skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Some argue that the US won the WW2 War in the Pacific by running LoP with the P-38 Lightning.

Charles Lindbergh demonstrated to US pilots how to do it, based on his Atlantic crossing testing, and the result was double the range. This allowed the US to surprise and "outrange" Japanese island installations, and to shoot down Admiral Yamamoto at great range.

(I would argue that the full story hasn't been told of the latter, since the planning was literally perfect. Something like radio navigation would have been needed, or incredible luck.)

Outrange was a Japanese strategy to attack US ships without expecting a return attack because of the Japanese planes having greater range initially. ie. LoP disrupted Japan.

AOPA: Technique: Lean-of-peak engine operations
Keeping your cool on less fuel

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2019/may/flight...
What's worse is the Left's then about-face to let's pack tens of thousands of people together to protest exposing untold numbers more to the very virus they professed to oppose. The political "side" I once found myself cheering on has turned into a outrage-fueled hypocrisy-machine where the greatest victim wins.
I don't believe the virus is known to behave like this to a very high probability. It's unknown but possible the virus behaves like dengue fever and gets worse the second time.
A friend of mine once asked his TA about (my memory fails here) either how to activate a leaving group or set up a protecting group at a given hypothetical structure. The TA, without batting an eyelid, responded "I think you'll find all the precursors are scheduled, too." The next lab, the TA, presumably having reflected a bit and in the middle of an unrelated discourse, added "remember, always characterise any synthesis you undertake."

Edit: (ratelimit, sorry)

group: small chemical structure manipulated in a single synthetic step. See also

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

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

scheduling: I have no idea, but it seems likely that at least all the easy precursors were. (ChemE, like systems CS, is all about tradeoffs. It's unlikely anyone bothers to schedule precursors along very difficult synthetic routes. Just like CS people have the IOCCC, synthetic chemists sometimes do small batches with pathways no ChemE would use, just because they're there.)

characterisation: One should do this anyways, to discover if what one has made is what one had intended to make. (compare with unit testing) In the context, I'd consider it a warning that one should especially do this if one plans to partake product.

TA: teaching assistant (post- or just pre-MS in this case, definitely with lab experience)

The punchline is that the TA could guess the intended product given only a single synthesis step for a partial structure. (To be fair, computer geeks love discussing black hat activities, so it shouldn't be any surprise chemists are up on the "abuses" of their science to the same degree.)
They are a cruel and unusual punishment for a citizenry that has not been convicted of a crime.
Reminds of magic leap
Yes, and we'll have fusion reactors, HIV vaccines, and a cure to cancer any year now. Science is less subjective than consumer electronics.
PCR test can be done in a few hours at most. It’s mostly the whole logistical problem that takes time.
Such a brave soul.
No, it's not the division that's the problem, it's having one driving the other.

The thing is front end dev is actually very different from back end dev. Having done a lot of both, I can say that they require very different skillsets and different knowledge, so it is quite normal that they're not done by the same people.

Now, if your team is frontend first, you'll likely screw up your backend design in the sense that you won't be able to define a nice API for it. Similarly, if your team is backend first, you'll have a nice API, but probably won't think about all the frontend needs, and will have to patch things nastily down the road.

Truth is, coordinating people with different skills is hard.

Now this kind of articles take aim at teams that don't manage to make it work. So yeah, not being great at managing teams is an antipattern...
They’re antibody tests, those are extremely quick.
That's what I thought too... A locked down walled garden!

But the more I probed, the more it looked like plain Ubuntu with Wayland and AppArmor, without X11 :-)

Check out what I found: https://lupyuen.github.io/pinetime-rust-mynewt/articles/wayl...
Tobacco and alcohol industry are getting government subsidies, bailouts and huge profit margins. Not sure about the other "illegal" drug manufacturers.
Refika's Kitchen

[EN] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCONn3cHs5mqgCMqf_a4fcSg
[TR] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCO3MaQR-Vh6cgBZRlD44jWg
"Doesn't run well" but maybe not for the reasons you think.

Yes your local coffee shop might have some quirks compared to a local Starbucks but their lack of efficiency is not on the store per se, rather than Starbucks has: a) bigger leverage in rents b) effective lower corporate tax c) more streamlined supply chains

And then you think, why are not people buying mom and pop shops and running them independently with high efficiency? Because it is hard
This is still not a home test. Keep working..
I was tested nine days ago in the bay area. Still waiting for my results.
Fuel in NZ is $5 NZD? Has Covid had an impact on that local price or is that standard? It's

Less than $1.50 AUD across the ditch at the moment. And that's a bad day.
Alright, you've piqued my interest; any pointers for where to learn this stuff, or should I just Google all those terms?
The argument for using SI is simply that you are a) using the same units as everyone else b) using a set of units that connect neatly together so one can actually do meaningful calculations with them. And °C is not part of SI either, but is only a constant offset away from Kelvin - which is.

And why is 0 is uncomfortably cold and 100 is uncomfortably hot more useful?
Same thing as in the article.. avoiding negative numbers - why?
I'm one of those that dropped and moved to Firebase. The monthly payments were topping somewhere at $130 for a static website with 700-800 daily visitors and Netlify was starting to corner me into paying extra for every little detail possible. I clearly felt that onboarding was off and it's time to milk every cent.
There are 563 calories in a Big Mac, and the average price across the US is $5.71. You could get the same number of calories from ~190g of cooked white rice. At Costco prices that's about 38 cents. You could spend $5 on things to put on top of the rice and still come out ahead.

Obviously there are cheaper fast food options than a Big Mac, and I've used average prices which doesn't help you, and I've assumed you're in the US, and I haven't accounted for things like fuel and water, but there's something seriously wrong with the market economics of where you live if fast food is really cheaper than cooking for yourself.
The article doesn't say that the original proof was incorrect. It argues that one of the original theorem's assumptions was not justified. A machine certified proof doesn't help with this. [EDIT: The author points out below that the assumption was not explicit in Bloom's work. An attempt at a machine certified proof would catch this aspect. But not the aspect of the assumption being wrong, if it were added explicitly.]

Now, others later recognized this faulty assumption and produced a new formula and a faulty proof for its correctness. A machine certified proof would help here if an actual proof step is wrong, except note the footnote: "To be fair, the error in Bose et al.'s paper was primarily due to incorrect definitions, rather than an incorrect logical step. As an interesting anecdote, the first version of our work was based off the incorrect definitions by Bose et al. and ended up being rejected by reviewers who then rediscovered this error." So again it was human checking that (re-)discovered an issue. One that appears to have been fixed by humans before this work. And one that the machine wasn't able to find.

So now that all known incorrect assumptions are shaken out (there might be unkown ones, Coq can't tell) this work is a machine checked proof of something that had been proved before. It's an achievement, and it's good to have certainty. Almost anything that gets us closer to more formal math and computer science is good. But this particular result is hardly spectacular.

As for the clickbait aspect, I'm also annoyed by it. The title is clearly factually incorrect. No property of Bloom filters has been debunked. A widely cited formula was replaced by an asymptotically equivalent one 12 years ago, and we now have a machine checked argument that this replacement was correct. This isn't a debunking of anything. No math has been disspelled.

Clear and honest science communication is important. Authors overselling their work in such (obvious) ways just highlights that they themselves don't think the work is sensational (which it doesn't have to be!), and it makes readers wonder in what other ways they are intellectually dishonest.
You Should Write Blogs (2005)
Learning How to Learn as a Developer
There’s a difference between a friend “busting your balls/ovaries/whatever” and having a laugh with you vs. a 13 year old redditor calling women they don’t like Karen.
Upvoting for TWIV, which is my daily exercise podcast of choice until this thing is over (and probably afterwards too).
What's ET? It's pretty difficult for me to Google this acronym given that it mostly finds "et al" when I couple this with LSD queries. Is it ergotamine from the other subthreads here?
Mate, no offense, but this is all personal opinion and personal guesses while you’ve actually tested negative!

If I were you, have a bit less certainty in your own guesses. Next to that, every person has a different set of symptoms and experiences, your experiences aren’t all that relevant.
Personally, I prefer a lightweight, portable, easier to edit, technically just plain text file vs whatever mess of useless fonts/font sizes/unrelated garbage is crammed into a .odf/.docx file.

Literally anyone with a computer that has a ASCII or Unicode compatible text editor can open a .md file and get useful info.

Even better, add a little bit of lightweight extra tooling, and now you've generated a nice looking html page, if you need to make something with fancier presentation.

The only thing I miss is the ability to embed images in the md file itself, but even that is not hard to work around.

Obviously I keep software on hand that can deal with docx/odf, but I'd really rather just keep it simple, due to the fact that I'm stupid.
>"Over the past decade, mathematicians have found successively faster multiplication algorithms, each of which has inched closer to n × log n, without quite reaching it.

Then last month, Harvey and van der Hoeven got there.

Their method is a refinement of the major work that came before them. It splits up digits, uses an improved version of the fast Fourier transform, and takes advantage of other advances made over the past forty years. “We use [the fast Fourier transform] in a much more violent way, use it several times instead of a single time, and replace even more multiplications with additions and subtractions,” van der Hoeven said.

Harvey and van der Hoeven’s algorithm proves that multiplication can be done in n × log n steps.

However, it doesn’t prove that there’s no faster way to do it."
Seattle apparently moving to close prisons in a critical race theory fueled high
Image Processing Techniques: What Are Bounding Boxes?
It was all very simple and concise (thank you) until the extended kalman part where it appears you sped up by 100x and just dismissed the whole non-linear predictor saying we taylor it and create a jacobian for every instance of t.
FU Money, and FU Paperwork, is basically what I gradually came to live, after gradually unsubscribing from all of it.

It's been an amazing experience, and yes, very freeing.
Is the effect exactly the same or somewhat different?
I wrote my own when I moved away from Google reader (after a brief feedly run) , and I've been using it every since

https://github.com/urandom/readeef
That's pretty much why I abandoned Ubuntu Touch on my PinePhone, and switched to Mobian.

Feels like running a regular GNU/Linux distro, just on my phone. Much more suited to my purposes.
A footnote in the article notes that the original "faulty" formula and the new "correct" one are asymptotically equivalent.
This is true in only the strictest sense, as computers only deal with integers:

Any set of tuples/sequences can be lexicographically radix-sorted if its components can be; strings are a special case, where the components are the individual character codes.

Floating point numbers are integers with the high-order bits used for the exponent. When normalized, they can be treated as integers for sorting.

All radix sort requires is a recursively partitionable domain, and it performs optimally when the partitioning scheme matches the data distribution.
> you should

> you yourself

> You should pay attention

> you decided

> you yourself state

> even if you somehow believed it was a good idea

This isn't language anyone should respond to, and not merely because it's staking out a fine example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

> you yourself state that are ran to handle limited and very specific responsibilities

I didn't.

> Just to be absolutely clear, "monolith" is not a reference to how you chose to organize your source tree

Again, that's a straw man - I never said it was. Although I can certainly see how someone who was absolutely determined to make an unnecessarily bitter remonstration as personal as possible might - through either branch of Hanlon's razor - misconstrue the words "the same repository" adversarially for the purposes of their ego trip.

It's a monolithic application because any of the instances could perform any of the roles, and they're all running exactly the same code. They're distinguished in production for the purposes of operational sanity, because only a flaming idiot would, say, run reporting workloads on the API host.

But when I stand up a demo / showcase environment, for example, it has exactly one instance that does everything, and we can (and do) develop with the whole thing running single process on our laptops.

I shouldn't need to clarify any of this, because the point being made was a rebuttal to the "single box" thesis, not whether I met some gatekeeper's opinion about my standing to discuss the topic.
IPv4 IPv6 Multi Protocol Media Player
I don’t understand the hypothesis of the experiment. People are better off if you gift them a lot of money? Who would have thought?

On a side note, I highly dislike that Bloomberg hijacks the back button
"Git" is not even remotely close to the nastiness of the words here.
> It has a read-only root filesystem that gets updated over the air. ... you would have to root it. But then your changes would get wiped with the next update.

No, given root access you can simply overlay a separate read-write filesystem over the readonly system partition. It can be as "Linux" as any Live distribution with persistence.
Government comitted crime against humanity. Suppression of research and freedom is unforgivable.
Sure, who cares about people in your community losing everything, right?
> What does a frontend dev actually do that’s so different from a backender?

Deal with and pre-empt cross-browser compatibility issues, ensure accessibility, iterate on the UX, deal with stateful-but-not-persisted applications, optimise for constrained devices whose hardware you do not control... And keep up with whatever technologies exist to help with those challenges.

The article even mentions some of these. Yes, you could just say back-enders should know about all that, but... There's a limit to how far a single human can vertically integrate their knowledge. For example, the same argument could be used to claim that 'developers' should be able to handle all the challenges of the back-end, of database adminstration, of operations, and why not, let's throw in business development, design and content strategy as well.

In the end, it mostly depends on what you can afford. If you're a small, bootstrapped startup, you have a couple of people doing everything. But as you grow, specialisation can become more efficient.
Maybe you mean startups.

You can't really compared a startup with a bakery.
Say you're on vacation with a group of friends in a different country/city and looking for a nice restaurant one night. How do you choose where to go?
Why does this not apply to internet then?

Big businesses can increase their efficiency through lobbying, scale, money, and political favors. Most people in a broken economy will look for the cheapest than the best value. This will surely kill many indie businesses - just not completely destroy the term.
> The article doesn't say that the original proof was incorrect

Apologies if my wording did not make this clear: the original proof by Bloom is logically incorrect

Bloom derives his expression by performing a transformation that would only be possible if the bits are independent, but nowhere in his proof does he state that he is making this assumption. It just so happens that even if he had explicitly included this assumption, it would not have been justified. So in that sense, the debunking part is correct - we disprove Bloom's original bound by proving the true bound under the same assumptions that he explicitly makes.
ergotamine
Pandemic prompts surge in child marriage and violence towards girls in Asia
I despise Uber as a company, but I've always loved them as a technology group ever since I used to go to their meetups in NYC. You can always count on Uber to throw a great party and also come up with the worst possible technology.

If you want to know how not to do things, Uber is a very good place to look.
It reminds me of Byrne's Edition of Euclid's Elements, which you might also be interested in checking out.

https://www.c82.net/euclid/
How much research do you do before you implement a feature?
How much time you spend researching possible solutions and technologies to a problem before you decide on the best approach? How do you know when you know enough to make a decision?
I can imagine wanting to use a flexible font for syntax highlighting for colorblind people and monochrome displays like eInk.
It's more acceptable and state-sanctioned to sell drugs that kill people while keeping them subdued, than ones that keep them alive and open their minds.

I don't want to sound like a crazy 'conspiracy theorist' or a 'hippie', but I don't know to distill this sad and truthful statement more simply than that.
The difference between approximate and exact false positive rate calculations in real-world scenarios is insignificant. It's fine to use the approximation.

If you had very specific tolerances here you wouldn't work in terms of the expected false positive rate anyway; you'd build your filter and validate on the real thing.
> “It would be impossible to build such a site in the high mountains if the substrate was not fractured."

No, that's not what you have demonstrated. Because A is much more likely than B, doesn't mean B is impossible. Maybe I'm pedantic here but I feel this logical fallacy undermines the quality of the researcher's arguments.
Garmin
Any guesses why Garmin is still down?
Show HN: GraphQL API for WordPress
The visual explanation of the ideas and concepts presented there, also mentioned in the later podcast:

Medcram: “Coronavirus Pandemic Update 98: At Home COVID-19 Testing - A Possible Breakthrough”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7Sv_pS8MgQ

Also, regarding the Ct value, from:

“Interpreting the COVID-19 Test Results: a Guide for Physiatrists”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7268832/

In PCR tests “the diagnosis is made based on the threshold cycle (Ct) value. Ct is defined as the cycle number when the sample fluorescence exceeds a chosen threshold above the calculated background fluorescence.5 In other words, the lower the Ct value of a specific gene, the more the gene exists in the sample. However, the problem with a Ct-based diagnosis is that there is no absolute or constant Ct cut-off value, and Ct cut-off values are different for each diagnostic reagent even for the same gene.”
I disagree.

I have a dietary restriction and I make it a point to explicitly call it out when I order my food, ie: “I’ll have the pasta. It’s vegetarian right?” Yet, now and then, I end up getting served something with meat. Especially now with the fake meat substitutes which honestly look 100% like meat to me.

Finding out the burger I’m eating is real meat after taking a few bites and seeing stringy sinew just completely ruins my entire meal.

When this happens, which happens more often than you would think (go ask your vegetarian friends how often they accidentally eat meat through no fault of their own), you can be sure I give them a damning 1-star review. I don’t care how my friends review them, then can give them 5-stars, that’s fine. But I’m giving them 1.
I don’t know if this is tangential or completely related to this article, but at some point I realized the greatest thing I could have was the freedom to change everything about my life at any given moment. I realized that unless I had that freedom, I was never really free. Now, every choice I make is colored by question: if I make this choice, what choices do I lose? How can I make a choice that keeps me from losing any choices.

The unexpected side benefit of this is that if I’m ever in doubt of what I’m doing with my life, I am free to consider changing things, and if I don’t, then I know that I am doing exactly what I want to do. It’s a way to contentment that is almost objective.
Clang 10 appears to unroll the loop 4x, but does not perform the optimization from the blog post where comparisons are made 64 bits at a time (rather than 8 bits): https://godbolt.org/z/oefzhx
Intel Considers Outsorcing Manufacturing
They say they draw inspiration from DDD and CQRS, yet seem to miss one crucial factor. And no, I'm not talking about bounded contexts. They still focus in re-use of commodity rather than addressing why their microservice approach didn't work. Their strategy for defining how functionality moves down the stack is not bad, but it's not anchored towards the right thing. It's the consistency boundary (or aggregate root if you will). It's the circle you draw around your business rules and say "this group needs to remain consistently enforced". This defines your unit of scale, not re-use. So while they are headed in the right direction, I fear that they are still missing a fundamental piece of information to steer on.

I was employed by Uber (I quit after a couple months), and the idea's that they now hint towards were largely rejected by the engineers, and that was less than a year ago. Uber is just in the position to throw a large sum of money at making wrong decisions and getting away with it, because it's not their money. It's VC funny money.

DISCLAIMER: Yes, I did indeed create this account to be able to reply anonymously.
Per gallon. $1.30 / L => $5.85 / gallon.

Petrol is/was always more expensive in NZ though, around ~70c/L from memory. On the flip side, registration and insurance is much cheaper.
Very close / the same in my experience. I've never had the exact same effect even from two doses of LSD from the same sheet, much less different producers, but 1p-lsd was just fine and felt the same to me.

I bought a bit before it was put on the controlled substances list in my country. A good demonstration that legal LSD doesn't end the world: it was legal, it was LSD, the world didn't end!
I stand corrected. I agree to each his/her own.
The Lockdown’s Lessons for Climate Activism
With regard to the structure of business writing and its relationship with clarity of thought, Barbara Minto, The Pyramid Principle. Really helped my reviewing and editing skills also.
Dubai given safe tourism stamp of approval amid global pandemic