skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Anabolic-androgenic steroids.
I didn't do that. Now you are arguing in bad faith.
Part of this is brinkmanship. Even if there was no practical way this would improve even short-term survivability, if the Soviets believed that the US believed this would work, that would be enough to show the US would not be cowed by their nuclear arsenal. It was also a way to reassure US citizens that we were not completely vulnerable to nuclear annihilation. Same with backyard fallout shelters and teaching schoolchildren to hide from nuclear explosions under their school desks--the original school shooter drills.
Well the worst part was, their own Human Interface Guidelines even say:

“These options are usually visible, but can be hidden as a group, such as......, or individually disabled, such as when a full-screen app can't be minimized. ...... A title bar should be visible, but can be hidden in an immersive app like a game.”

Either way, this wouldn’t be in the top 1000 reasons for someone to request a refund for a game on the store so why is Apple even concerning itself?
Show HN: Web Assembly Playground – Go
Ask HN: Is anyone else nostalgic about the early internet (90s)
Ugly web design for sure, but today all we have are sleek pre-designed wordpress themes and twitter bootstrap. The web resembles a high-end mall but it's lost a lot of it's character.

When I was in high school, a bunch of us would create websites on angelfire or geocities. I'd assume kids today are just trying to get followers on Youtube or Instagram.

Today, the algorithim is almighty. But back in the day things like webrings and guestposts worked. It was more personal. There was less obsession with "going viral".

If I google "fried chicken recipes" I'm gonna get a 1500 word tome. The author will talk paragraph after paragraph about the first time she ate fried chicken, songs about fried chicken, how fried chicken is truly American, where the best spot in her state is, just to bump up the word count for SEO. And of course she'll recommend an affiliate link for a fryer, which she's never actually bought.

I guess I get nostalgic about the sense of exploration and serendipity.

Does anyone else feel this way? Is a return possible, or is nostalgia just nostalgia?
If your game supports a windowed mode (which it certainly sounds like it does) then I'd agree that a minimize button would be expected.
The visuals of a video game don't run on the literal console, they run on a television.

It's like if in the PlayStation store, your game could only be shown running on a Sony TV and if you showed any other brand of TV they would deny your game to be published there.
The biggest advantage of an IDE for me, in any language, is the ability to rename/move/refactor things across multiple files in a project correctly. I feel notably less capable in this regard when using Vim versus a "full" IDE, no matter what the context or project.
Most people in the US who bake have a kitchen scale. Baking bread and cakes is where I use the metric system, for general cooking I don't weigh ingredients. I scale everything in grams. I don't see how you can use the bakers percent system for bread without using the metric system.
> Question: Can a sentence be provably true in one arithmetic system but not another?

The answer is yes!

ZFC |- AC

but

ZF |/- AC

and both ZFC and ZF can encode arithmetic.

But there's an issue here: no-one really talks about the "truth" of the Axiom of Choice as though it's a concrete thing: it's a very controversial axiom, and although most mathematicians accept it, quite a few don't. Constructivist mathematicians don't accept it, and it's provably equivalent to the law of the excluded middle, so it can't be used in intuitionistic logics.

Now you might counter and say that AC isn't the Gödel sentence for ZFC, and the Gödel sentence for PA is true in the intended model. But that's a different matter from whether it's provable from an axiomatic foundation. The reason I think this matters is because mathematicians work with proofs! Most mathematicians aren't working in foundations, and rely on proofs to the extent that they don't even consider the truth of statements which cannot be proven.

> If so that means there are provably true sentences which exist, but not provably true with the axioms that I have at my disposal right now?

The issue is that provability is completely contingent on the set of axioms you use: provability isn't a universal notion. Of course if you add something which is unprovable (such as the Gödel sentence) to PA, you get a new system which can prove more things: but this system has its own unprovable Gödel sentence.

I'd also question what you mean by "provably true": a sentence is provable from a theory when there exists a derivation in some proof calculus of the sentence starting from the axioms of the theory. "True" is much harder to pin down, and we wouldn't usually say "provably true". "True" can mean "true in the intended model", "true in all models", or even just "provable from a set of axioms".

The Gödel sentence is "true but unprovable" only in the sense that it is true in the intended model: it is not a tautology.

I think most people who have had a brief exposure to mathematics would consider "true in all models" (i.e. tautological truth) to be what is meant by "true", so I don't like it being used to mean "true in the intended model" without qualification.
Would smalltalk been as successful as ruby is now if DHH had written rails in it?
Every time this conversation comes up, I'm reminded of a world-building subplot in one of Vernor Vinge's first books. Instead of banning computers in chess, let the competitor use a computer that they built themselves, so it's one augmented human versus another augmented human.

In his world, there were no supercomputers elsewhere, so you didn't have to worry about covert channels phoning home to a much bigger computer. I suppose you could put everyone in a Faraday cage...
I had a similar experience with Twitter several months ago: signed up, followed a few accounts (five, I think? maybe six?), and... bam! Account suspended, for no apparent reason. I had not even tried to post anything. I used their process; no response. I started writing in every day, for two weeks. Never did get a response, and eventually lost interest.

Pretty lousy experience, overall. They'd send me these emails teasing me with stuff I should go read on twitter; except of course I couldn't get to them. I tried to unsubscribe from the newsletter... but you can't do that without logging in, which I could not do because my account was suspended!
The thing to remember is that in some companies the interviewer doesn't care about hiring and is only their because they were forced to.
K8s has proven to be a massive endeavor everywhere I’ve seen it implemented.

I’ve often had teams of 2-6 to handle every technical aspect of a company with millions of visits. That includes feature development and support.
K8 seems to need a large team just to keep it running.
That's what I was hoping is the case. Good to know!
The ProtonDrive Security Model
This happens to us constantly

We sell a business tool, once the business account is upgraded, the rest of it just pay per seat linked to that org. All our sales are done over the phone, so we don't need to accept payments in app. We never ever tell you in the app how you can upgrade to the premium version. We never even link to our own damn website out of fear of Apple's wrath.

About 1/4 of the times we submit big fixes or feature updates we lose the game of Apple Review Roulette, and get denied. So we have to do an appeal and explain it all, again, and so far at least, the 2nd tier always approves it.

Practically, it just means that everything we do with Apple, you have to plan for it to take 2 weeks
Search Engine Optimization: What Drives Organic Traffic to Retail Sites?
Don't forget that aircraft falls on someone or someone's property.
> Where are you going to go? Google? Doing the exact same thing. Neither? Cabin in the woods territory. Oh for the Nokia N900, right?

The Pinephone is on the frontpage at the moment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24329900, and the Librem 5 has been several times recently. Maybe not grandma friendly ATM but I wouldn’t call it “cabin in the woods territory.”
When I write something like "ad-tech is horrible shit" I get ads about a mysterious alternative to toilet paper with a picture of the legs of a person on a toilet.

When I GISed a historical church in the town where I grew up, I started getting ambulance chaser ads "do you know these priests".

I don't think there's any way to make it stop. I've turned off a lot of things on FB and Google, and gotten uBlock Origin but it's like patching a sieve hole by hole, when you can't even tell if a whole new breach has opened up.
Recursive functions come up quite often when investigating the root cause of outages.

Unclear if that means we need candidates who are better at recursion, or better at avoiding recursion.
This is also the cause of this lovely bit of JS behaviour:

>>> [1,2,10].sort()
Array(3) [ 1, 10, 2 ]
Google has owned Double Click for twelve years. In all that time, they couldn't fix ad hosting?
This is one of those technologies that if in the hands of good faith actors could provide some positive results, like criminal tracking etc.

But in the real world, its never just in the right hands.. Sigh yet it will still be perfected.. :|
> And how would you compute the cross product of <"foo", "bar", "baz"> and <"apple", "orange", "banana"> exactly?

How would you compute the cross product of <NaN, NaN, NaN> and <NaN, NaN, NaN>?

Some vectors don't have a useful result for cross product, even if they contain 'numbers' and even if you can get some kind of result out.

Same with dot product of a string. Doesn't make much sense... so probably don't do it.
Life, Work, and Startups – A Podcast with Jason and Michael Seibel
The Story of Forrest M Mims, III's “Getting Started in Electronics.”
We Are All Blaseball
Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10279266
So, NASA, is in the process of working on some of this. They’re trying to come up with a new ATC model which will work better for drones / eVTOL air taxis / etc.

Some of the ideas are around “carving” out corridors, where you would be able to fly, and this corridor could be reasonably large (across multiple towers today). The other interesting thing is hierarchical ATC automation.

So, normal ATC would still exist, but they would interact with a tier of controllers who are responsible for them interacting with UAVs.

A lot of this apparently came from the idea that eVTOL is the future, and we will all be commuting to work in an electric airplane.

See: https://www.nasa.gov/simlabs/atc
This has sort of been tried before for some time with occasional disastrous results. When the pilot was trying to do one thing to save the aircraft and the autonomous system was trying to do another, crashes have resulted. It's likely that either one would have been ok on their own, but the combination can be bad.

I know the rebuttal to this is "override the pilot" but it's really not so simple. Sometimes the pilot has switched off part but not all of an autopilot system, and it makes sense to maintain that capability.

It's a very difficult problem to solve.
A LEO-altitude-to-GEO space elevator has been proposed as possible with near-current tech... so perhaps a railgun pop-up to catch an elevator?
I don't want to let abstract convoluted problem solvers anywhere near my production systems
> Nuclear bomb decline was caused by treaties

How many international treaties, carved in marble, has broken US in just the last 3 years? Think about it.
It got to be the literal biggest game even on top of that princing model.
> In The Netherlands [...] a small beer of whatever's on tap [...] is 250ml-350ml

Traveler beware: Just because it's true that a Dutch "vaasje" glass is 230-330ml[1] the actual volume of beer you get is at best 80% of that. The Dutch pouring practice of handing patrons a glass of beer with up to 1/4 receding foam on the top would cause a riot across the channel.

> [...]and measure 1000 grams. Which is EXACTLY the same amount as 1000 milliliters[...]

No, not exactly. Not even under standard conditions. It's one of the unfortunate warts of the modern metric system that the actual value drifted from exactly 1000, almost, but not exactly[2].

1. https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaasje

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density#Water
No, they aren't. I usually resist the urge, but it's been a long week.
Iam roles support added for awstaghelper
Using Rust for Kentik’s New Synthetic Network Monitoring Agent
This is absolutely right. And when you think about it, the reason behind has been staring us in the face: people who want to do machine learning approach everything as a machine learning problem. It's really common to see people handwave away the "easy stuff" because they want to get credit for doing the "hard stuff."

It's not just the data scientists fault. I once heard our chief data scientist point out that they don't want to hand off a linear regression as a machine learning model -- as if a delivered solution to a problem has a minimal complexity. She absolutely had a point.

Clients are paying for a Ph.D. to solve problems in a Ph.D way. If we delivered the client a simple, yet effective solution, there's the risk of blow-back from the client for being too rudimentary. I'm certain this extends attitude extends to in-house data scientists as well. Nobody wants to be the data "scientist" who delivers the work of a data "analyst." Even when the best solution is a simple SQL query.

Our company kind of sidesteps this problem by having a tiered approach, where companies are paying for engineering, analysis, visualization, and data science work for all projects. So if a client is at the simple analysis level, we deliver at that level, with the understanding that this is the foundational work for more advanced features. It turns out to be a winning strategy, because while every client wants to land on the moon, most of them figure out that they are perfectly happy to with a Cessna once they have one.
I guess I'm thinking too much in terms of modern times, where police are mostly aiming to contain a larger crowd. didn't consider that demonstrators might actually intend to trap security forces.
Leveraging mental illness for fun and profit
I worked in a place full of deep learning PhDs, and you'd have people trying to apply reinforcement learning to problems that had known mathematical solutions, and integer programming problems.

I don't think the issue is just that companies hire people who are awful at ML, it's also that people are trying to shoehorn deep learning into everything, even when it currently has nothing to offer and we have better solutions already. IMHO, we're producing too many deep learning PhDs.
Why traverse a tree recursively and risk blowing your stack?
From the government itself[1]:

> Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area.

[1]: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
Your concerns are not unwarranted. I've done several Rust projects and usually there really isn't any trade-off.

If you want something open for extension, use a trait unless you can prove to yourself that you "can't". If it's closed or unlikely to be extended, use an enum.

Think of it this way: In Rust you have a choice between open and closed (trait vs enum). In Java, you get open (interface) and that's it. Other languages do also have both, like Rust: Swift, Kotlin, apparently Julia.

Traits have a few sharp edges because of the nature of Rust being built around zero-cost abstractions. But, most of the time, they work just like an interface in Java. The snag I most often hit is if one wants to return Self in a trait method. The most obvious way to work around that, IIRC, is to just return a Box<dyn MyTrait>. Keep in mind that in many languages, these things actually work similarly except that the language will just happily throw stuff on the heap transparently. Rust requires you to acknowledge that the former case needs to be boxed and likely on the heap, since you can't know its size at compile time.

In this particular case of extending an enum, I don't see it nearly as horrible as you're describing it. Let's look at it from the POV of another implementation in another language (I don't know Julia): You have an interface, Player. That interface defines a couple of methods. You implement three classes that conform to that interface. Now, six months later you come back and want to add a fourth. You make a new class, say that it implements Player and then your IDE/compiler yells at you until you implement those methods. In the Rust-enum version, you have an enum with three variants and a couple of methods, each of which has to match on the variants. Six months later, you want to add a fourth PlayerClass variant. So, you add it and then your compiler yells at you until you implement the fourth match branch in the couple of methods on the class.

That doesn't seem that different.

To answer some of your inner questions: Yes, Rust devs reach for enums a lot. But really only if you don't expect the cases to change much. Writing version 1.0 in Rust usually takes longer than in other languages because Rust is still a low-level language. Rust's performance advantage doesn't matter for most applications. People choose Rust for much more than the performance: its error philosophy, its enums and good matching, etc.
Yes, I’ve had some issues with n-2th version support for some software. Although these days, support for older OSes from third-party developers is better than it used to be, I think.
> They aren't going to split it, the rest of us will adapt

Yup, but there's no real reason to go from one arbitrary language to another (and I'm saying this as someone who struggles to learn languages, and English was definitely not my first).

So it would be a straight set back (overhead of switching), for no real benefit (arbitrary to arbitrary).

Another big issue is the split in resources. Right now, anyone can learn English and get access to most programming resources. You can post your code online and get the majority of the programming community to help around the world. A long time (10 years+) ago, I was heavily involved in forums for a programming language that had a large amount of Chinese developers. They'd post their code, and to help them I'd have to start pattern matching symbols to try to figure out which function was which (or paste it in my IDE and use my IDE's tools to figure it out). It was suboptimal at best. Starting over with all the community building that's been done would be a major (if temporary) set back, in a field that reinvents the wheel way too much as it is.

I realize being able to learn English is a privilege, and requiring it acts as a form of gate keeping. But having everyone on the same natural language provides a fantastic global maximum (at the cost of gate keeping at the local level), and no matter which language it is, someone will have to learn it. Furthermore, asking people who went through the trouble to learn this one, to learn ANOTHER is even worse (if also temporary)
From http://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm

"Since no trouble-free, wartime country has been known to exist, the goals should be tailored to the troubles of the particular enemy, and should aim at increasing real difficulties, building up pre-existing doubts, stimulating genuine internal hostilities. Propaganda which invents pure novelty gets nowhere. The Russians did not hesitate to appeal to Bismarck in order to show the professional German soldiers what a rotter Hitler was, and how stupid the Nazi strategy. But if Bismarck had actually said nothing on the subject of the army in general or an Eastern war in particular, they would have been wise to leave him alone. If the Japanese had tried to make the ex-Confederate States secede all over again, they would not have gotten anywhere because they would not have started with a real grievance. But if they had alleged that the Negro units were used for stevedoring because Whites regarded Negroes as unworthy of carrying weapons, they might have hit on a real grievance. The goal must be deeply bedded in reality."

(The first edition of the book was 1948, and I've found an earlier draft from shortly after the war. Truman started US military integration in 1948 as well. This head start is probably why the US military is better integrated than the civilians it serves.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9981

I wonder if Linebarger had had any particular groups in mind when he wrote:

"If I believed that you were a good enough creature—poor deluded devil—but that you were not fit to vote, scarcely to be trusted with property, not to be trusted as an army officer, and generally subversive and dangerous, you would find it hard to get along with me."

(I don't think it could be women, because the US granted female suffrage very shortly after the soviets)
"it's documented" is no excuse for unexpected behavior.

(Relevant xckd: https://xkcd.com/293/)
Sure!

The various types of money usually have interest rates associated with them, and those rates tell you about the relationships between the types of money. For example there is an interest rate differential between the central bank money and the US treasuries (which are equivalent to USD money for most people most of the time), captured by the repo rate minus IOER. This differential blew up quite recently (in 2019), showing a temporary divergence between tbills and "real money".

In the past, before central banks, each region of the US had their own money, and merchants had conversion tables. They would literally tell you that, for example, Boston money is worth for me only 80 cents on the dollar. Much like today we quote prices on bonds.

Robert Shiller has some really good finance lectures on YouTube. The one about central banking:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_SpIaGTq0u8
Anyway, with all those distros piling up for PinePhone, I finally decided to release p-boot with display support and GUI multi-boot menu.

https://xnux.eu/p-boot/

I'll make some multi-boot SD card demo image next, perhaps with postmarket, arch linux, mobian and ubuntu touch. :)
That's where I am too. I actually mostly agree (at least in principle) with a lot of the arguments about Apple's anticompetitive behavior and hostility towards their app developers, but I can't help but think that if app developers had their way, iPhones would be much worse products for the average iPhone customer and iPhone would have essentially no product differentiation from Android.

Too often these discussions on HN center on the power dynamics between Apple and app developers, and occasionally mention in passing something like ("choice is good for the iPhone owner too; if they don't want X then they can just choose to not install X"), but the discussion rarely tackles the nuance of the power dynamics between app developers and smartphone owners.
Enjoyable read but not much here. Strange that there's no concept of edge computing or caching referenced in the article, from what I could tell.
Facebook ads are definitely priced competitively, but I have never seen evidence of this on HN, only experienced and heard by word of mouth.