skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think there's some truth in what you say, but as a counterpoint, consider this essay Paul Graham wrote a few weeks back: http://www.paulgraham.com/orth.html . Namely this part:

The more conventional-minded someone is, the more it seems to them that it's safe for everyone to express their opinions. It's safe for them to express their opinions, because the source of their opinions is whatever it's currently acceptable to believe. So it seems to them that it must be safe for everyone.
Yeah, I think PXELINUX and iPXE are using the same kind of tricks to load ISOs like this (if anyone wants to do a writeup I'd love to read it). I think I'm going to have to dig in and understand the "redfish" API that also appeared with the update.
IDK, if someone kept changing the table names in my DB every week I'd probably throw a password on it, even if I were really lazy. Most of these people probably didn't realize their DBs were unsecured, and that gets the point across quickly (particularly if the new table names are chosen instructively).
Yes, so that you always keep security in mind.
It's possible to sign with TLS certs, just not well-known.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/50150318/sign-git-commit...
To be fair, it’s not general, it’s a “speaker only” tool. For headphones, it’s incredibly unnatural to have audio only coming into one ear without a delayed signal in the other. That simply never happens in the real world.
Bose looks awful. My Sony also "just work".
Possibly, but debunked suggest a degree of certainty that’s clearly missing. He may have also chosen the variety simply due to visual appeal over taste etc.
“Pedantically speaking”, a depressed person doesn’t have zero drive, just a low drive. There is also plenty of debate as to what depression is, and what an intelligent response to it would be.

Implying that I’m being uncharitable is the antithesis of the cooperative principle.

I’m being neither charitable nor uncharitable. I am merely disagreeing with your logic.

As I mentioned elsewhere, I disagree with the idea of a fixed ceiling on intelligence as a general concept.

If you mean performance on narrow tests then I agree there will be ceilings, but that is irrelevant to the general idea.
We had an Encore Multimax at WPI (it replaced the Dec-20). Its "annex" terminal server outlived the computer as a product. A friend inherited the 9-track tape drive- it was SCSI, so we used it on a PC for a small data conversion business.
I've been using my Sony W-1000XM3s with my Android phone for months and I haven't had to install an app. The only thing the app would get me is a bunch of equalizer shit (which my music player could do and I never use anyway), dynamic noise cancelling of some form (which I'm not sure why I'd ever use, just an on/off toggle is good enough for me).

As shitty as the app collecting data is it isn't as if the app is required for me to have had an excellent experience with these headphones so I'm not really all that bothered that the app is invasive.

If any real functionality was locked behind it I'd be annoyed, but honestly the app seems like an afterthought with no real purpose other than "EVERYTHING NEEDS AN APP" type thinking.
Truthfully — the biggest thing has been leaning into my gut more as opposed to trying to reason through everything thoroughly. The decisions are many and the time is short. Kahneman’s “Thinking Fast and Slow” is a great read, and when working in engineering management, the conclusion to be drawn from it is that your gut (aka system 1) is actually really good at summing all of your past experience and telling you what you should do. There is definitely more in the domain of human psychology that I have studied as well.

In addition, I’ve been forced to continue to hone my technical skills, but more in the domain of “why” instead of “how”. I was able to be an effective engineer by mastering the “how” (which of course required some non-zero knowledge of “why”). However, the types of minds that exist in engineering (or at least the types I want on my team), are not satisfied with a boss telling them “how” to do something. The reasoning must be sound. Engineers want to see the work. If you can’t provide compelling arguments for why a new policy or decision exists, then you quickly lose credibility.
> notifications aren’t in real-time

Be aware that even with build-in threshold limit application will not be real time (due to parallelism, especially if multiple data-centers are involved).

But they can be much closer to real-time.
Because some people just want to watch the world burn.
Yeah, that's fair. We did follow up and I'm told we're unblocked now.
If a person has parenting obligations than how is WFO better than WFH? Or are we talking about more than just WFH, such as a pandemic that reduces childcare options?
You can make a hole in one, but that's not what "par" means
They charge so much for it as a disincentive to use it for CDN purposes. It is not architected to act as a CDN for people, and if they don't overcharge for egress, people will use it as a CDN because it is easy.
It's literally any unsecured database, not just databases containing PII.

What if you just have a toy database for a toy project on the public internet and some jerk just deletes it to "teach you a lesson"? It's like, gee, thanks...
One of the things necessary for a free society is free critique of art as well. Even if beauty is in the eye of the beholder, not all art is the same quality. If you don't believe me, spend a few hours on fanfiction.net.

I tried with the New Yorker. I subscribed last year, and it got to the point that no one in the house wanted to read it. We'd look at the cartoons, apply the universal captions to them ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10262979 ), but articles felt like chores. That's nothing against long form journalism, just that they don't try to make their articles accessible.

It's like going to movies without a seeing a preview or knowing the genre. Sometimes that works really well, but if you get 15 minutes in and start wondering why you should care about any of these people, it's time to move on. It's great that this never happened to you.

But it just so happened that their house style causes my text parser to fail all the way up the stack. My fast english reader throws an exception, and asks my foreign word region of the brain to see if it has a match. Heuristics say it's English, English says it's not a word, which then throws an exception that bubbles up to my top level of consciousness to decide what it means. It takes all of five seconds, but in the process it interrupts the flow of reading. Which gives the conscious mind time to ponder -- why am I reading this anyway? The answer too often came back negative.

Nothing wrong with you liking the magazine, or other people. But to me, the diaereses are the Jar Jar Binks of the New Yorker -- something designed to take me out of the action because the writer couldn't kill his darlings. And I don't think it's wrong to complain about specific aspects of art that make it unenjoyable.
Historic carbon dioxide decline could hold clues for future climate
> There are nearly 8 billion people on this planet.

It is not a complex problem, this is the root cause.
> There are always more people wanting to do science than what is available in funding.

So why not just fund them?

Any process you could create or that currently exists just ends up being gamed by people who understand how to get funding.
Delete your unused code, people
1) I think the idea of funding "people, not projects" (the Howard Hughes Research Institute's byline; I'm not affiliated with them in any way) is a great one. It would probably involve changing the structure of research programs in other fundamental ways, such as by

2) Limiting the number of graduate students. The current relatively-low barrier of entry into grad school provides cheap, motivated labor for PIs who are trying to stretch their research dollars to the limit. The outcome today is far more PhD graduates than jobs, and for those who get jobs, far too many of them for the research funds that are available. The overall quality of research drops when PIs focus what is fundable, rather than what is important.

3) Shifting the burden of the bulk of research work from trainees to salaried research associates/assistants/lab techs.

4) Change the focus of research output from novelty and volume (of papers published) to quality and significance of work done. Good research is often slow and careful, and doesn't fit well with the demands of grant funding agencies.

Fewer grad students means more resources available for their training, and better career prospects. Shifting the bulk of the research benchwork to salaried professionals removes the incentive to commit fraud. None of this has to come at the expense of research quality; as an example, the NIH/HHMI already have approaches to vetting research programs for quality, even if the PIs aren't competing for grant funding.
It's the opposite for me, when I had a membership. However, per my original comment, my local stores may not be typical. I live in an extremely population dense area. I also live in an area where gas is about the cheapest in the nation already, so Costco is only about $0.10 cheaper per gallon, sometimes less, and it's so backed up that you wait 20 minutes to get to the pump. Again, if there wasn't this level of "friction" to each trip, I'd have no problem shopping there for items that are cheaper and more local supermarket for everything else.
Because cats are cute and likes to swipe things off a table.
Is it able to transpile to Coq/Lean/Agda/etc?
I think you need both. I find that working towards big real deadlines(not bs dates!) can really focus your attention on a critical path, but always operating in that mode is a straight path to burn out.
It’s 2020, where security should be at the forefront of almost any tech endeavour. It’s not something to think about afterwards, not any more.

If, given the frequent and public attention to hacked data, you aren’t thinking about how to make sure your data is safe, there really can’t be any sympathy when you get hit by an attack that relies on zero security applied to your database.

C’mon, do we as an industry really learn NOTHING from all the hacks we’ve lived through ?
Inflammable means able to be put “in flames”. But most people read “in-“ in this case as a negation, and therefore assume it’s the opposite.

So “flammable” is born and people start using it and thinking the original form is opposite.

But inflammable materials are dangerous to treat otherwise! Since no one confuses “flammable” for inert, for safety reasons, the word “flammable” is used when labeling inflammable material.

The Simpsons made a joke about it once with Dr. Nik.
IMHO, thats a trifle misleading.

Squeak was the open-source smalltalk, but got bogged down by the accumulated baggage of unfinished projects stuck inside it. Etoys, an aging morphic implementation, etc.

Squeak was forked in two separate directions:

One was Cuis, which went the "simple-is-better" route, and went on an aggressive cull against complexity. They stripped out as much as they could, and modularised what they could.

The result is a much smaller "smalltalk", and yes, more in line with the feel of the original smalltalk-80.

Pharo also forked from squeak at about the same time. Their goals were "get rid of some of the squeak baggage, and add newer stuff. So in that sense, its in many ways more complex than squeak (and much more complex than cuis).

BUT, they are all essentially forks from squeak. They use essentially the same VM underneath. There are LOTS of squeak classes in the standard classes of both cuis and pharo.

In many ways, squeak, pharo and cuis are really 3 different distributions of squeak, as opposed to 3 different languages.

I think the following is the more realistic comparison:

- squeak = debian stable

- pharo = arch linux (or gentoo)

- cuis = alpine linux

But, they're all linux, and neither one is "more" linux than the other.
There's an article around from byuu/near (who has sadly now completely retired from emulator development due to harassment) that went through the process of fixing a bug that was in a Harry Potter PS2 game - just recently. PS2 emulation is "close enough" for most things but there are still bugs and fixes to be made.
That is an incredibly expensive chair. So the market is very rich people?
Oldest Flying 747 is 51 Years Old (Iranian)
Oh yeah, there are plenty of things that could be improved! Alas, getting any industry-wide traction on such solutions is beyond my pay grade (always failed).
> Limiting the number of graduate students.

Isn't a lot of the graduate school product providing a way for people to immigrate to the United States?

The economy around it is pretty complicated and definitely there's way more pressure to supply more, not fewer, spots.
Related: https://hammer.lol/
I’m not sure exactly what you’re disagreeing with. My point was just that it’s not useful to direct criticism at a job title when there are so many examples of failures by people with any given title. I’ve seen people who are ostensibly pen-testers or auditors blithely telling others to click through important warnings or have a root-on-all-machines password to make their work easier.

Downsizing and other false economies are definitely a contributing factor. Security and reliability are easy to dismiss as expensive overhead until they suddenly aren’t.
> 100x because you're #1 on Hacker News

It doesn't matter why it's goes 100x.

If you have a limited budged you have a limited budged. Even if the tragic is "nice" you can't affort it.
Cognitive AI: machines learn to communicate and collaborate with humans
"for a personal project"
One was a post-doctoral scientist, called X. The lab I was in was asked to take X on by the institute because they had a falling out with another lab, the details of which were not disclosed. A year later, after very poor productivity and various petty issues with other people in the lab, someone checked X's data collection where the original data was available on the instrtument, and found that it was all made up. Subsequently the previous lab investigated, and a paper X published as first author was retracted. Turns out in the previous lab there were also concerns about data fabrication and many other problematic interactions before the fraud was discovered. Also turns out X left another lab before this under similar circumstances.

Another was a well established Professor 'P' with a very large number of published papers, who continued to publish multiple papers at a high rate. There had been doubts for years due to data that seemed too cute and the fact that P always took the data and made the final figures in the paper themselves. P was finally caught out when a paper included data which could not possibly have been collected, and was outright fabricated.

It is worthing nothing that both P and X left the institute without disciplinary action beyond employment termination and signing an NDA. One of them is in another city, getting government grants and doing just fine. Everyone in the know doesn't trust any of their papers of course, but I guess that doesn't include whoever reviews their grants.

None of these are 'good people gone bad'. They are are flawed individuals with no integrity and sociopathic personality traits, and they waste a lot of decent people's time dealing with their actions.
English is beautiful. I say that as an ESL who speaks Spanish and Italian fluently.

English spelling, and etymology are fascinating and closely related. English spelling often retains the original spelling despite changes in pronunciation.

Inflammable come directly from the Latin where “in” is not a negation but putting something “in” a state of being, in this case flame.
In this hypothetical, the message that is posted on Facebook would just be a link + something innocent that makes people click through. Why? Because the easiest form of spam filtering works by looking at the content. Spamming via a link rather than directly gives this kind of content filtering little to work on.

A typical way to deal with this is to consider domain reputation somehow, if the content contains a link. E.g. trust links to old domains more than young ones. Or trust sites that with lots of back links more than ones with none.

So an old domain with user created content, a good reputation , but little moderation or abuse protection turns into a great place to host this data. Eventually links to the domain get flagged one too many times, and it gets blocked.

I agree that they are not sending spam in this scenario. But neither were the open smtp relays of old. They just passed it through, while allowing the spammers to leech off of the relay’s reputation.

(Just to be clear, I have no knowledge of what happened here in reality. So I don’t know that DW is hosting spam, nor that it was linked to from Facebook. This is just an example of why a domain blocklist might be a totally reasonable option.)
This was predicting the future world of launch day DLC that's pre-downloaded.
3D-printable Davinci catapult gift card
That approach is still vulnerable to what amounts to a MITM attach: a bad actor can simply provide the legitimate versions for whatever period he deems required to build trust.
The killer Smart TV app we are missing
Once again you violate the spirit of the group with ad hominem.

I agree your original comment used the conditional ‘if’ about the truth of fixed intelligence.

Such a proposition naturally invites examination of whether the conditions are in supported by evidence, which is all I am doing.

I am curious if you have a definition of intelligence that sheds light on your original argument.

I have no stake in what truth you believe.

However I think your argument is clearly incorrect.

As you suggest, I could be basing my conclusion on a different definition to the one you are using.

But if you won’t produce a clarifying definition, you can’t reasonably make claim to be operating under any principle of cooperation.
Clickbait title. Sounds more like someone is trying things out, no evidence of anything production related.
None AFAIK.

Post infection, people seem to have robust neutralizing antibody responses and T cell immunity. Even if antibody responses are not measurably durable, latent B cell memory is _highly_ likely (e.g. antibody production restarts when the antigen is detected)

Antibody dependent enhancement seems to be unlikely given that the SARS-COV-2 spike protein seems relatively stable.

So once infected you are highly likely protected in the future.

That doesn't mean you can't be reinfected and be contagious... just that rather than go into full blown ARDS/sepsis, you would have a mild cold.
Yes, but synfuels are a drop in replacement of the current fuels, and they are net zero emissions. Hydrogen is nasty. Really, really nasty: in liquid form it can only be stored at impossibly low temperatures, it has a very low density (about 13 times less dense than water), it leaks easily, it creates frost (remember the o-rings from the doomed space shuttle). Building a new airplane is difficult enough, building that burns hydrogen instead of regular jet fuel is an enormous engineering challenge. The chance of us ever seeing a hydrogen-based airplane is exactly zero.
Why watch? uBlock origin [1], the most recommended browser extension in the history of the internet, blocks the ads on Google. You can also right click and block any element you don't want in your search results, like "Top Stories" and "Videos". You're still getting the search results, if there's content in your browser you don't want to see, you have more control over that than Google does.

I haven't seen an advertisement in 10+ years. I don't really understand why anyone chooses to see them when they don't have to.

And sorry if this comes off as confrontational, I just see so many people talking about advertisements and it's difficult to have to tell each individual that adblocking extensions have existed for close to 15 years [2]. I wish there was some better way to spread this information so no one would have to see ads or comment about their existence ever again. The internet is so much better without them.

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

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adblock_Plus
A JSONB column in Postgres doesn't have:

- Proper replication in its first-class, default configuration

- Automatically managed cluster membership

- Seamless automated failover

- First-class async client libraries in many languages

- A non-awful query language

Focusing on the JSON is beside the point (though it is a convenience). Wake me up when you've got a properly distributed database.
Probably nothing.

They have a feature that’s quite handy to me (the proprietary quick changing from one Apple device to another IFF it has the same Apple ID — so no good for shared hardware like a tv) but “quite handy” is far from invaluable.

You can program a tap on each earbud to do certain things: again, handy but you don’t have that ability I doubt you’d be upset.

Apple’s quite clever on figuring out how much “bleed out” from their own stack works for them (e.g. iPod support for PCs, which open standards to embrace, which not, etc). They are hoping you’ll switch to an iphone next, but even you don’t you are revenue.
It can be argued that part of being a good researcher is developing an intuition and taste for interesting and promising research questions. Of course, the counterpart to this is that you see hype and fads developing very easily. But overall it is very easy to come up with experiments that any experienced researcher would have told you beforehand had no chance of producing interesting / impactful / positive results. The system must discriminates against researchers that are able to come up with interesting (positive) results with greater probability, since it represents every time an expense of finite resources. If your only contribution as a researcher is to be able to make conscientious and well realized experiments, then sadly your place is much more as an assistant than a PI.

I've never seen it argued in serious research circles that grants should be given this way, but I did find the non-research community to be overly obsessed over negative results not being published or rewarded. It is simply a consequence of the set of possible experiments being infinite, the same way you can come up with an infinite number of startup ideas, but not all of them are equally good even before implementation. Should we reward startup founders with failed startups because they tried their best and really did the best they could given the circumstances?