skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I worked at a large industrial R&D lab around 2010 and it was awesome. It was not pure R&D, because the lab was funded by various business lines as “clients”, which sometimes came with strings attached, but as a model it worked pretty well.

By my estimation about half of the work was real fundamental research with no obvious immediate market or clearly guaranteed business value. There was some pressure to “sell” this work internally after the fact, but that usually ended up making it better.

The other half of the work was more directly commissioned by various business lines. They were responsible for product development, but would enlist us to look into 3rd wave innovation and technology (which we would be experts in because we spent the other half of our time on it).

The mixed model kept the lab grounded in reality, but also created enough freedom to do real R&D.
The Unreliable Narrator is an old trope. [1]

Gone Girl has stellar writing. I don’t think commercial success in fiction has much to do with being first to market with a novel idea.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreliable_narrator
My understanding is that you need re-regulation to protect folks with limited liability if they follow protocol and burn day guidance advice from local authorities.

Here is a summary for Oregon for example https://www.oswa.org/blog/fire-liability/
If it gets out of control, it can quickly turn into a multi-million dollar event.
There's a market failure here: everyone now applies to 15-20 elite colleges, at an application cost of perhaps 1500$. Kids have no idea where they'll get in, and colleges have no idea who will attend.

Limiting applications to 8 or 10 schools would reduce the uncertainty on both sides
Those 94% are never going to generate revenue for “image-sensors-world”... why waste bandwidth on them?
Former Cisco engineer pleads guilty to causing Webex account chaos
My career is almost entirely startups. ~25 years of it. Several failed. Several paid out inconsequential amounts. It's never been anything but a positive in interviews, as long as you can talk to lessons learned and as long as it doesn't seem like you were the primary reason it failed.

Despite a family, I have more disposable income net of tax now than my gross salary for most of my 20's.
Here in Ireland farmers regularly burn fields and occasionally the fire gets out of control and destroys an entire mountainside. A couple of years ago one came within 100m of my parents' house - one more change of wind direction and they would have lost everything.

No one ever seems to get criminally or civilly prosecuted for starting the fires. Often everyone knows who did it but there's no irrefutable evidence and the police aren't interested - perhaps as a policy because it's understood that some controlled burns are useful. California's police could equally well be told to "focus on other priorities" instead of investigating fire starters.
Yes, obviously. How is that related to the discussion above?
Discussion is at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24303484
I think novelty of a moment relative to your recorded memories affects how you perceive the duration of that moment. More novel moments are perceived as lasting longer.

As life goes on novelty of new moments goes down.

You could say this explains or underlies the Janet model.

But one can seek out novelty to slow down time. In the extreme you could “reset”, move away from everything you know, and start from scratch.

I have no evidence for any of this other than my own perception. Does anyone know where to find more discussion on this topic?
I know it may sound pedantic to the uninitiated, but the name immediately triggered me / made me uninterested - as it would to any trans person I know - because it's using a name from Harry Potter. Something we have a hard time just 'getting over' or 'ignoring', and certainly shouldn't be asked to.

The author, JK Rowling, is currently on the single biggest hate campaign I've seen a celebrity run against trans rights.

It's negatively affecting the connotations of being associated with the 'Potterverse,' and support for Potter these days is widely considered inconsiderate, especially in the ever growing queer community.

Simply using a name like this was enough to turn me off, and certainly I would not want any friends to have a similarly triggering experience, so I therefore can't recommend it's use, either.

While Potter actually used to be a portal of expression for these types of people, it is now associated with repression and ignorance.

It sucks that any time I see media related / referencing Potter I honestly am immediately disgusted, but this is clearly what Rowling wants. She has had many chances to step down and apologize to her fan base, but she insists on invalidating us.

I grew up with those books, they meant a lot to me, and actually produced a crisis of faith to me with regards to separating art from the artist.

Michael Jackson was, pretty definitely, a child molester. I listened to his music for years after until I finally decided I couldn't do it, as a survivor of sexual assault myself, it makes it difficult to be caught casually listening to him.

The Potter books are good, but there are a lot of other great books out there (and inspiration for names!) that wouldn't immediately turn off any and all potential trans customers like myself.

I will note that it could be amazingly positive PR for you guys if you chose to rename the app for this program, I know I myself would sent it to a few of my queer tech blogging friends.

Unfortunately, to even be a fan of Potter any more is to be a fan in spite of, or choosing to ignore Rowling's continuing, relentless campaign to invalidate us as people, and has drawn tangible battle lines between fan communities.
(Edit: while reading further this went from "overstated claims" to "potentially big security issue", see the edit below.)

It's definitely an interesting idea, but the security claims are rather overstated. If "Horcrux" has a vulnerability, then no, you don't necessarily have to hack each of the transport services to abuse that vulnerability. Depending on what kind of vulnerability it is, you might be able to send someone a message that their client parses and runs your malicious code, or perhaps it leads to plaintext recovery or malleability when you intercept or tamper with only one service.

Another thing to note, somehow missing in the table of (magical) claims where Horcrux comes out on top in every comparison, is that metadata is a problem that you're greatly exacerbating with this. Now not only the USA knows who talks to who, but also Russia and China (in the example given with VK and WeChat). I'd be happy for my chats to run encrypted through Russia since they have very little else on me and distributing who knows what is a good way to prevent someone from knowing everything, but it's still a thing to note.

Edit: And reading a bit more in detail... this seems worrying:

> We will send the ciphertext through Signal and the one-time pad through WeChat

So if a service assumes that a three-byte message is "yes", they can change that into "no " (note the space) by just xoring against one of the two messages ('ciphertext' or 'one-time pad') right? You don't need to capture both.

The claim "no passwords, encryption keys, and no complicated key management. There is no trust of any complicated public key algorithm, key lengths, or code" makes that there is also no way to verify authenticity of anything. You just have to hope that China, Russia, and the USA all independently decided not to mess with you today; it takes only one, not all three/N.

Proof of concept:

Send (hex) c64d2d through service A and (hex) bf285e through service B. The recipient xors them together and gets (ascii) "yes", the original message.

Now what if service A decides to tamper with it? They xor c64d2d with "yes" and get bf285e. By no coincidence, that's what will be sent through service B. They can xor anything against that, such as "no " (6e6f20), which would result in d1477e. When the recipient receives d1477e from one channel and bf285e from the other, they xor it together and show the message: no.
Probably yes. But let's say the transistor would have been invented 20 years later by a university. The world would look completely different today. Simply saying we could have invented it some other way disregards the continous impact a result in research makes.
Discounted Microsoft Certification exams available through this offer
I’m driving a 18 year old Land Rover, it’s great and I don’t feel like I have to care if it gets scratches or scrapes. Would not be good for a commute though.
The opioid crisis is 'a unique product' of U.S. health care, paper argues
People do this where I live in NorCal. They seem to do these burns on permissive burn days, for one. Conditions might even be wet.

They also tend to let law enforcement know, and law enforcement and fire people seem to understand the purpose. People from the city still call 911, but that's just because they are trained to think that distant fires are dangerous. To be expected.
Recursive universes don't get interesting until you start doing system calls:

> So when an inevitable bug occurred in that super-duper LIFE machine, the intelligent entities in the simulation would have suddenly been presented with a window to the metaphysics which determined their own existence. They would have a clue to how they were really implemented. In that case, Fredkin concluded, they entities might accurately conclude that they were part of a giant simulation and might want to pray to their implementors by arranging themselves in recognisable patterns, asking in readable code for the implementors to be given clues as to what they're like.

(Levy's Hackers https://www.worldcat.org/title/hackers-heroes-of-the-compute... ofc, pp. 148-149 in Penguin, p. 120 in O'Reilly: https://books.google.ie/books?id=JwKHDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA120&lpg=P... )

It's unfeasible to keep scanning the whole of a simulated world to try to discern anything that might be intended to pass a message of course, so making a "real" or at least a normal system call involves using a pre-ordained area of the simulated space which is set aside as a buffer, altering the contents of that area according to some pre-ordained protocol known in advance to both the simulated world and the simulating program. Responding to the system call likewise involves the simulating program "miraculously" altering the state of a pre-ordained buffer area according to a pre-set protocol. Not only is this how you can implement system calls in recursive universes: this is what a system call necessarily is. System calls, calls to the runtime, just are events of this nature happening between simulated and simulating systems.

Likewise any kind of message passing is built on top of this: basically the only way any process can pass a message to another is to make a system call requesting that a message be passed on to the intended recipient, then hope that simulating system will deliver it as requested. Then delivering the message obviously involves the recipient's simulating system—which isn't necessarily the same system as the sender's simulating system—appropriately altering the state of the recipient.

(Unless the sender and receiver have a shared memory area, you could say, but that's not so different either: two simulated programs only have a shared memory area to the extent that the simulating system is pleased to keep the supposedly-shared area actually consistent in the two programs it is simulating.)

Notice how annoying it is that, by and large, most system-call protocols don't allow a process to, for example, send its simulating system a message explicitly addressed to its simulating system's simulating system, or to send a simulated system a message explicitly addressed to one of its simulated system's simulated systems. I suppose you could set it up with nested VMs and their virtual Ethernet interfaces.
atom with hydrogen plugin can run these
Concise comment: Thanks for the tip about GoldBack dot com. It looks promising.
___

Long-winded comment: That article you shared references the “Utah Legal Tender Act in 2011.” According to the article shared by the Coventry League Blogentary, Utah is one of only six (6) states with gold/silver legal tender laws. The most recent state is West Virginia (2019).

Indeed, jurisdictions that enable a system – secondary or primary – that permits a free market for money/currency (paper/physical — such as the GoldBack or even digital) backed by publicly visible/verifiable stashes of physical gold/silver will be at a noticeable advantage to jurisdictions that only permit centrally-controlled currencies backed by the “full faith and credit” of the issuer (i.e, nothing; an ephemeral notion). This latter type of “fiat” currency has similarities to monopoly money with a central banker that controls the game (globally coordinated central banks peddling fiat like true charlatans, in our case).

Presently in Canada, the U.S., and some other jurisdictions, individuals may still legally own silver and gold coins to store a portion of their wealth.

For example, the government-issued Canadian Gold Maple Leaf coin has a face value of 50 CAN dollars but has a market-value of 1oz of gold (equivalent to about 2,500 CAN or 2,000 USD). Moreover, people are currently paying 10%-30% (or 60% as you mentioned) over this spot price to obtain these types of physical gold coins (or paper backed gold) in the secondary market.

Think of how the purchasing power of fiat currencies has plummeted over the years. One could walk around with a 1oz gold coin that is smaller than a U.S. metal dollar coin. However, the former has a purchasing power 2,000x that of the latter whereby it was only 35x just 50 years ago!

So, in one generation/lifetime (the last 50 years), the U.S. fiat dollar’s purchasing power relative to gold has plummeted by more than 98%!
Thanks for saying it's brilliant :)

Yes, entropy and true randomness will be an issue. I can imagine manufacturing a Magic Wand (all in the US) which would be a custom piece of HW with an entropy chip (maybe using cosmic rays?)

Yes you're right and I mention that in the Usability section.
> "like considering which country a person is in and purchasing power parity, and how even that could not weed out people who can afford to pay but don’t want to"

I'm not sure where you got that impression.

In the article, I used purchasing parity discounts as a contrasting case. I do offer them and they're more generous than those of any other similar offering I know of (including those for other languages).
Malicious NPM package caught trying to steal sensitive Discord and browser files
> Build an industry coalition. Put pressure on those who don't join. Randomly throw away 1 out of 10000 packets from the providers that fail to get with the times. Increase that frequency according to some published time function.

What sort of incentive would anyone have to join such a coalition? Why would anyone work with providers from such a coalition, when they can work with an alternative ISP outside it and not have to deal with packet drops?

I think you're underestimating how many people have been attempting to solve this. The Internet community has some quite clever people in it, but it's also very, very large, and sweeping changes are difficult to pull off (see: IPv6 adoption).
I wasn't around those earlier decades so I don't have that perspective, but I do remember the transition from dial up to Tracphones to smartphones and IMO the change hasn't slowed down, it's just become more distributed.

I recently designed a PCB for a custom built 3D printer for a tenth of the cost (fab + assembly) of a board of similar complexity I made nearly a decade ago and the final cost of the 3d printer (based on an open source design) was a 20th of the price of the Stratasys Dimension Elite I purchased, also a decade ago. One of my next projects is to make a DIY semiconductor fab using just TI DLP micromirrors and a microscope because I want to experiment with DIY bio microfluidics - all based on technology and knowledge so common that it has trickled down to the hobbyist level. We've now got people building electron microscopes and genetically modifying organisms in their garages!

The robots I've worked with in clinical diagnostics are much more advanced now than they were a decade ago and are now cheap enough for the average lab. The metrology instruments and machining tools necessary to make high precision parts have become commonplace at manufacturers, factory automation robotics like 6-DoF arms have trickled down to the researcher and hobbyist level in the last 5 years, and agriculture is currently going through it's n-th revolution with software, remote sensing, and data science.

Every time I leave an industry for a few years and come back, the pace of change is staggering - it's just hidden behind the iron curtain.
Interesting in the sense of "May you live in interesting times", yes.

It introduces near-endless complications, especially in the face of Unicode, and one should think thoroughly about it before implementing it, as you can read in Torvalds' initial reaction linked elsewhere in this discussion. But the way they did it seems relatively sane to me, with an easy way to compartmentalize it to, e.g., a Steam directory.
I like that there are no 10 points and boring conclusions chapter
Don't disagree. Could even see that exclusivity strengthening, a global movement towards national allegiance and homogeneity. Would be a terrible tragedy.
Corporations are basically unable to do R&D for a whole bunch of reasons. That's why we have all sorts of start ups and angle investment instead. Once an idea is half proven, then corporations can come in, finance it, run it effectively and market it etc. While also paying off the people actually taking the risk. This is a much better more efficient system for everyone.
If you want to play with imgui there are some webassembly demos also:

https://jnmaloney.github.io/WebGui/imgui.html
Very interesting article. I've run into similar issues with Contexts (in gRPC + Java). It's been so bad they I've had to hide all interaction with contexts behind interfaces that only allow down stream users to call `getThing()` to pull things out of the contexts.

Contexts seem like exceptions but backwards and with less syntactic sugar which feels like an extremely annoying design clash with golang's error handling semantics. It seems like a better way of handling this would be some dynamic thread/context aware DI system but that's also not very go-y.

Does anyone have experience taming complexity here around this area?
> A RIPE ASN (as a end-user through a LIR) and PA v6 will cost you around $100 per year

ARIN starting price is 2.5x that much (used to be 5x) for just the ASN. Glad the pricing is better elsewhere in the world at least!
Watch Elon Musk's Entire Live Neuralink Demonstration
> (seems like there are open questions here, like how much is actually important)

Yes, see this part of my post. It does seem that lots of types of exercise are not at all necessary for health.

This trial, for example, shows that HIIT for 3 intervals of 2-3 minutes had better impact than HIIT for 4 intervals of 4 minutes. So obviously there's still a lot to learn.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31565193/

And then there's SIT, reduced exertion HIIT, etc. Lots of different stuff here.

> Towards the minimal amount of exercise for improving metabolic health: beneficial effects of reduced-exertion high-intensity interval training

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00421-011-2254-z

There's also research showing impact on blood glucose levels when you exercise before/ after eating, etc. "Exercise" is a big lump of a term, but there's a massive amount of research into different kinds - far more research than with almost any of the pills you can take.
Next.js and tailwind CSS and styled components setup
It's true, but the way I describe the Magic Wand it doesn't have any data so not much to hack. It's also pretty simple, trivial, QR code and XOR code, so really easy to audit fuzz test and verify nothing fishy can happen.

Good point about how now multiple nation states know who you're talking to, whereas if you only use Signal then it's probably only US gov. I'll add that to the Vulnerabilities section! Note that steganography can help with that, or you can use a messaging channel which doesn't transparently tell governments who you're talking to (not Signal!)
Hackers for hire attack architecture firm via 3ds Max exploit
The best solution would be to keep DST but change “spring forward” to occur not on Sunday night, but instead, an hour before lunchtime on Monday.
Advice about Starting a Company
I work for an industrial research lab in Silicon Valley. Unfortunately the COVID-19 situation has introduced a lot of uncertainty regarding my future career. My concern is due to the decline in industrial research labs (see https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-american-rd-lab/ and https://blog.dshr.org/2020/05/the-death-of-corporate-research-labs.html), I won't be able to transition to another research job if I get laid off from my job. While I enjoy coding, I don't want to work as a software engineer. When I was looking for a job two years ago, I had a difficult time getting hired for software engineering positions due to the Leetcode challenges and also because most of my previous experience has been as a researcher writing prototype-level code instead of production-level code.

I've thought about becoming an independent researcher and developer where I do publishable research as a side hobby while engaging in some type of money-making project to cover my living expenses. The hard part for me is coming up with a money-making project that I am interested in. I'm passionate about systems software and programming languages, and there are some open-source projects that I want to build. For example, a side project I'm working on is a desktop environment for Linux and the BSDs that is written in Common Lisp and is inspired by OpenDoc, Smalltalk, and Lisp machines, including some of my own ideas. However, I have no idea of how I could make a living from such a project. It seems that all of the ideas I could think of are research ideas or ideas of software that is hard to monetize such as operating systems and desktop environments.

I'm wondering if there is anyone else in this situation, and I'm wondering what advice you could give.
I find Ranger a lot easier, in Vifm I always have the feeling that 1 wrong keepress can have massive consequences without having any idea what happened/how to undo it.

Perhaps that's just me not knowing vifm well enough...
Concurrent Pascal-S
You're not missing anything. Maybe just the last step of lowering your opinion of the journal.
It's more important property is keeping messages that are scooped up by malevolent 3 letter agencies secure if a random message in the middle is cryptographically broken.
The subtitle of the article:

> Blocks of soil and ice thrown hundreds of metres from epicentre of the funnel at the Yamal peninsula.
OTP is sent over one of the two channels (or m of n). The lint is that the pad has effectively the same security as the message itself.

In terms of explaining, try to describe specific threats (including what the attacker can and cannot do, ideally with a real-world example).

E.g. can your attacker:

* Observe ciphertext? Do they have global network MTIM? (Passive or active?)

* Break e2ee? For example, do they have the ability to derive messages from merely passively observing ciphertext?

* Compel service providers to share any data the provider has?

* Compel providers to serve malicious code to their users?

Etc.

This proposal is missing any formal threat model, so it’s hard to evaluate what it’s intended to do. I cannot immediately come up with a threat model where this makes sense, unfortunately.