skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Absolute shot in the dark, I have near-zero knowledge of Orca and even less about sailing...but I did notice one common link in the article. They were using autohelms. Are the ones they are using commercial ones? Are they homebrew (which is becoming more common in the raspi world)?

Could it be that the PWM motor control on the autohelm is bothering them...it could resonate down the rudder and essentially make a speaker. Once the Orca destroy the sound they seem to be leaving.

Again...total shot in the dark. Just trying to spur some thought in other directions.
My house was blurred many years ago and I wish it wasn't. It almost draws more attention when you look at Street View, which is probably contrary to privacy interests. I've also had odd reactions from companies I've called out to do maintenance or yard work. Some of them never show up, and I suspect it is at least in part because they draw some negative inference from the blurred house. I'm also thinking about selling the house soon, and I just know it's going to be problematic. I've tried to get it unblurred several times, but have failed to get a response from Google.
Criticizing scientific research by reading a news report is like criticizing a computer by asking your great-parent's opinion about the command line.
very good intro, builder are more more used in framework public APIs, until this new DSL approach it was all about protocol fighting :)
I wouldn’t bet on that.

Modern ships can avoid obstacles using motors and navigation, and avoid storms using weather reports. Modern ships avoid sinking by technology, not strength.

Fibreglass hulls in particular are quite fragile - especially sports hulls that are designed to be lighter.
Also have a look at the GOV.UK/GDS[0], which strongly influenced the US Digital Service. Pretty much everything digital that government departments do is open by default[1]

[0] https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/government-digit...
[1] https://github.com/alphagov
> The [objective] reality of morality is obvious

You really think so? I don't. To me this (that morality has some ground truth and isn't just some sort of subjective opinion in how people should behave) seems like an extraordinary claim that contradicts experience.

If morality is objective why can nobody, even in culturally homogonous groups, agree on what it means to be a good person?
Fayetteville is just awful - would never recommend that place to anyone.

I moved west for a while too. Eventually moved back to NC though. Most quirks that came from being in the south just didn't outweigh the positives in my case. ABC stores are weird, but the selection and prices are usually decent at least. I certainly never experienced anyone teaching creationism in Charlotte-Meck schools. Racial covenants are also something I've never had a friend or family member experience in Charlotte - though maybe it's because I'm from North Charlotte so most of the homes there are new construction or considered gentrified. I have read about racial covenants and redlining every where though - and Seattle certainly felt far more segregated than Charlotte and Raleigh did in that regard.

I will concede though - that gay marriage amendment that passed a few years back, was extremely disheartening and certainly did play a role in my temporary abandonment of my home state. Notably, all the big cities and every area that had a university voted against it. But still, I was aghast that the bill passed at all. I'm very glad that SCOTUS stepped in and that's not an issue any more.

It's not for everyone, and I'd even say that Fayetteville is not for anyone... but there are real reasons the metropolitan areas have grown like crazy. Charlotte and Raleigh now have something like 60% of residents being people who were not born in NC. It's probably just weather, house prices and jobs - but if somebody just wanted to live somewhere affordable that was going to go up in value - you could probably do a lot worse.
I think one of the reasons I find computers relatively easy is that I compulsively read whatever you put in front of me. I always read cereal boxes when I was a kid, even the non-kid cereal boxes that were all about colon health and fiber. But even I get this blindness sometimes, especially when I'm writing code and running builds and tests and trying to work quickly and efficiently. I'll get hung up on something for ten minutes where the answer is literally spelled out for me in front of my face.

This is an astute observation.

I also didn't know that other kids read cereal boxes like that... I thought it was just me!
It's one definition of hacking.
If you believe the soul is a separate thing to the body, then it naturally follows that duplicating the body is merely a cargo-cult version of immortality.

If you believe that there is no separate thing which is a soul — that all that we are is just a particular arrangement of matter — then duplicating some particular arrangement from a backup is like forking from an old git commit: just because you can label one particular branch “master” doesn’t make it genuinely special, and any special treatment you give to one branch is merely your convention.
You are misspelling TARĐIGRADE. That word is Serbian, not English. The Latin form of the language has the letters /d/ (upper "D" and lower "d") and /dz/ (upper "Đ" and lower "đ").

There is also a TARGET TRANSPORTATION LIMITED on the list. PayPal, in their infinite stupidity, would probably block transfers to the retailer Target.
Tangential on hierarchies and meshworks by Manuel De Landa: http://netbase.org/delanda/meshwork.htm
"To make things worse, the solution to this is not simply to begin adding meshwork components to the mix. Indeed, one must resist the temptation to make hierarchies into villains and meshworks into heroes, not only because, as I said, they are constantly turning into one another, but because in real life we find only mixtures and hybrids, and the properties of these cannot be established through theory alone but demand concrete experimentation. Certain standardizations, say, of electric outlet designs or of data-structures traveling through the Internet, may actually turn out to promote heterogenization at another level, in terms of the appliances that may be designed around the standard outlet, or of the services that a common data-structure may make possible. On the other hand, the mere presence of increased heterogeneity is no guarantee that a better state for society has been achieved. After all, the territory occupied by former Yugoslavia is more heterogeneous now than it was ten years ago, but the lack of uniformity at one level simply hides an increase of homogeneity at the level of the warring ethnic communities. But even if we managed to promote not only heterogeneity, but diversity articulated into a meshwork, that still would not be a perfect solution. After all, meshworks grow by drift and they may drift to places where we do not want to go. The goal-directedness of hierarchies is the kind of property that we may desire to keep at least for certain institutions. Hence, demonizing centralization and glorifying decentralization as the solution to all our problems would be wrong. An open and experimental attitude towards the question of different hybrids and mixtures is what the complexity of reality itself seems to call for."
People who think about users as idiots dismiss their issues. People who think about them as distracted change app design.

At least in my experience, the two ways of framing users lead to different behavior of development team.
I'm glad you pointed that out as I definitely have thought of this before, and I obviously can't understand it in all the ways it may be meant yet. Recent conversations with my dad (also in the industry) have shown me just as much how there is still much in the planning and development environment I have misperceptions or lack of perspective on.

Just as everyone experiences some level of shock at the start of university for what it is truly like, I expect the same for my transition into the workforce, and that it may take a long time. It took me until last November of last year to truly fall into a groove in college, and that was in normal times. The harder recent period has been a strange juxtaposition for me of adult responsibilities with the stuck-at-homeness of my teens. In essence, it felt as if my life regressed in every way with the exception of a regular paycheck.

It's all the more jarring when you consider that my time at college was derailed in March just as I was the most at peace, capable, and ready to build others up around me. Now, I'll likely never see that environment again. I have lots of unfinished work in the labs and CS/CE student community which can only be realized in a diminished extent now. There are countless people I never had a chance to say goodbye to. I sadly expect my own graduation to be virtual like the class of 2020's.

In summary, I understand reality will rarely align with expectations. Sacrifice and adversity can be expected, and thus far I have been fortunate to have not lost anything truly irreplacible. However, there is room to lament lost plans and opportunity. That wave of momentum and self-esteem I managed to climb to the crest of towards the end of my in-person college experience will have to be rebuilt. I am and shall overcome the times we live in now, but it is also not unclear to me what I could have done and became if the pandemic didn't happen.
I tried to submit my email and got an access denied security warning, no explanation.
There were some news around a cubesat emdrive, but I doubt they actually launched.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a22678/em-dr...

https://www.sciencealert.com/the-impossible-em-drive-is-abou...
I discovered that Ted Nelson has a Patreon: http://www.Patreon.com/thetednelson . I decided to sign up and perhaps you would like to help out with a few bucks too.

I've seen talks by him a few times and I think he is worth listening to. He has interesting ideas well worth understanding.
Pioneering Spirit (Ship)
Liability is the government trying to model "wrongness", not wrongness itself. There are certainly wrongs that can be comitted that you are not liable for, and there are probably things that you are liable for that aren't "wrong"
what kind of projects are you working on? or what do you want to be working on?
Thanks for the heads up, can’t quite understand why you’re getting downvoted. What kind of project are you using it on?
Hey, thanks for the very thoughtful response.

I realize now that my initial post may have implied otherwise, but I'm mostly looking to start establishing relationships that may lead to entrepreneurial collaboration in the future. I'm definitely not looking to jump straight into anything at the moment – it's not like there's a particular idea I'm in love with, and I'm naturally a very cautious person so I'd like to take the time to get to know people before starting a project with them.

My concern is moreso that it takes a lot of time and effort to build trust, and so I'd like to start meeting such people sooner rather than later.
The user and the designer have very different motives. It is no wonder that there is a significant misunderstanding.

The user just wants to do what they want to do. Usually the motive is very straight-forward, and almost fleeting. A small subset of their life is affected by this product, and they can easily choose away from it. The relationship is thin.

The designer not only designs for themselves, but for other people. This includes understanding the world, but also has to do with social value. What you create, in many contexts, dictates how you are viewed. The designer cannot choose away from their own product. Their relationship is very thick, complex, and personal.

When the users do not understand your own brainchild, it is hard to lose your own ego. It is easier to keep your own ego and criticize those that threaten it.
Diving deep into a domain and interfacing with a subject matter expert goes a long, long, way. We've been building custom data products for enterprise for about seven years, and a lot of the work is listening and grokking large amounts of content about whatever domain we were helping with in general, and the specifics of our clients. Retail, banking, telcos, energy, communication.

Having a background in acoustics, reservoir characterization, telecom networks, opens up clients because you 'get it' or at least you work hard to get it, which improves buy-in of the experts to sit down with you and answer your questions. You did your homework.

If you don't and just storm in talking about something something neural nets, they'll see it as a waste of time, won't bother explaining nuances, will delay sending data you desperately need. You won't have their cooperation even if you have executive support. There's no data in CSV form or an API to hit in most real world projects, so you need their help getting data, and their expertise to understand it.

Another major point is specifying the metrics. The real world metrics, not AUC or F1 scores. You need collaboration to get there, too.

There's so much to be done before there's data to work with, let alone good data. And there's so much after the model building step.

It can drive people to quit. One reason is that when you storm in and consider that people are morons, you get frustrated rapidly.
> If someone has used this phrasing beyond it’s rhetorical meaning, then they don’t have the empathy to design software. Simple.

We're several generations into the field of designing user interfaces. Like with all other saws and pieces of folk wisdom, it is the case that when you learn an adage in context of knowledge and experiences it summarizes, you understand it's just a shorthand, a helpful reference in your mind. But if you learn the adage without that context, you derive your own meaning that's not necessarily the intended one (or you just dismiss it as being trite).

It's a problem as old as human societies - you have to live through relevant situations to understand as piece of received wisdom. There is no known solution, but it is still super helpful, if an adage is phrased in such a way as to minimize misunderstanding by people who hear it without experience to understand it. "Users are stupid" fails that.
I'd like to follow this to its logical conclusion: Are you suggesting that it's desirable to make a new language vice improving an old one?

(Related, but separate:) Would you have preferred if Python 3 was released under a different name that didn't include "python"?
I’d recommend joining an existing, early stage startup in the same/similar niche you eventually want to build your own product in. While there, make an effort to network with the non-technical staff.

Not only will you learn a ton about shipping product in a startup (risking someone else’s money), but you will also grow your own network - including non-technical founder types.

This model worked for me. I spent twelve years with the US federal government. I had great tech and business skills, but it was all federally focused.

I joined the founding team of a startup, using my tech background. We got acquired 15 months in by a later stage startup. The resulting company IPO’d four years later. I joined another startup in the same industry as CTO just after their Series A, we got acquired two years later. Then I launched my own - 8 years after leaving the federal government.

It is a ton easier now, with all the relationships from the last two. (Not to mention the depth of knowledge on everything)

It is easy to think startups are all about the product & technology. But it is so much more!
I agree completely. It's ridiculous seeing different cities, counties, states, etc reimplementing the same stuff from scratch. I realize every region is different but not that different.
This is at good places. Kudos if your company is one of them, and you help out younger folks!
Ask HN: Where can I get copyright for Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot Speech?
The goal is to put the video inside a raspian OS image and freely distribute that image (along with other software) via github.
The Fortran spec was published in 1957. Today’s Fortran has features that were not dreamt of then, such as array operations with automatic parallel execution. The changes are a bit more drastic than improving Unicode support. But I can take a Fortran program written in 1960 to run on a computer that needed its own building, that was fed into a machine without an operating system using punched cards, and compile and run it on my phone.
Boris Sofman, Head of Trucking at Waymo
One idea in the Hopfield Networks is All You Need paper, was that the softmax-based attention mechanism is equivalent to a Hopfield energy update, and in which the attention keys are the Hopfield "memories". But, the keys are produced as a transformation of the input, so it seems to me, the Transformer does not actually store keys as "memories" the way a Hopfield network stores memories (as energy minima). Is this correct, or am I missing something about the paper?
Maybe... But there are two correct solutions (using an old version or upgrading the code) and such message would communicate clearly the need to decide between them.
I agree that that is a better understanding of what is being proposed but feel it could have been phrased with less presumption about my understanding as it comes off a bit condescending. I didn't intend to rule that out, nor go into detail. I hinted at what you're saying in referring to holism.
As someone with ADHD, I really struggle with this.

I spend a lot of time turning off features that were built to distract me. Notification badges, unread item counts, related content, news feeds put in places where they don't belong etc.

Some simple tasks are made deliberately difficult by this. For example, why is it so hard to get just the weather, without any bullshit?
>Categorically demanding complete backward compatibility puts huge limitations on the development of the language

Not really. Just introduce an optional version declaration at the top of the file, which guarantees the old behavior. Then feel free to tinker with the design as much as you want. It's a solved problem and it works well. Sure, you still break people's code if they don't put a version declaration in - but now the fix is a single line.

The fatal flaw in Python's approach was cleaving apart the Python2 and Python3 worlds, making it impossible to mutually import modules. Python2 and Python3 are practically speaking different languages - different syntax, different semantics, different libraries, and a different userbase. As far as the computer is concerned, they are separate entities, with the feeble "2to3" program being the only thing linking them.
No mention of what is the greatest government contribution which is SELinux from the NSA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security-Enhanced_Linux

SELinux is what keeps an attacker contained after they exploit and break into the system.
That's cool, I had no idea it'd gotten that inexpensive, I wonder how much cheaper it can get.
I work for a government software development team (At least for the next week). I have other friends in other governments on other teams.

I can’t see a government being able to build generalized software or contribute effectively to it. Governments don’t tend to have people who say no to feature requests. The end result is not a generalized good solution, but extremely specific solutions built on a generalized platform of if statements and endless configuration setups with special cases weaved through.

Governments are used to getting to decree everything from the button shade to the location of the buttons (different departments might ask for different button placements and get it) to the database type used (for the same piece of software) to the cloud vendor to all manner of additional features that require threading them through the core software. They want piles of exceptions and special cases. They want every possible scenario from the paper based days to be included in the software or it is not sufficient for their purposes. They want to specify date formats. They want to have very custom reports.

To use OSS, you basically need a generalized thing many people can use. But each government department will rapidly make it far from generalized.
You hating that attitude doesn't mean you're right. Also that attitude you describe is actually not Apple attitude, it's your interpretation.

Anyway, you say you feel that way – Apple design is based on decades research & experience in the field. They don't get everything right, but you would hardly find a more user-centric company.
Debian stable is well known to be behind.
> If this behavior is normal, then we need to make it not normal, not continue to compensate for their ineptitude. Fix problems, don't avoid them.

This sounds great in theory, but two decades of history of malware on Windows have already taught us it is hopelessly impractical.
Imagine if "everyone" was literate, what a world that would be /s
I really wonder where this is going.

Swift had to interop with objective-c right from the start, which itself had to interop with C.
SwiftUI feels like a wrapper over UIKit (or at the minimum CoreFoundation).

All in all, it seems impossible that so many layers of compromise over so many years, can lead to anything clean in the long run.
I'm looking forward to when you can just build an app once and use it across iOS and Mac right out of the box. Catalyst seems like a good first step in that direction.
Regarding [1], would you be willing to expand on what you mean by a "self determinism" versus "guided/trained" parenting approaches?

Thanks ahead from one parent to another.
Honestly my advice would be to leave FAANG and join an early stage startup ... you're much more likely to meet a wider array of people with similar passions and interests and varied skillsets.

Even if that startup itself fails you are likely to meet people you could start another company with and if it succeeds it will be an even better place to start a company from when leaving, most exceptional founders love to support their employees leaving to start something new.
There's a test for normality. Well, I knew one, Kolmogorov, but Wikipedia already lists 8. What data scientist doesn't know of such a test?

And how would you fit the data? There's not one, unique way to fit. And as you say, a small deviation can mean a lot: if you use L2 distance, the errors at the outer regions of a normal distribution are probably dwarfed by any deviation that occurs more towards the center.
Bunnyhop was my favourite glitch.

The phoon too much for zblock bunnyhop fragmovie video [0] still makes me laugh even like 10 years later

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNvDUO42Hys&t=370s
I couldn't believe it either! Don't know if it were alakaline or something else anymore. I'm using rechargable Eneloops now, where possible. Honestly I can't remember anymore what has driven me to do that? Maybe frustration because empty so fast?
> What is why the same tools do not have silent failures. And OS failures aren't silent.

Thankfully, there are no bugs in our software :-)

> Gladly, you are wrong. Modern tools have indeed add optional noisy modes, nearly all opt-in.

Almost everything network facing (which is almost everything, these days), is verbose by default. Git, curl, etc.
Time for a GoFundMe, maybe.