skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
One aspect left out is upgrading: can you always distribute new features to all tenants at the same time? If a new feature requires some training or organizational change, then you need to deploy at the moment agreed on with the tenant. From this point if view, models 1. and 3. are viable.

If extensions are rare, you can keep a switch for each and separate upgrades on model 4. However, if you want changes on switch, then you have to keep old code in conditional branches of your code forever. High cost of ownership.
I think it's even simpler:

People tie nuclear power to nuclear bombs. They think, consciously or subconsciously, that they're some kind of slowed down nuclear explosions, and one day there will be a mushroom cloud turning the area into glass.

Yeah, the experts say it can't happen, but how do we know they're not arrogant Jurassic Park style fools?
The laundering of money using compute and electricity is a very interesting idea that I hadn't thought of before. It's certainly within the cartels power (as quasi-state entities) to obtain cheap/free electricity and start mining. Given the billions and billions in cash just sitting in warehouses, Cartels would presumably be very interested in any way, even with a 50 or more percent haircut, to turn this dirty money into clean money in a legit bank account. While a mining operation won't have enough capacity for probably even 1% of that amount of capital, you would have to imagine that cartel leaders would still probably be interested in such a scheme.

A fascinating idea, thanks for sharing
Because if they were hands, it would take 15,840 of them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_%28unit%29
A quick and dirty way to detect a modified executable on Linux, is to compare /proc/$pid/exe and its target.

$ readlink /proc/$$/exe
/bin/bash (deleted)

$ sha256sum /proc/$$/exe $(readlink /proc/$$/exe)
16a94220a1cf204076640914f09cf0af59da07771819e7eb9671216643296d73 /proc/665119/exe
16a94220a1cf204076640914f09cf0af59da07771819e7eb9671216643296d73 /bin/bash
sha256sum: '(deleted)': No such file or directory

If the unlinked executable has been replaced by a new executable with the same content, they will have the same checksum, this could possibly happen if the package has been reinstalled, which is unlikely to occur. If the original executable is nowhere to be found on the disk, at least you can...

$ cp /proc/$$/exe shell_bin_under_analysis

$ strings shell_bin_under_analysis | grep version
GNU bash, version %s-(%s)
GNU bash, version %s (%s)
License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>
@(#)Bash version 5.0.16(1) release GNU

$ strings shell_bin_under_analysis | grep zsh
# [...]
zsh-5.8-0-g77d203f
# [...]
> but like you said it was only 12 years ago they (unconstitutionally) voted in a ban on gay marriage

Shouldn't that be as follows?:

> but like you said it was only 12 years ago they voted in an (unconstitutional) ban on gay marriage

Or was the vote itself deemed unconstitutional?
Why would your boss scream at you, when he could just make you feel like working and you'd think it was your own idea?
Take anything from Electrek with a big grain of salt - they are the publication of choice for controlled leaks from Tesla.
If the Democrats are for it, then they are against it.
Not all countries have minimum reserve requirements. Eg if memory serves right, Canada didn't have them.

And Scotland also didn't have them during their free banking episode.

What the Scottish banks had instead where crazy high equity cushions (like 1/3 of assets, instead of the about 8% common these days). But not because of any law, but because customers insisted.

Equity cushions are much more important in protecting depositors than reserves.
It's only wrong because it's not really an explanation. At best, it's a weak one.

Saying that an active model of self "is" what we experience as the consciousness we experience doesn't tell us why we have that experience.

We can just as easily imagine a complex machine with an active self-model that isn't conscious, as one that is.[1] So an active self-model doesn't tell us about consciousness. This shows them to be different concepts, not different names for the same concept. Which means neither "is" the other, and "is" is not an explanation.

[1] (To be a little more picky, we can't imagine that if we insist they are the same thing, but that leads to circular reasoning here. Our questioner can imagine both, and for an explanation to explain it needs to address the question, not wave it away by offering something circular.)

It all sort of falls apart when we only talk about whether an object other than ourselves is conscious or not.

As far as we know[2], we can't distinguish consciousness of other objects by observation. A hypothetical non-conscious machine might tell us it is conscious; we will never know if it's GPT-3000 talking or if it's another being like ourselves. So eventually we'll probably decide that it's moot, and treat it as conscious if it behaves convincingly and consistently like it is.

[2] That could change, it's not ruled out.

But that doesn't deal with the "hard problem" of consciousness, which is ourselves.

For ourselves, we are in no doubt about the direct experience of our own consciousness. We might convince ourselves that it's just an active self-model, processing, because of how we think of data processing machines these days. But we shouldn't, for one because that's a weak explanation that doesn't explain, and for two because there are other active self-models in the universe, and also in the much larger abstract realm of "unexecuted" self-models that could exist (pick an RNG seed and set of rules of your choice). We don't experience those, so the one(s) we do experience are notably distinct, for no obvious reason.
Maybe it's just the mood I'm in this morning, but this article just made me feel that the author's father had some serious mental health issues.

If anything, I would say it was more about that than the tech bans.
The article opens with an interesting statement that centre pivot irrigation was introduced, or rather succeeded, in the Plains where groundwater irrigation failed. That stamement is never really expanded on and is a bit odd on its own. All irrigation systems still need water, so what made the difference?

From what I can tell, centre pivot irrigation is preferred primarily because it's dirt cheap and it's reliable. But from a sustainably perspective it's simply encouraged intensive agriculture in places where the local water supply can't support it. These systems ultimately still have to pump water from underground. The irony is that while the invention allowed the dust bowl to bear crop, it's also thoroughly draining local aquifers and its likely that in the near future we won't be able to grow anything there any more.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/how-center-pivot-i...
'Richard Dawkins said in an offhand comment in The Selfish Gene that “Money is a formal token of delayed reciprocal altruism.”'

(from: https://nakamotoinstitute.org/reciprocal-altruism-in-the-the...)

I was just thinking about the immutability debate in the Ethereum blockchain world, where the community split due to a difference of opinion/interests on whether their system of money should allow a transaction reversal due to unintended effects of a certain contracts code on the state of the system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_DAO_(organization)).

Those who were in the "code is law"/"immutability despite errors/malicious behavior" faction insisted that no change should take place, resulting in the loss of money/decreased action (state change) potential for the original holders affected by the unintended state change.

The more popular/valuable (by market cap) system of money (ETH) was the one where this change took place, though this was a one-time event. The state of the system was since not adjusted to reverse effects of hacks, accidental transfers/state changes of smaller impact (still millions of dollars equivalent).

Reversible systems need adjudicators which determine if a reversal should take place, and since this is a complex, subjective consensus issue, they pretty much must be humans, resulting in unpredictable and possibly unstable sociopolitical processes.

Fiat money derives its value through its utility (widespread acceptance in the exchange for goods) and its contractual enforcement ability provided by a states monopoly on violence (resulting in working contract law) and as the primary means of paying taxes.

An (unbacked) IOU has less value than central bank (digital or cash) money, because whether it results in delayed reciprocity is more uncertain (credit default risk, bank runs). In the same way, more irreversible money/settlement systems (like cash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_gross_settlement) carry less of this type of uncertainty and risk but more of others (legal, last resort to violence to enforce state/or even consenus change, large losses due to mistakes).
You'd think that broadband directed antennas would be pretty good at this already. The technology has been around for decades. It would be fun to maybe convert bill gates mosquito lasers (amp them up obviously) to shooting down drones if they get in illegal airspace.
This one seems to work similarly: https://www.blastsearch.net/
Do you still have the tape?
This sounds more like am argument for USD's utility/value. That doesn't make it an IOU.
*squeamish.
It still allows sideload without developer mode, unlike iOS.

https://www.androidpolice.com/2020/08/24/android-11-install-...
Java? Pfft.

Step 1: write your project in Node.js.
I think the key here...is to allow the user to gain control over his device and/or take it offline if it pleases him.

I wonder how long it will be before we start to see legal or regulatory interventions in this area. Mandatory self-updating and phone-home functionality is rapidly infecting technologies we rely on every day, from our cars to our home computers to our TV sets.

This always-connected, always-updated approach inevitably introduces some risks. It often causes intrusions into privacy or brings changes after purchase that users of these technologies don't necessarily want.

Competition in these markets is evidently insufficient to provide alternatives for those who don't want anything to do with this modern culture. I don't believe that is limited to a small group of eccentric tinfoil-hat fans any more.

Hopefully it won't take some sort of widespread disaster to wake the politicians up to the dangers here, though given the past performance of the political class around the world when it comes to technology issues, I'm not particularly optimistic.
Mexico is way past that point. Some of the drug cartels operate openly.
>>I also believe humanity’s chances of escaping the great filter is ~0%

That turned dark, quickly. I was nodding my head up until that point. Things may look bleak now, but I live believing that humanity’s chances are higher than a measly ~0%.
> It's amazing how many obstacles we put in the way of planned burns, to prevent problems that we've been just have to accept when they happen unexpectedly on their own:

Except there is one really big obstacle that you fail to mention:

Money.

You can clear brush without controlled burns. You can engineer firebreaks. etc.

The problem is that you have to maintain these continuously--and that is expensive.

The reason why people only talk about "controlled burns" to clear brush is because that is cheap--not because it necessarily what is most effective.
Video chatting is just one application. It's ideal for any application of real-time peer-to-peer streaming of data.
Discussions are full of anecdata. That's what makes them interesting.

Care to contribute some of your own that add to or argue against the GP's?
> There is actually a standard way for new people to get into crypto...That is why you begin learning crypto by breaking other people's crypto.

And that is actual, useful advice for someone who is looking to get into crypto, not the equivalent of spraying an errant dog with a water bottle. Hence, like I said, studying and learning from others' experiments first.

To bring up game engine or OS dev again for instance, the answer to "I want to build my own game engine/OS" isn't "don't do that, you'll get it wrong", because people in those fields have actually put in the effort to create and document amateur-friendly resources targeted at various levels. And it's not like using your own OS or game engine in production is necessarily less dangerous than you using your own crypto in it, but again people in those fields somehow seem capable at grasping that people can [want to do] things without it even remotely being about a production service or product.
Why Most Blockchain Applications Are Dumb
Children at any age, from baby through adolescence, have developing brains, and obeying rules, testing rules, struggling against rules, and accomodating rules, both from society and your parents, is a critical part of development.

Don't try to short circuit it, the implied "wrong way to do it" that you are trying to short cut is how the world works and has worked from hunter gatherer days.

I have a lot of experience with this type of stuff from my own upbringing with a number of siblings (very liberal as in too liberal) and to give an example from the real world, I suspect (not claiming I know) that Aaron Swartz was given lots of freedom, and not a lot of stricture, and he wound up an admirable kid but RIP. Again, I don't know that for a fact, but you don't know my siblings so you can't see what happened to them.
True. But Evangelicals have a unique position at this moment in their ideological history, where their leardship is aggressively backing someone who defies their core tenants. Such a crisis of faith happens in all religions from time to time, but in this moment for this group, it is now. As such, "find a new sect they doesn't require me to reconsile such things" is at peak likelihood for many of that faith.
People who assume the world is fair will always find the justifications for why any status quo is valid.
As I read the article, there was not actually a single confirmed death by explosive armed drone.

I suspect that ultimately it’s likely impractical To kill people by drone as compared, on a cost basis, to other more pedestrian means of killing people.

Drones may be cheap, but drones that can lift more than 2 kilos aren’t. The logistics of getting a drone near enough to the intended target to kill them are going to be hard. While the “cool” factor is high, I suspect guns, bombs, hard men, threats and bribes are more efficient.
Windows’ “Active Hours” shows you’re not in control of your devices (2016)
The things the ceo proclaims on stage and in the press are marketing -what it’s sold as.

A click wrap legal disclaimer after you already purchased the thing is in no way what something is sold as. It literally can’t be - because you have already bought it.
If they made it legal to shoot them on sight in Texas that would go a long ways here to keep their numbers down.
> For my machines, I switch to Linux once macOS updates are no longer available

What's the best way to use Linux on an old MacBook air? Should I be running it in a VM? Is there a way to dula boot? The laptop is quite old, it has 4GB of RAM. So I'm worried nothing will run well on it. Macos definitely feels sluggish on it now.
It's more complicated than that.

Even without laws requiring reserves, banks still want to hold some precautionary reserves to eg settle interbank transfers or to serve cash withdrawal requests.

But those precautionary reserves can be very small without causing much trouble. In Scotland in the 19th century they had about 2% gold reserves and where doing fine.

What's more important are equity cushions to take the blow of losses before the depositors do.

Scottish banks typically had about 30% equity cushions because that's what depositors demanded. (These days laws require about 8%. Depositors don't care much anymore, because government deposit insurance numbs them.)
CBP are the most unfriendliest border agents I've ever had the misfortune of dealing with. Contrast that with the likes of Canadian and Irish border people who are outstanding I'm my experience.
The bounty was $5,000 not fifty thousand. And frankly that would be chump change anywhere for the opportunity cost.
Concurrency, Muti-Threading, Asynchronous Programming and Event Loop
That's actually a myth. During past government in Mexico drug cartels started kidnapping and stealing oil to the point that oil income was higher than drugs. There's an active case from Pemex against BASF and other Houston based company to buy oil from drug cartels at cheaper price.
I appreciate the thoughtful and honest response. I've seen some great discussion on Twitter. Hopefully HN picks up on some of these discussions and can become a more welcoming space for dialogue from those with different backgrounds and perspectives
That isn't banned. Consider yourself lucky, because lots of stuff does get banned. Take this article for example, submitted by caseysoftware:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24320591

Referring to this article:

https://nypost.com/2020/08/29/political-insider-explains-vot...

You can see it marked [flagged] [dead].

It's a very interesting article that details a number of effective ways to steal an election in the USA today. We could have discussed ways to secure our elections, but the suggestion of corruption probably upset some people. Even if you think that stuff isn't actually happening, you should want to make it impossible because otherwise there will be lots of people who refuse to believe the results of elections. The legitimacy of our government is undermined if we aren't able to prove that fraud of this type could not have happened.
The idea is great, but I don't think it'll be faster for me to navigate in Mac using vimac than using trackpad or mouse currently.

I think the thing which is not wonderful now is: in vim, you enter a mode, in that mode, you can do a series of navigation to get to the final destination. While in vimac, you enter a mode to do just one navigation and you're out of the mode, you have to press the key enter the mode again to do another navigation. This makes me feel not productive at all.
None of these features should need Google's proprietary platform. See, for example, Mozilla's `media.autoplay.enabled` or `media.block-play-until-visible`
Hi author, excellent article. But I'm just not seeing the central premise that Werner is wrong in saying that banks are unique in their ability to create money. What Full Tilt Poker did was illegal, simply because they were not licensed as a bank. We do have a special class of institution in our society that is blessed with the ability to create money through fractional reserve that we call "banks". Do you mean regardless of law?
>Someday, all cars from a particular brand will be made to crash during rush hour.

This is also why it's always very, very wrong to compare potential faults of automated cars to humans as in "the automated car is X percent safer!", becuase it ignores the fact that mistakes in automated systems, at least as they are built now, are highly correlated.

If there is one bug in an ML system that is rolled out to an entire fleet that results in an unknown weather condition leading to fatal crashes you may create mass carnage.

Human driver errors are not correlated like this, which makes them much more robust as an ecosystem.
There’s a great Jazz club+Ethiopian restaurant in SF called Sheba that has “penne pasta” on their menu for people who want the Jazz but are too numpty to eat Ethiopian.
One thing not mentioned here is using regular expressions. Use regexes liberally to process all data [1] because eventually it will converge to it and if you haven’t looked around for a solution involving regexes, [2] you’re not working on the really hard problems. Oh, don’t bother writing comments about regexes. They’re pretty much self-explanatory once the expression itself is beyond 10 characters long.

If regular expressions seem too tame to you, write all your business logic in SQL that’s contained in a long stored procedure. Prefix the name of the stored procedures with “HBD_” (HereBeDragons) so that your future self doesn’t get hurt. For added pain, use triggers that will invoke stored procedures, but not everywhere. In this case, inconsistency is the name of the game.

[1]: https://xkcd.com/208/

[2]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1732348/regex-match-open...
Isn't this just native advertising?
I think what you're saying makes sense. I just want to pull out the idea a bit more.

Mexico is a country with a massive informal economy. For every McDonalds that operates in the formal sector, there are millions of small business operators who are totally off the radar.

The cartel is the McDonalds. The narco-technocrats are the thousands of taco carts off the metro crammed into every corner of Mexico City.

Two technocrats, sure, they wouldn't break the bank. But it's not tremendously difficult to get a package across the Guatemalan border, drive it up to Tijuana, and have your cousin with a drone fly it across the border where your other cousin picks it up on the other side.

There's no overhead. There's no need to pay protection money. There's no need to pay off police. There's no psychos in your organization calling attention to you.

This is the same thing that happened with black tar heroin distribution in the United States. A low-key family operation run by guys from the same small town in Mexico. They were revolutionary because they flew completely under the radar. No guns, no violence. Just earning a buck to send home to mom and dad.

Ref: Dreamland by Sam Quinones
Silicon valley must love articles like this, the more to fund their Reagan "Star Wars" style digital border wall follies. Nothing like fear to direct billions of dollars in the wrong direction.
Ah, ok. I could see that being a thing.

Although historically, if I'm not mistaken, it tends to be in the other order. Government services tend to sync up with what everyone else is doing (my understanding is that the 8 hour day originated in the private union movement and only came to government work later).
> If this hack had been exploited

But that's the point. Who's out there that would exploit this because they thought $50,000 wasn't worth it, but would change their minds for $1,000,000?

Realistically there's only two types of people who would maliciously exploit something of this magnitude: the mentally unstable (people who just like to cause chaos), and state-sponsored actors attempting to disrupt other nations. Neither of those groups seem particularly likely to change their mind for an extra zero or two.

The "pay more than the black market will" model works for smaller bugs, but for ones like this that would immediately get every three letter agency on the planet trying to find you, the $50,000 isn't a valuation of the worth of that bug report, it's a gratuity. And for the average bug reporter, that's an extremely nice one.

Can they pay more? Yes, absolutely. Should they? Probably, yeah. Do they have any reason to? No.

The solution to this is to have legal requirements for security, and extremely heavy fines for having released dangerous software (some portion of this fine financing a similar bug bounty program). Take the option of how much money to hand out away from the companies, and they'll be incentivised to take security much more seriously in the first place.

Of course, this requires lawmakers to have a basic understanding of technology, so we're at least 20 years and 3 major catastrophes away from getting anywhere near that actually occurring.