skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Theoretically you could fly over most waves, as some designs allow fleet height equal to 1/2 wingspan - so dozens of meters of height. The issues with ground effect vehicles are several:

A plane takes advantage of the much thinner atmosphere higher up to go farther easier, while an ekranoplan has to plum along under an ocean of air sapping its fuel efficiency. No GEV design I'm aware of (feel free to correct!) could make it across any ocean without stopping for refueling, and many can't even island-hop across the ocean. You'd need to construct refueling stations in the middle of the ocean.

GEVs need calm, flat water to take off. This makes the above refueling stations even more challenging, as any vehicle that lands to top up may not be able to get airborne again. This seems a minor point, but it's why we abandoned seaplanes - it's just not worth the effort of waiting for the seas to calm when a plane on an asphalt runway is always ready to go.

GEVs are awkward to maneuver and very slow to turn, so if a pilot does happen to see a rogue 30 meter wave up ahead he has very little he can do to avoid it. Everyone just dies.

Taking off in light wind is difficult, as wave direction is inconsistent. Taking off in heavy wind is a miserable, bumpy experience for the passangers. Sort of damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

I do think there might be something to GEVs, but it would require someone to invent a design that combined 1) 30+ meter flight height with 2) 3000 km range on one fuel tank. The ability to hop from bay to bay is critical to the design becoming practical.
It's a series of images and I'm choosing not to rehost them. Here's [1] the direct links, hopefully it opens for you.

[1] https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5f406669322964f142b45249/...

[2] https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5f4066699a557880d973bc91/...

[3] https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5f406667d1dbd65a6a995d23/...

[4] https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5f406667dcb11d2009b4d0f1/...

[5] https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5f406667165d4d7af1f9bd6f/...
an old and true complaint.

What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it?
I met another faulty transport planning algorithm 30 years ago.

Background: my first job in the UK Civil Service was as an admin assistant (I did the filing) in the Highways Contracts division, Dept of Transport. My team's job was to let the contracts for developing plans for new/improved national roads across England.

The Algorithm: roads cost a lot of money to build; every proposed route had to demonstrate significant value for money through a cost-benefit analysis for each project, considering a number of different detailed options for the new or improved road. One of the main costs was how much money needed to be spent on buying and securing the land, and compensating the owners for loss of business, etc. In cities and towns, this favoured putting bypasses through the poorer parts of the (sub)urban environment. In more rural areas it favoured routing roads through less productive farmland. The least productive land was land that wasn't being farmed or mined. Routes put through these areas would be given an acquisition cost of £0/meter[1]

... Which is why in 1993 the Government settled on developing an improvement scheme for the A303 which put a new double-lane carriageway straight through the middle of Stonehenge.

The proposal didn't go down too well. 30 years - and several administrations - later, the Government is still trying to get the proposal through planning[2]

[1] - Though in fact highway lengths were still measured in 'chains' and 'links' back in the early 1990s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_(unit)

[2] - Current proposal for the project: https://assets.highwaysengland.co.uk/roads/road-projects/A30...
Thanks. Asynchronocity is one thing but there is one thing that in theory can achieve better performance than asynchronicity alone: I'm referring to the reactive programming paradigm which benefit from the concept of backpressure.
If you've heard of it, do you think it could achieve even better performance?
https://medium.com/@jayphelps/backpressure-explained-the-flo...
https://time.com/88025/wordpress-parent-automattic-joins-the...

>In 2012 the company said it was profitable and generated $45 million in revenue.
Well, have you heard of hand watches?
I have to constantly look up US imperial amounts. I like that the imperial system is sometimes based on twelves, the problem is where it isn't (volume is based on doubling, inches are successive halving). It's really easy to divide things into halves, quarters, and thirds in imperial, where in the metric system you have to round.

Honestly, a system completely standardized around twelves or sixties would be near optimal.
the real problem here is that we allow google, apple or facebook to control public discourse. we let companies decide what we are allowed to talk about.

regardless of wheter we agree with what's being removed or not, this can't be healthy.

i am not american, so my interpretation may be off, but here is how i understand the problem:

many people would like hatespeech to go away. jet the US constitution prohibits government censorship, so the government can't do much about it. instead they rely on companies like google and facebook to do the work for them.

the companies are also compelled by public pressure to do what the government can't.

contrast that to germany, where hatespeech like the promotion of nazi ideas is outright illegal.

while i haven't verified this, this puts less pressure on companies to censure anything that isn't mandated by law.

public demands for the control of speech can also more easily b etranslated into law, so that the public doesn't need to resort to pressuring companies. on the contrary, they expect the government to protect them from companies that act in bad faith.

it is hard to say which system is better. if there were many small companies each making different decisions about public discourse, then things would be fine.

the problem is not so much the removal of outright hatespeech, but the more subtle influence in for example what is allowed to be posted about the covid epidemic, or other sensitive topics like political opinions, fact checking and all that.

as it stands, i prefer that decisions about what speech is allowed is controlled by law such that we can use legal means to combat abuse.
The block argument and multiple return value proposal is a very good proposal.
https://github.com/WebAssembly/multi-value/blob/master/propo...

Any idea how likely is this to make it in to the spec?
> I don't know if you meant it hyperbolically, but who the hell laughs at other people's meal schedule?

Having a shared meal schedule across society means it's relatively easy to plan social or otherwise shared events. You certainly don't have to care, but given how large a part of people's lives groups and group activities are, it's hardly surprising such a deviation would lead to jesting at least.
No, this is what bad advice looks like, solicited or not.

Good advice is rare, and in my experience unsolicited advice is neither higher nor lower quality than solicited advice. This is of course anecdotal.
Griffon: a desktop application development platform for the JVM
And even if there was most people wouldn’t sue anything other than the default or biggest store. Apple store policies for developers is making a lot of devs really hate Apple.
One Man's Race to Invent a Rapid At-Home Covid-19 Test
I broadly agree with the article, but one point where it falls short is that it doesn't mention that the 4 stages of the model can be (and sometimes even are!) iterated in various ways to account for the way real people actually behave: modellers in the 21st century aren't quite as naive as all that (and probably the ones in the 50s weren't either but they had less data/computer power).

For reference, the four stages go like this: you start with "trip supply and demand" by zone, then inter-zone trips are generated by matching those up, then mode choice is computed per trip based on cost and travel time priors, then assignment to the network which results in actual trips and computed travel times based on route selection and congestion.

The travel times can then be fed back into mode-choice and iterated on: people will make the transit-vs-car choice differently based on the relative costs (in time and money and inconvenience) so iterating the last two steps can go a ways towards modelling that equilibrium.

Folks can exert some amount of choice around which trips they make (as mentioned in the article) and where they work, based on how easy it is to get there, so feeding the travel costs back into trip-generation can account for some of that, and over a longer horizon, both workers and employers can exert some control over where they live/site their facilities, so all 4 stages can be iterated as well.

None of this is perfect, and it's not always done, and the rest of the article's points stand, but I just wanted to say the modelling is not all that primitive :)

Edit: I studied this stuff in university 15 years ago with Professor Eric Miller, who wrote this book on how to integrate all this stuff in an iterative way... https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11067-005-2630-5
>Meanwhile HN has text #828282

To clarify a bit... the #828282 is for some header info like story url domain in (parentheses) next the title, HN user names, relative timestamps, etc.

The main body text of comments which is the majority of content is #000000 total black and because of that, the high contrast makes it very readable. I hope HN never succumbs to fads and copies other websites that think it's stylish to use hard-to-read gray text on white or off-white backgrounds.
Do you find it depressing working on crappy old systems for lengths of time? I have done enough maintenance programming that I am sick of it. It would be OK if I had the clout to say we need to refactor this part and that part, but it's always new crap slapped on to of the existing mess, or digging around for most of the day to find the line or two that needs changed to fix a bug. I guess I can just see that it's never going to improve. (Though it does sound like you actually get to improve things more than I do).
There’s this concept called “catastrophizing”, where basically you take whatever situation you’re in and project it out to worst case, and then feel anxious because there’s a looming catastrophe. E.g. you and your partner have a disagreement about housework. This then gets projected to worst case - they’ll never carry their weight/stop trying to micromanage my behavior, ergo I don’t know if this relationship can work.

This comic seems aimed at tone-deaf people trying to get others to stop catastrophizing, and there’s a whole lot to be said for validating others’ experience (life is inescapably and terribly painful) and not trying to cram zen shit down people’s throats when they’re suffering. It’s not helpful.

In addition to that, unless you’re literally falling off a cliff, falling off of a cliff is a disempowering metaphor - it’s straight catastrophizing. If you’re literally and inescapably about to get hit by a semi truck, well. Why shouldn’t you focus on what you can control? Why not think warm thoughts about the people you love before you die?

Our brains generate lots of crazy, irrational things when we’re in pain. That’s inescapable - we don’t really control our thoughts. We do get to reality test them and choose whether or not to believe those thoughts, though.
When ever this subject comes up I think of the song Time from Pink Floyd. I included the lyrics below.

If a typical person has 72 years of life that is:

* 26,298 days (includes 18 leap days)

* 631,152 hours, 37,869,120 minutes, 2,272,147,200 seconds (not counting leap seconds)

That sounds like an enormous amount of time. Time is like money. For some people it always seems to slip away. For other people its a multiplicative empowering factor that builds on itself like a compound interest. For others still there is plenty of time meaningfully spent performing intentional tasks.

------------

Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day

Fritter and waste the hours in an offhand way.

Kicking around on a piece of ground in your home town

Waiting for someone or something to show you the way.

---

Tired of lying in the sunshine staying home to watch the rain.

You are young and life is long and there is time to kill today.

And then one day you find ten years have got behind you.

No one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun.

---

So you run and you run to catch up with the sun but it's sinking

Racing around to come up behind you again.

The sun is the same in a relative way but you're older,

Shorter of breath and one day closer to death.

---

Every year is getting shorter never seem to find the time.

Plans that either come to naught or half a page of scribbled lines

Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way

The time is gone, the song is over,

Thought I'd something more to say.

---

Home

Home again

I like to be here

When I can

---

When I come home

Cold and tired

It's good to warm my bones

Beside the fire

---

Far away

Across the field

Tolling on the iron bell

Calls the faithful to their knees

To hear the softly spoken magic spell
Anytime I see a title starting with "scientists" did X... the history is BS

"Smart weapons" kill innocent people all the time, no matter how many times we repeat smart in their model name. GPS still lead truck drivers directly to the bottom of a lagoon.

If we can't teach a huge machine full of circuits to distinguish between an ambulance or a tank, how we can realistic trust that tiny machines, with no space at all for complex circuits, will be able to diferenciate between a tumor or our hypothalamus?

What would happen if the patient approach a magnet accidentally? Will the army of nowaybots be displaced enough cm to try to fry your pancreas assuming that they are in a different location?
Related to HTTP timeouts, I’ve run into database clients without default timeouts. This meant even though the HTTP request was cut off after the timeout, the database request kept on working causing tons of slow database requests to be running on the server.

With Postgres you can use roles to set timeouts, maybe you want a longer timeout for crons, shorter for HTTP endpoints.

Sadly we were using mongo which doesn’t have equivalent functionality. Ended up monkey patching the client library to define a reasonable default timeout.
You can replace "analog clock" by "clock" in general. My computers update on their own, but none of my bedside clock, oven clock, HVAC clock, … do, and all of them are electronic.

Also many people do, in fact, enjoy wristwatches or analog wall-clocks.
MS Edge/Win10, Europe, "do not track", cookies from medium.com blocked and uBlock origin - doesn't seem to be happending on my system but of course that doesn't mean anything if it's geo-targeted. Also gets rid of the paywall, for now.
Clever way to entrepreneur yourself into bankruptcy, with a second COVID-19 wave likely following the first.
It looks to me like EVs are completely ready for prime-time, and the only thing holding them back is the inertia/greed of major manufacturers (who cannot sell spare parts or expensive maintenance regimes for them as easily).

Its just a shame that Tesla doesn't have a smaller car, the Model 3 is huge.
> Well, of course that's correct. Take 1080p encoded at 100 Mbps and 720 encoded at 300 Mbps, I guarantee you that 1080p wins every time. :-)

No it doesn't. Depending on the distance from the screen and indeed the screen resolution, you won't benefit from the extra 1080p resolution, but you could benefit from the extra bits. 1080p60 is 3.7GBit uncompressed with 10 bit 444, so that's 37:1 compression. 720p60 is 1.7gbit, or 5.5:1 compression, so far fewer compression artifacts.
> [...]and the secure variant printf_s which forbids it is nowhere implemented because politics.

I’m curious. What’s the reason behind not implementing a safer version of a function?
I would say that 10 or 20 years of real world usage is more valuable than any suites of unit tests or 100% code coverage.
> Facebook has maintained that the suspect [...] had no direct connection with the Kenosha Guard page or event.

He might not have directly interacted with it - doesn't mean he didn't see it? Shared by a friend?

Or are their analytics so detailed that they can guarantee he never saw it?
I would rather just not use clocks than do this. Yes, it would be "better" if we shifted clocks every day, but that's not practical for mechanical clocks.

You may could get away with monthly realignment, but even with that I hate setting my watch even twice a year and I imagine others would too.
An ad-blocker in the form of something like a pi-hole should work with native apps, no?
I guess this is one of the reasons no one ever got fired for buying IBM.
That's a fair position. I don't completely agree, but I certainly empathize. It could also be said of multiple perspectives related to software from employment, coworkers, user experience, data, social engagement, and so forth. It seems there is a tremendous amount of potential exploitation for undisclosed motives.
We kept running into this issue at my job. A lot of our original database queries for our Go service called db.QueryRow, not db.QueryRowContext. The former doesn't respect timeouts, the latter does. So I ended up writing my own wrapper around Go's database/sql package. It basically just reexports all the functions that accept Context and hides the ones that don't. Very helpful. Timeouts are important.
@1ba9115454, Really appreciate your inputs. Thanks.
30% market correction will effectively wipe out many players in commercial real estate. Even less than that for many. Keep in mind, real estate is often highly levered so these property owners still have to pay a bank their money.
It can be applied in a way that will gimbal lock, just like any other method of representing and applying rotations.

In this case if I understand isoclinic rotations right, what you would do every time you want to rotate your vector is construct this pair and multiply by the left and by the right to your vector.

Now what do you do when you're implementing the keyboard event to rotate by all 6 planes in 4D? Do you store 6 pairs of Quaternions, each pair changes when you press the corresponding key, and those are applied to your object every frame in a specific sequence?

If so, this will gimbal lock.

You can call this an "incorrect implemention", but Gimbal lock isn't a bug so much as a real phenomen that can be modelled with any rotation of representing rotations.
Because 99% of the user base isn’t tech savvy and will install all sorts of crap without realizing the consequences of doing so.

I may be capable of sticking to the App Store and not side-loading apps, but many of my friends, family and non-developer coworkers are not. They’ll click on random links in their mailbox, ads from apps and when browsing the web.. the end result is that they end up accidentally having their homepage, search engine and browser hijacked, they get redirected to spam websites, links on websites gets replaced with affiliate links, their sensitive information gets stolen, etc.

I’ve never had to help fix an iPhone and I don’t know anyone who’s been infected with malware (besides e.g. TikTok secretly copying clipboard and such), however for Windows and Android then I have people reach out to me on a monthly basis because they accidentally installed something that fucked up their computer/phone and they need help fixing it.

As for F-Droid, I hope you realize that their store is even more locked down than the App Store, and it’s as far as I’m aware the only secure third-party store on Android.
A gentle reminder that g is a measure of correlation without any causative explanatory power (factor analysis aims to identify correlations between observed and hypothesissed, hidden variables). The idea was subject to criticsm, though not directly from inside the field of psychometrics itself (which is usually a big red flag):

Other criticisms

Perhaps the most famous critique of the construct of g is that of the paleontologist and biologist Stephen Jay Gould, presented in his 1981 book The Mismeasure of Man. He argued that psychometricians have fallaciously reified the g factor as a physical thing in the brain, even though it is simply the product of statistical calculations (i.e., factor analysis). He further noted that it is possible to produce factor solutions of cognitive test data that do not contain a g factor yet explain the same amount of information as solutions that yield a g. According to Gould, there is no rationale for preferring one factor solution to another, and factor analysis therefore does not lend support to the existence of an entity like g. More generally, Gould criticized the g theory for abstracting intelligence as a single entity and for ranking people "in a single series of worthiness", arguing that such rankings are used to justify the oppression of disadvantaged groups.[61][176]

Many researchers have criticized Gould's arguments. For example, they have rejected the accusation of reification, maintaining that the use of extracted factors such as g as potential causal variables whose reality can be supported or rejected by further investigations constitutes a normal scientific practice that in no way distinguishes psychometrics from other sciences. Critics have also suggested that Gould did not understand the purpose of factor analysis, and that he was ignorant of relevant methodological advances in the field. While different factor solutions may be mathematically equivalent in their ability to account for intercorrelations among tests, solutions that yield a g factor are psychologically preferable for several reasons extrinsic to factor analysis, including the phenomenon of the positive manifold, the fact that the same g can emerge from quite different test batteries, the widespread practical validity of g, and the linkage of g to many biological variables.[61][62][177]

John Horn and John McArdle have argued that the modern g theory, as espoused by, for example, Arthur Jensen, is unfalsifiable, because the existence of a common factor like g follows tautologically from positive correlations among tests. They contrasted the modern hierarchical theory of g with Spearman's original two-factor theory which was readily falsifiable (and indeed was falsified).[30]

Joseph Graves Jr. and Amanda Johnson have argued that g "...is to the psychometricians what Huygens' ether was to early physicists: a nonentity taken as an article of faith instead of one in need of verification by real data."[178]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)#Other...

Note in particular: "solutions that yield a g factor are psychologically preferable for several reasons extrinsic to factor analysis".