skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Please read the article I linked, it was the day after the square was cleared and was witnessed by a number of people. There is a quote from one of the leaders of the protests saying that he saw many people blocking tanks. He did not say he saw tanks running over anyone.

I do not think in general governments are a good source of facts and even in the best circumstances most seem incapable of telling the truth. The British government reporting on China is nowhere near the best circumstances. The account you quoted now serves as propaganda for people who want to believe that China is uniquely monstrous. A number of people have quoted it on HN and it is at odds with eyewitness accounts.

Even the Chinese government admits it killed hundreds of people during the protest. Possibly the number is over 1k, but 10k deaths is not credible nor is the vivid account.
You might be surprised to learn some of the history of the traditional taxi industry.
The model intentionally guards against data harvesting. I think that is great but unless users are willing to pay for that the existing "free but we collect data to manipulate you" will receive more capital.
This is one of those weird titles that I would interpret differently based on whether I saw it on HN or in a newspaper.

I was wondering how something called “SAS Rescue 3” would have trapped any diplomats anywhere.

It also probably has to do with American vs British English and the use of “Rescue” vs “Rescues”.
> Late nights just seem to be our natural schedule, but all it takes is an alarm and an early morning responsibility to shift the family schedule.

That's an interesting take. My dogs are hyper-active at night and sleepy in the day. Dogs have been with human for a longtime, so either they have the same sleep schedule or the reverse (as they should guard when the human is asleep?).

But if humans are hunters, then it might make sense that they are more active at night.
No, not quite, the conclusion is that given a group of k people where all people have the same age, then a group of k+1 people also must have the same age. Since we know that in a group of 1 all k people have the same age, then if the proof held then a group of 2 people would have the same as well, then 3, etc. This is a common tactic in induction, you make an assumption, prove that if true it implies a general result, and then give an explicit case where the assumption holds, proving the general result.
To me this is Apple trying to stay ahead of ARM Chromebooks and the desktop-ification of Android/Chrome.

Right. ChromeOS is getting interesting. At first glance it seems to be even more limited and appliance-like than iOS, but now you can run both Android and Linux software in containers, which opens up many more potential uses.
Amusingly, I've always assumed that open design predates even the computer itself. Electronics hobbyists published designs in ham radio magazines, and scientific experiments were published in a way that made them reproducible since antiquity.
You can check the address bar and TLS certificate.
I followed earthsky for sometime, and then stopped. Now I’ve been following Universe Today. The author is intelligent, but something is lacking - and I’m not sure what.

Can others provide a list of review of RSS worthy space blogs?
No self-hosting capabilities unfortunately make this a non-starter for me, but I do really appreciate how slick your front page is and all the integrations you're offering out of the box. I wish you the best of luck!
That's exactly how it is in adtech where Google dictates everything to the rest of the industry.
[Disclosure - my company sells a cost optimisation product]

1. You are going to get a lot of advice to move to your own hardware - DON'T. Companies use cloud for the flexibility and lower operational overhead, not because it's cheap. Consider if your org is mature enough to run its own servers and has the 6 months it will take to get everything setup.

2. Talk to your AWS account manager. They will work their asses off to stop you churning to another provider or to your own hardware, because they know they are losing your revenue entirely for minimum 2 years.

3. Switch it off. If you're not using it outside of business hours, you're wasting money. This is the easiest cost saving you will make (my company, GorillaStack, provides a service that makes this easy to setup without scripting and a 14 day trial)

4. If you have a baseline of servers that you will constantly need, reserved instances offer great savings. There is a secondary market for these, where you can get shorter periods cheap from other customers who don't need them.

5. If you haven't already, look at your bill and the breakdown of services. Cost optimisation consultants (they do exist) will start here, and by attacking the biggest line items first.

They are usually EC2 Compute, EBS, Transfer Costs, etc. Prioritise based on size and ease of implementation.

You should make a habit of checking it at least every few days to keep on top what is going on.

6. Delete unused resources - you need to be ruthless with developers who leave unused EC2 resources around after creation. The key isn't to lock down your environment and stop developers from creating what you need, but enforcing a tagging policy on resources to track who owns what. There are crude scripts that scan your environment and delete untagged resources after a certain period.

7. Once things are under control, use CloudWatch Cost Alarms to get notifications when things are crossing a predefined threshold. These can be connected to SNS for receiving emails (and there are simple deployable solutions for receiving these via Slack webhooks, for example).

Some further advice: 'right-sizing' is often held up as an important cost saving method, but can often be much more trouble than its worth. If your workload is going to be a pain and require endless planning and regression testing when you switch instance size, reconsider - you will waste more in developer time than the cost savings over a few years.
How the fucking hell did this happen?

Several decades have passed since interchanging ethanol with methanol was banned in household products that had the potential to come in contact with humans or could be consumed accidentally or deliberately.

Before then—going back many, many decades—cheaply and easily available ethanol (grape spirit) was denatured (rendered undrinkable) by adding to it about 15% methanol (wood alcohol) and (often) 3% of vile bitter-tasting pyridine—both of which were toxic, thus the final mixture was poisonous and (supposedly) undrinkable. (Another advantage of adding methanol and pyridine as denaturants is that both have similar characteristics to ethanol when the mixture is used as a fuel or for cleaning, etc.)

In some places (mainly Commonwealth countries such as the UK, Australia) this mixture was known as methylated spirits and was labelled 'POISON'. The aim of authorities was to deliberately make the mixture very toxic so if you were silly enough to drink it (or were an alcoholic) then you'd suffer the consequences which were blindness and often death. (Right, you can still hear the moralists and wowsers drafting these regulations echoing down the decades.)

Eventually some authorities became enlightenment and replaced the toxic methanol and pyridine denaturants with non-toxic denatonium (aka Bitrex) which, to humans (but not rats), is the world's bitterest known substance. Now, if you could actually drink this terrible bitter-tasting concoction then you wouldn’t go blind or die immediately—instead you'd just suffer long-term alcoholic poisoning like anyone who consumes lots of booze.

(Incidentally, in some countries the ethanol/denatonium (plus 5% water) mixture is still known as methylated spirits and the changeover from the methanol-based one was done surreptitiously and without any public fanfare presumably to deter 'experimentation' among a certain subset of the population.)

Clearly this substitution makes great sense, and it's a widely known fact to just about every chemist on the planet so there's absolutely no excuse to use methanol as a substitute for ethanol under any circumstances where it can be mistaken for ethanol. Using methanol in place of ethanol in a normal household environment ought to be considered a criminal act as it's such a dangerous practice.

The most significant problem with methanol is that it is just too similar to ethanol (it smells like alcoholic ethanol) which makes it difficult to distinguish from the latter, and it's often stored in industrial chemical plants nearby to ethanol which is a recipe for disaster if it's mislabeled or mistaken for ethanol. I'm strongly of the opinion that all methanol ought to have a colored dye tracer added to it (like blue kerosene) the moment it is distilled, fractionated and or hydrogenated.
I've struggled with brutal insomnia (getting to sleep and staying asleep) my entire life (45 years old now). Over the years, I've gotten pretty good at forcing myself to get to work early and just made due with 4-6 hours on most nights and trying to make it up on the weekends.

Early this year I discovered medical marijuana. It's completely game changing. A few puffs from a vaporizer (with flower, not the terrible oil pens) and I've had some of the best sleep of my entire life. I don't remember a time when I've ever actually felt good waking up until now.

The other key (for me) was the book, "The Obstacle is the Way" by Ryan Holiday. This helped me dramatically reduce the nonsense and worries that would crowd my mind as I tried to fall asleep.

Obviously YMMV, but these two things together have helped far more and far longer (6 months now) than anything else I've ever tried.
"70% of people are likely naturally immune" is an incredibly wild claim I haven't seen anyone make before and it's not even a hyperlink to a source. The article clearly is based on some sources but it's really unclear to me what claims are sourced from where despite the fact that it's making very strong claims.
Why isn't there a mechanism for hiding spoilers in your comments? I came to the comments to check whether my guess was right (it wasn't), and I'm very glad for the spoiler.
You're arguing with a lot of thins I did not say.
People who do not follow these developments as they happen will also miss that this state department release is one of John Bolton's pet projects. Most of US messaging on China under this administration should be taken with a grain of salt.

The two high profile cases that has any info, Sandra Han + Liu siblings (which triggered the warning), and Huang Wan, all has to do with father being caught with massive corruption charges in China and family members directly profited from i.e. Han + kids had multi-million dollar realestate holdings in the US under their names. Chinese corruption is typically a family affair. I haven't seen any cases that was unambiguous hostage taking.

The broader issue is many Chinese financial criminals flee to the west where they're safe from prosecution, the west benefits and extradition to PRC isn't on the table. So there's nothing China can do except to wait for the extra dumb one's to return or more commonly, or coerce those abroad to return by threatening innocent family members which to my knowledge has been limited to Chinese nationals. Exit bans seem to be reserved for those complicit in crimes. State department is reaching hard to to make it seem arbitrary when tldr is don't go to China if they want you for crimes, double for dissident activities.
That's close to my career advice. In a job you get paid with money, experience, and contacts. If you're been shorted in any of those, especially the latter get another job.
Exactly what I came here to say.

The error messages produced by g++ for anything template related are a really difficult hurdle to overcome as a beginner. I am sure once you mastered it, it does make sense -- but right now it's a source of frustration for me.
Yeah. I saw that paper cited frequently back when the public health authorities were advising against masks, and I'm afraid their decision to characterize standard practice including medical mask wearing as the "control arm" has caused considerable confusion and harm.
>14nm

>state of the art

You must work at intel
What’s most interesting to me is that we have a history of written records, in the 19th century gained audio recordings, and now (with the internet / data storage) an archive of image and video. There are 3 other sense, though. Would love to see an archive of smell, taste and touch over the ages (even if it’s only moving forward).
He also talks about the HIT being "as low as" 19%. In other words, he doesn't know but he's theorizing that's the case. What if it isn't?
It's particularly pertinent I've had this tab open for 4 days meaning to read it. wow.

In that time, I had plans and started an app and decided to leave it for too long thinking now one would like it. Then that sailing game was on the front page of HN, that's almost exactly what I was working on.

I also have a pet project in development about making a google sheet more presentable for users, does that sound familiar to anyone else? Yeh also on the front page recently, not mine though.

I just keep telling myself, ideas are cheap and don't get bummed out by it. Good job everyone else executing. I'll still make some of them anyway.
> Geekbench is super misleading because they do things like include benchmarks which are hardware-accelerated on the CPU in the iPhone but not the Intel ones.

This was a problem in Geekbench 4 (especially so on Android) and was resolved in Geekbench 5.

You can believe the numbers to be roughly accurate within the sampling variation.
Otellini mentioned in one interview that Intel's projected cost was wrong, but I've never seen anyone at Intel go into specifics as to how it was wrong.

>At the end of the day, there was a chip that they were interested in that they wanted to pay a certain price for and not a nickel more and that price was below our forecasted cost. I couldn't see it. It wasn't one of these things you can make up on volume. And in hindsight, the forecasted cost was wrong and the volume was 100x what anyone thought."

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/05/paul-...
> Nobody among the intellectual class anticipated Trump's election in 2016.

A number of people in the intellectual world did, or at least wrote articles purporting to explain why it was more than remotely possible.

The relatively new set of people in the major media trying to play the poll-based mathematical prediction game that Nate Silver started with 538 who weren't Nate Silver undersold the chances of it happening because they made the naive mistake assuming that deviations from polling averages between states were independent of each other rather than, as historical analysis of the type Silver does would show, tightly correlated. But “media outlets want what Silver does but can't afford to pay to have Silver, or anyone with anything like his level of skill at what he does” doesn't represent the “intellectual class”.
I want this to succeed. There is something pure and calming about the idea.

Design wise though, I suggest making the content (text written by users) easier to read / scan.

Right now, the usernames are more prominent than the comments.

Have you tried putting the username and timestamp on the same line as the content?

Also maybe use grey colors for less important text.
You don't need to come to the comments to check your guess, the website lets you check your guess yourself by clicking on the step.

> See if you can figure out in which step the fallacy lies. When you think you've figured it out, click on that step and the computer will tell you whether you are correct or not, and will give an additional explanation of why that step is or isn't valid.
"Unicode is too hard" - guy with the nerve to invent a new social network in 2020, I guess
This reminds me of a Buddhist game/tradition(?) of debate where you try to get the other person to admit to a logical fallacy and sway them to your belief.
There is a problem in step 9, but the problem is not related to introducing a third person. The existence of a third person makes step 9 correct.

The problem is that we establish the base cases S(0) and S(1), and then we establish the inductive step S(n) -> S(n+1) subject to the restriction that n > 1. But this proof never demonstrates that S(1) implies S(2). The proof is completely correct that S(2) implies S(3), S(3) implies S(4), and so on.

When step 9 says "Let R be someone else in G other than P or Q", the existence of a person in G other than P or Q has not been demonstrated. G is an arbitrary group of k+1 people, and the highest k for which our statement is known to be true is 1. Thus, the minimum size of G is 2, and R may not exist.
Thanks!

About the sharing, I am sorry, but I didn't want to claim that it is impossible to share. I will check the phrasing, but the idea is that it doesn't have a sharing feature (like retweeting or the share button on phones). You can't click on a button to forward the content. You still can copy/paste and screenshot normally.

It is not built-in, so not encouraged by design.
Debating which ISA enables higher performance designs has been shown in the last 25 years to be a lot like debating which JIT API will result in faster execution.
> Most of the mainstream media

The mainstream media and the intellectual class have very little overlap.
This is a misrepresentation though.

First - cheap labour is still a huge part of the value. Point blank. I quote from China and you can see literally the 'labour' input on the spreadsheet, and on that basis alone, it's still very competitive vis-a-vis the West.

Second - the reason 'all those skills' exist there, and not here, is because of the wages and conditions. They do all those things at far less than 1/2 price than they do here. That's a big deal. And for the most part, they are effectively commodities.

If Apple et. al. wanted to pay 'American wages' for most of that activity, then major clusters of those skills would develop here.

Very importantly, there is the 'trade asymmetry' in that China has trade barriers, the US largely does not.

It would be 'good' if both economies kind of opened up, but it's like a 'prisoner's dilemma strategy game' in that, it's even better if you get your opponent to 'open up' while you 'remain closed'.

The US has lost dramatically by allowing China on the same WTO terms, and all the other shenanigans. The US should really simply implement 'tit for tat' trade policies such as requiring Chinese companies give up their IP in the US while the US hands to a strategic competitor, not allow them to have >50% ownership of anything, put up indirect barriers, the US Treasure could direct major US banks to subsidise Cisco's customers for export, yada, yada. It seems dramatic, but that's what China is doing.

Finally, though we think of a lot of this as 'high tech' ... a lot of it is not. We don't worry too much about China making tons of 'plastic stuff' because we believe it's 'low value' - but as certain kinds of screens, disk drives etc. become truly commoditised, well, in some ways, it's a lot like assembling plastic toys, and the surpluses go to the buyers, not the makers.

Edit: I'm working on a project where our factory price in quantity is $60 here, will be in $20 in China and overall, it all boils down to labour input costs and overhead through the value chain (i.e. N. American manufacturer pays more for Internet, largely due to labour, those costs get passed on). In the end, it's not the price of the materials, it's the layers of services by humans on top.
Yes, Uber is pretty good at PR.
You can have a statically-linked binary with no INTERP that still uses ASLR, by compiling with "-static-pie". IMO, improvements to statifier should go in that direction, rather than just giving up and using INTERP.
Neat idea but...seems like its IRC all over again?!
Our last 9X shot in combat? https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/news/a270...
But the rest of the world does.
> it's intended to be a game of reasoning. Posting the answer is spoiling the fun for people who read the comments

This is a very common example in math classes, though in my experience usually presented as a proof that "all horses are the same color".
Are you talking in dollars or rubles when you say profit?
Facebook doesn't care. Apple doesn't care (enough to block/punish Facebook). These days the only answer is to treat the web like a hostile environment and protect yourself from malicious companies like Facebook, intent on deploying spyware and ruining the user experience in exchange for more data to profit from.

Install a Pi-Hole or similar on your network, block all FB domains. It doesn't break the web for you, it actually makes it a lot faster/nicer. Blocking Google is trickier due to core functionality of major sites depending on some of their services, but you can still block lots of it and still have a totally normal (improved) experience in your daily browsing.

(Yes, blocking all FB domains on my network stopped the recent FB bugs from crashing my apps, Spotify/etc worked flawlessly throughout that period, except when I disabled the Pi-Hole temporarily to see what all the fuss was about)
Diagnosis: Russell Aphasia (2019)
Rising asset prices don't count as inflation to you?
And you think this hold true for the average worker, rather than the pretty obvious exceptions that make $20-30/hour?
Note that no one denies Hillary was considered the favorite, I also mention the HuffPost model which was the most prominent to reflect a near certainty. Most news outlets, even conservative ones, reported on this notable predictive modeling effort.

What there was, was a diversity of opinion and vigorous debate (sometimes devolving into sniping, sure), the thing that is supposed to be there. There wasn't a 50/50 split, but I don't remember a single publication I read at the time (all the classic left leaning intellectual rags) that didn't run pieces predicting a Trump victory.
MySpace peaked at 75M monthly users, which is a rounding error to FB's 3B monthly users. That fact alone is major, the network effects for both FB and GOOG makes them very hard to replace in and off itself. For instance, a competitor would have to capture practically all of the connected world population to takeover Messenger. Their sheer size and importance makes them unavoidable for most other-party web platforms cementing their position. Pile on to that the fact they both have 12 digits war chests capable of buying any upcoming competitor (for instance Instagram) or trying to crush them, this comparison to MySpace which comes up every time with this discussion is fallacious. There are reasons why the web is "Winner takes all/most" and is now centered around a handful of companies with sectorial monopolies, I have a hard time to see how a component of FAAAM could fail naturally any time soon.
AMD is what happens when you have someone who is both.