skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This is a complicated question because it really depends on your paper workflow.

I have been, for 30+ years, a heavy paper notebook writer, with a whole workflow- a superset of the bullet workflow for todos, but also supporting creative writing/brainstorming, and other workflows. I have spent untold...thousands...on pens, levenger paper, storage of square meters of old notebooks, the whole 9.

It took me a long time- calendar-wise- to transition to the remarkable, because the ergonomics are completely different. In some ways better, in some ways not as good, in many ways not as good from an all-digital perspective as it could be. But I have faith in the org in their choices going forward to build on the base that exists now.

It's not an ipad. It's not a consumption-first device. It's a production-first device.

It's very different from paper, and far from perfect for what it is, but I would not go back to paper. And I see it as an improvement to laptop for some uses cases. Depending on how the remarkable 2 feels I may get some for my kids.
Sample size is not everything "Literary Digest poll was also one of the largest and most expensive polls ever conducted, with a sample size of around 2.4 million people" The large size by itself does not guarantee correctness https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/wk4/lecture/case1.h...
It should stop other groups wasting their time on the same research, no?
The problem with a comment like this is that it adds to what it is complaining about.

While I have you: Could you please stop creating accounts for every few comments you post? We ban accounts that do that. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. You needn't use your real name, of course, but for HN to be a community, users need some identity for other users to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be a different kind of forum.

https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
Cool, makes sense. :)
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Sure, maybe this doesn't help you in a channel, but one on one? Or small groups? Most people don't run custom apps and you're probably going to know if your friends do. The biggest use I see of bidirectional deletion is if you see your friends be picked up by a nefarious actor and you can delete the messages. This reduces the chance of self incrimination because you can probably delete the messages before the phone is cloned or the messages are saved in some way.
The following corrections to fundamental factual errors should not distract one from the meat of the article:

1. Jet engines, like car engines, are not described by the "Carnot cycle", and their efficiency is not governed by it. The Carnot cycle describes closed-system equipment like refrigerators and Nuke plants. Jet engines, like (our now obsolete) cars, start with new working fluid -- air -- at the intake, and discard it at the end -- exhaust. Their theoretical limit of efficiency is technically 100%, not the 30-40% typical of Carnot equipment. In practice, they don't get close, but those huge ship engines do achieve up to 55%: they all take in air much, much cooler than their exhaust.

2. The change to the thrust vector is not a consequence of moving the engines forward. It is a simple result of the bigger engine diameter making the center farther below the wing. Moving the engines forward and up reduced the size of the change to the thrust vector -- just not enough so to match the old one. But the move had other effects, besides...

3. The added aerodynamic lift of the engine nacelles has nothing to do with more power being produced by the bigger engines. It is purely a product of the angle relative to the direction of air moving past. Bigger barrels have more area, and more lift, and moving them forward gave them more lever arm to apply their lift to rotate the plane instead of just holding it up, as wing lift does.

4. The change to the thrust vector is what makes punching the throttle also apply a force to rotate the airframe to a higher pitch angle. So there are two independent forces -- off-center lift, and off-center thrust -- both causing the same effect: pitching the plane up more than the pilot asked for. How much you get of each is a very complicated product of all the details of how the plane is flying.

5. On all 737s of any vintage, the controls really are still directly, physically connected, by steel cables, to the control surfaces -- the hinged bits at the back edges of wings and wing-shaped things. But there are hydraulics that also yank on the cables, and other stuff yanks on the control column, to doctor the pilot's experience.
if one has to ask ...

clearly they cannot. they are based in the US.

it's like VPNs. or DOH. it's not a matter of absolute privacy, it's a matter of privacy wrt a certain party.

if privacy.com really were private, you'd fund an account with bitcoin. which afaict you cannot. so you need another level of abstraction/privacy to keep your details from privacy.com.
They're orthogonal for non-trivial decisions. Once you hit the efficient frontier of anything, you need to start making trade-offs.
Thompson, Ritchie and Kernighan admit that Unix was a prank (1989)
I have also got an unsolicited pitch from their recruiter and I have to concur - before I even knew what is the company about and who is behind it my BS detector was off the scale almost immediately.

All talk about "extremely high hiring standards", perks like "washing your laundry", "free massages", "wear pink on Friday" and similar nonsense, but not a single word about what is the company doing or what would I, should they hire me, be doing apart from gems like "Deploy Palantir at moment's notice".

Then I have found the zingers:
"Palantir employees are far from anti-social. We have parties pretty often."

And the bit on how people there turned down or left Google and Facebook.

I mean WTF? Why would you include things like this in a recruiting pitch? The creepiness vibe was off the charts.

Then I did a bit of research and it was obvious why. I have told the headhunter in no uncertain terms to take a hike. But I have heard they are paying well - if you can stomach what they are doing.
Exactly. What you do not want to happen is that your program crashes with fancy "illegal instruction" errors on older CPUs that do not have the newest fancy features yet, but are still in use by a large chunk of your (paying) users.

Performance critical programs usually deal with that by either providing multiple builds targeting different CPU features/CPUs, or let the user compile themselves from source with the right flags, or have CPU runtime detection and provide alternative versions of a few important performance critical functions for different CPU feature sets (e.g. browsers, ffmpeg, glibc, various VMs/runtimes like Java Hotspot or dotnet, do that) while the majority of code is still compiled for a lowest common subset of CPU features.

Of course, languages that run on (usually) JIT-ed VMs/runtimes have a bit of an advantage here, as the actual machine code is generated from source code or byte code only at runtime, at which point it is clear what kind of CPU is underneath the program. They can - but not always do - implement optimized JITting depending on the CPU features. (of course, every language/VM/runtime comes with its own set of pros and cons and there is no silver bullet).

To make matters even more complicated: compiling code to use the newest CPU features or newest optimization techniques will not mean it will actually run faster.
E.g. AVX512 may actually slow down your code (when multi-threaded) on many CPUs[1]. Or heavily "optimized" code may become larger in machine code, to the point where your "unoptimized" code may run faster because it fits in the CPU cache(s) properly while the "optimized" version does not. "-Os" optimized code may run faster than "-Ofast" optimized code for this matter. Or it may not. Depending on the actual code.

I remember compiling ffmpeg and libx264 myself a bunch of years ago, with the "best" flags for my system, starting with "-march=" and "-Ofast" of course, thinking I am a tough skillful super geek now. Imagine my surprise when I tested the performance against a default ffmpeg build and my optimized build was 2-5% slower.

[1]
https://blog.cloudflare.com/on-the-dangers-of-intels-frequen...
That no longer works when the adversary has any sort of credible air defense. Can't risk manned aircraft at low altitude any more.
Really? Your router does not have a caching nameserver built in?
Awesome. I've been doing a bunch of geocoding recently and looked into self-hosting to get around the Nominatim (Open Street Map API) rate limit. In the past I used the datascience toolkit for this, which was awesome, but is no longer maintained. http://www.datasciencetoolkit.org. Nominatim also has self-host instructions https://nominatim.org/release-docs/latest/admin/Installation...

I decided not to self-host after seeing the spec requirements for Nominatim (64gb ram!). Much more than the old DSTK.

Looks like the specs to install this are much less, aboutt 8gb ram and tens of gb storage. Maybe i'll give it a try.
Sounds like a Protoss carrier fleet from StarCraft.
Researchers at UCL Set a New World Record for Fastest Internet
This is true, but the kind of value being provided is different. Peace of mind is not the same thing as entertainment.
Space.com likes to write those kind of titles. However, the observable universe is ~93 billion lights years[0] across so 20-60 light years is relatively close.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe
Mainly because what you're saying isn't true for many workloads? (Also this already works for most existing integrated GPUs.)

The types of workloads run on GPUs typically like very high memory bandwidth and are usually willing to live with higher memory latency to get it. Onboard GPU memory is usually built with this in mind (trade off capacity and latency for increases in bandwidth). This is generally speaking the opposite of what you want in a CPU where people often want very high memory capacity and lower latencies, but may not limited by memory bandwidth, so simply sticking a GPU on die and giving it access to a memory subsystem that was not designed to feed a GPU is not going to make anything better.
> ... are impossible in wasm, because code can't be handcrafted. It always goes trough compiler.

That's extremely wrong. People have been hand writing WASM files for ages.
The author of that post is on the DiceKeys advisory board.

At some point, you're going to feed the entropy source into software. Having the app be part of your trusted computing base reduces the chance of a data-entry error that could leave users forever without their data.
link is broken now.
Then I guess the morons with careers in astrophysics are investigating it for no reason then.

Beyond your wildly unfounded and I daresay naive assumption that the objects have had no effect on the solar system, perhaps they need to hear YOUR postulations.

If only they were reading all of your grayed out comments, I see your dismissive and arrogant condescending remarks are leading to such fruitful insights and conversations. /s

Feel better soon
Striving for efficiency is bad science.

The dream takes precedence over the reality.
I mean, there are two things here a) even Softbank doesn't assume indefinite losses/ unknown profitability, they have an exit horizon in mind that just happens to be larger than that of most other funds, and b) a lot of tech startups that have IPO'ed in the recent past have all been unprofitable when going public, and Softbank isn't responsible for most of them. A notable exception was Zoom ( I'm talking about last year ) who were profitable before the IPO, as far as I remember.
Bird lungs research techniques could be used to help confirm Covid-19 diagnosis
Thanks for sharing, this brought back some great memories. I grew up in Wuppertal and took the Schwebebahn all the time, fantastic ride to avoid traffic. You can still book the classical Kaiserwagen I believe for special occasions, although I think it may not be possible now during COVID.

https://www.wuppertal.de/kaiserwagen
Show HN: Code and watch tutorials in a single tab
DomeCode's Fusion is a real-time disposable editor using which you can start learning front-end technology including HTML, CSS, JS with any YouTube tutorial of your choice in a single tab instead of a code editor and two browser windows like a memory hog.
I'm using something called MixMax (https://mixmax.com/) It has a lot of bells and whistles, but I use it only for scheduling meetings over email.
> I am surprised they haven't gotten enterprise businesses to sign on

What makes you think that? I know of at least one global brand using Palantir.
Well, maybe that's simple enough to explain. Maybe scared citizens don't want to go and publicly vote for fear they're going to get the shit kicked out of them?
Show HN: Enroll in college, get cheap healthcare
It doesn't. It's not a recursive resolver. It forwards qualified names (those including a dot) to the upstream nameserver (the ISP's).
* It's instructive to track the underlying resource. If technology_A saves you time, it's more time-efficient (aka quick). If technology_B saves you money, it's more cost-efficient (aka cheap).

* In game theory, "7 hospital beds" weakly dominates "8 hospital beds". But (x') strictly dominates (x, y, z). This is exactly what Pareto Optimality is about. Though perhaps a more colloquial term would be useful here.
It takes a day or two to get used to the small form factor, my left hand types with 4 fingers, right usually one or two. I was never a 10-finger-type of touchtyper anyway. Because of the limited key count somey characters are in strange places with a fn-combo, but these you just learn over time.

I find the keyboard good enough to take my phone out and write a proper business email, caps, punctuation, lingo and all. I find the keyboard good enough to reply to threads like this while waiting for the kids in the park. I find it good enough to fix a small bug in software, do basic git bookkeeping. I use it for IRC all day long.

I do not find the keyboard good enough to sit down and write proper documentation, or do real coding sessions.
Most unfortunate. :(
It has everything to do with this when the conversation is if the government is going to use your messages in the unencrypted channel to come after you. If your friends are picked up by a nefarious actor, you would have to know that they were–and also, you'd have to ensure that Telegram isn't keeping some sort of deletion log.
Finally launched my newsletter for the struggling “wantrepreneur”
Agreed.

SemVer is nice but not nescessarily - I'd rather a project not follow semver but have a clear deprecation cycle they follow all other things been equal.

version n, we are going to remove foo
n+1 foo is marked as deprecated
n+2 foo is removed.

That I can work with since it gives me a change to refactor with clear ideas of what will break.

The symfony team get my absolute respect for the way they handle this over in PHP land,it gives me a high degree of re-assurance that we can reliably shift versions with minimal friction since they are alerting me though deprecation notices that I can then go resolve.
Besides the massive heat/power issues you would have, main memory like DDR4 is optimized for different characteristics than graphics memory like GDDR5 (mostly trade offs in latency vs bandwidth).
> I've heard that memory is a bottleneck for the GPU, specifically the time it takes to move stuff from RAM (main memory) to the GPU's RAM/memory. If it is such a big bottleneck, then why don't we (yet) see powerful GPU sharing the same die as the CPU and accessing/using/sharing RAM with the CPU (like integrated GPUs do)? Then there'd be a zero bottleneck. You would just give load whatever into RAM, and just give the (super-powerful integrated) GPU a pointer/address. Bam, done. Why hasn't this happened yet? / What am I missing/misunderstanding here?

That is not the only bottleneck involved.

Historically, GPUs have used GDDR ram as opposed to general purpose DDR memory. One of the key differences between GDDR and DDR is the bus width, which can be as large as 1024 bits, compared to conventional ram with a 64 bit bus width (although dual channel is effectively 128 bits). This much wider bus results in much higher memory bandwidth which is generally necessary to feed the truly enormous number of functional units in a GPU.

I suppose you could ask: why doesn't everyone just standardize on GDDR?

1. This would dramatically increase cache line size. I don't have data, but I assume this would generally be bad.

2. My recollection (but I don't have a source for this) is that DDR has lower latency than GDDR ram, so for branchy code (which CPUs often have to deal with, but GPUs typically never have to deal with), DDR could actually be faster.

3. DDR is cheaper to manufacture. Aside from being higher volume, a lower bus width just makes is simpler to manufacture.
I just tend to like differing styles of music together... it takes time to find new content/music/artists/albums, let alone curating playlists... I don't like listening to the same songs all the time.

I have a massive music collection, and sometimes I'll pull up a specific album or artist... but mostly prefer the streaming options were others' time are used to curate the play lists.

I kind of wish that independent streaming services weren't effectively crushed. I miss DJ curated content with fewer commercials.
Also an important aspect is that it is open sourced, meaning others can audit it. I'm a little untrusting of people that say "trust me" but also "no, you can't look at it." (unless there is a good reason to hide it, which in this case I do not believe there is)
> the other doesn't have any tradeoffs, it's just a better way of doing things based on novel techniques

At least in the case of code, this isn't true. The variability comes in terms of change to the system, rather than the running of the system. i.e., if I simplify a process to be less modular and more monolithic, making it more efficient, that also makes it more purpose-built and less flexible. The "risk" increases of running up against a change that needs to be made but is intractably onerous. There's always a tradeoff.
This is called the problem of induction and is indeed fundamental to the scientific method.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
This is the default configuration in all consumer routers I've seen. Granted, that's not very many.
> they can’t just arbitrarily change and force you to accept

They can if "they" are the state.
Correct. We believe a two-bit reduction in strength is a small price to pay to ensure you get the same key even if you scan the box at a different orientation (e.g. up-side down).

We could have designed the software to try to recognize the top of the box, but the box for the steel version may look very different (or not be what you'd think of as a box at all.)
The problem could be twofold: 1) our tools push us towards multitasking. Notifications pop up and there's a sense of immediacy where you need to deal with it now (texting back) or it will get "lost" in the stream of new notifications, never to be dealt with. 2) people today expect everything, even communications, to be responsive, leading to a low content response immediately as opposed to a high quality one later.

For #1, modern tools like Slack favor immediate responses since it's not set up to treat conversations or requests as manipulable items. With email you can drag and drop into folders and deal with them one by one. With slack, once you've "seen" a message, there's really no way to put it somewhere to remind yourself to respond. (If there is, it's not obvious to me.)
What they need with this is a human computable function that can take a short nonce and combine it with the arrangement of rolled dice to produce a secret value. This eliminates the problem of the trusted scanner. It also allows the same dice arrangement to be used for different services. If you are ever at risk of compromise, just simply discard the dice.
I think I despise marketing. For one marketers and spam calls have basically made me put my phone in airplane mode permantely, only allowing people in my contacts to get thru. I am getting close to the point of getting rid of my cell phone.
If I get unsolicited emails I set up a rule to send them straight to the trash can.
Mostly I am getting tired of every single interaction with a person or technology being used or designed to extract information or money. Don't get me wrong. I am willing to buy things. I just don't want to have to spend X amount of dollars for the rest of my life.
I took fast.ai a few years ago, and then again a year or so ago. I like their lectures and their methodology of teaching which enabled me to meet a lot of interesting people in my city, but I ended up just building models using vanilla PyTorch instead of using their library as an added layer just because it felt like they were tweaking and revamping their code so often that at times it was kind of hard to connect the docs with the latest code.
Fighter jets will crash a lot if for no other reason than because they're doing fancy dangerous maneuvering a lot more than any other sort of plane. But I don't think that can be taken as damning the premise of using software to control relaxed-stability aircraft.

Supermaneuverability is the primary reason fighter jets are designed to use such systems, but these systems also see use in other sorts of aircraft for other reasons. The F-117 was stabilized by a computer controlled fly-by-wire system because its aerodynamics were fucked up due to its unusual shape (which was motivated by stealth considerations.) A few F-117s crashed but as far as I know none of those crashes were attributed to software fucking up.

Similarly, the B-2 is inherently unstable (being a flying wing without vertical stabilizer.) Only one B-2 has ever crashed. That one crashed because condensation in air data sensors caused an inaccurate airspeed to be computed. However it's not clear to me that human pilots would have faired any better given the inaccurate data. Even if that crash is blamed on software, the B-2 still has a great track record and the all the public information about the in-development B-21 suggests it too will be a software-stabilized flying wing.

This all said, the 737 MAX isn't even a relaxed-stability airplane.
> but everything was allotted its own time and thought, as by a man of leisure

As an extreme example; watching Schumacher at his peak perform during a qualifying lap or during race, in treacherous rainy conditions, while everyone was absolutely struggling, and him out front, half a lap ahead of everyone was like watching poetry in motion. You could tell he was very relaxed just by the way his hands operated the steering wheel, hitting the apex every time in a single motion, no twitching or tossing around the car.

It seemed he just had more time, as in the time had just slowed down for him compared to everyone else.

Edit: Typo; damn you Mac OS auto-correct!