issues”. Even if the protocol had features to reverse some situations, there are way too many that is complex and need human intervention to resolve for many cases, which becomes some what centralized again. They need to solve these things where your life savings can be lost by accident, guarantees etc. Banks do that either you believe it or not.
Could you expand on "I completely see where they're coming from"?

I kind of learned this over time. So when someone shows off something lame, I just keep quiet. Sometimes I try to find something praiseworthy.

Personally, I do post stuff online to get feedback and I am willing to take vicious criticism. My stuff is not art. Well, maybe that small fanfic a while ago [0]. It is certainly lame compared to some but feedback is the only way I can improve. I don't think critics are obligated to phrase their criticism nicely.

[0] http://beza1e1.tuxen.de/sacrifice_of_scar.html
It's not just a matter of, is creating bullshit jobs easy?

On the one side we have supply constraints on necessities. If there isn't enough good housing for everyone and we're not allowed to build more then people will have to work 40 hours so they can outbid other people on the good housing and not get stuck in the bad housing. We could solve this by building more good housing, but only if we actually do that.

On the other side it's a question of where the surplus goes. You have a company that makes billions of dollars -- far more than it needs to operate. What happens to the rest of the money? If the managers get to use it for empire building, you get bullshit jobs. That happens a lot.

Ideally we'd solve both, but even just one would be progress.

If you don't have to work 40 hours to afford necessities then you're not going to choose a 40 hour bullshit job. You're either going to choose a real job or a job with lower hours so that you can spend more of your time doing something you want to do, which might very well itself be a real job (i.e. starting your own business).

Whereas if we can figure out how to transfer more wealth away from organizations and into the hands of real people, that gets rid of bullshit jobs too, because most of them come from the principal-agent problem and the misalignment between managers and owners/taxpayers. Transferring the money to any person or entity without middle management would be a net improvement.
Less focused but enjoyed Eddie Woo's and 3blue1brown's more recent videos on Youtube

Also challenged by Tom Duff's trigonometry page - http://www.iq0.com/notes/trig.html

Enjoy learning how to derive identities and equations from first principles - quite like differential of x^2 => 2x and the quadratic eqn via completing the square
From OpenVPN to Pritunl VPN: The Transition
What if they are wired to the wrong person outside your jurisdiction?
I think Gimp has the same problem a lot of FOSS seems to have. They are extremely powerful on the right hands but because open source community doesn’t have that much of an UX designers, they are really unoptimal to use and the learning curve is so steep most people won’t bother
New study suggests Covid infections were falling before lockdown – The Spectator
That isn't why I flagged it. I flagged it as a judgment call.
> browser prefetching, link previews

Both of them are pretty bad. I do not see GET actions breaking anything that is not trash.