skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I have been repeatedly impressed at how clever crows, ravens, and certain parrots are whenever we figure out how to test them. I've seen videos of Cockatoos figuring out multi-step puzzles, and IIRC, ravens have been able to figure out puzzles with 5+ steps.

I'm not even sure if I can solve a puzzle with 5+ steps :)
Bear in mind: While very few consumers benefit from cloud-based gaming, the outcome of dragging consumers over to it for businesses is huge.

Why sell software and hardware once when you can sell software, the hardware it's hosted on, and the support and services to manage that software and hardware every single month. It's why companies like Adobe and Microsoft have tried to push their main, relatively static[1] software packages like Office and Creative Suite over to a rent-seeking model. And it's why selling cloud services is all the rage.

It's not a good way to do things, it's not good for any consumer or user of those things, but it prints money on a stable and continuous basis in perpetuity, because people lose everything they paid for when they stop paying.

That's why cloud gaming is going to keep coming up year after year, no matter how impractical or stupid it is.

[1] For the vast majority of users, the difference between any given version of Office or Creative Suite and one released five or six years prior is nearly zero. Almost nobody needs to continually buy these.
It's very much like a mafia investigation. (In some cases it may well be a mafia investigation!) Most of the individual details you get are unreliable, insufficient, or just don't matter very much - but that doesn't mean there's no harm in leaking a list of them.
People literally can't have anything nice...sad
Great branding. We are big fans of hq.com domains too!
This is a feature, good!

I was surprised last year, when my Drive was running out of space, to discover everything I'd ever deleted was still there and counting against my quota, even from years before. I mean, it was easy enough to empty the trash and fix it, but still -- I'd just assumed things got deleted after something reasonable like a month. A month feels "UX standard" to me.
Everything I've read suggests you would be much better off using black coffee to wean from a soda habit, especially if you don't like the taste of black coffee (because it might just wean you off caffeine altogether). The ritual of brewing a cup of coffee (even as simplified as it has gotten with modern single cup machines) is a useful slowdown to measure your doses by.

Also, it's an easier switch than "cold turkey" from all the sugars of soda if you do want to cheat and not go straight to black coffee but start with sugars/creamers and work your way towards black as you acquire more of a taste for it.

(ETA: And you can progress to black tea then red/green/white easily as a way to cut caffeine in stages. Anyway, good luck trying to break the Dew habit, I sympathize.)
Probably because "Trash" had already been taken by Mac OS.
Gravity tends to present as action at a distance. It's just what happens when you say velocity must be relative and does not work with one object alone. I would say gravity is more of a description of the object, what it's really doing, than what produces gravity.

Particles tend to present as little tiny building blocks. Einstein looked at Planck's resolution of Newton's Law of Cooling, and said you have a start, you have an end, you have a particle. So now a particle can be a little bit of charge-up needed to make an ember radiate from red to orange, nothing really inside the flame itself. No more absolute right way to tick-tock a clock. Radiate heat, your clock ticks faster, your dumping heat by making a slow ticking dark clock fast and your fast ticking bright clock slow regardless of convective medium.

Uncertainty tends to present as a limitation. It's actually very powerful. Everything has an infinite degree of freedom for the fastest path to thermal equilibrium.

Spacetime tends to be elevated, even mystical. I see it as a coarse concept, like how probability strips away all sense of weights or lengths or measures.

A real gravity application would be popping things in and out of existence. I think of what we could do with matter waves or chemicals or quantum biology or particle beams in orbit. Encircle the Earth, or the Sun, and turn that into a microstate to a cosmic macrostate. Or what we could do with cosmic variance, inflation and parallax. We know this very bright object is here. Everything else from a long distance away thinks it's somewhere else.

--- --- ---

They mocked the guy for thinking about small black holes. They really would love me. Part of me thinks everything up there is just where a much lesser amount of material down here decided to dump their heat, and that telescopes are disruptive. Point a telescope the right way, and you get them caught in the cross fire, dissolve them or even create them. They really only become real when things from the Earth land on them. Sounds crazy but reminds me of empiricism.
But a similar list in the other direction would be non-empty, right?

For example, PostgreSQL's SERIALIZABLE isolation level has actually been serializable for nearly a decade now. As I understand it, Oracle's isn't yet.
You joke, but I have seven git repository checkouts there right now. It’s a convenient place to put things I don’t want polluting my drive forever or being backed up, but need to exist on my filesystem at some point.
DuckDuckGo! It gives quite good results on its own but it's when you use the !bangs[1] where it shines.

[1](https://duckduckgo.com/bang)
You're totally right re: being a TSAAS provider. I was writing on mobile, in a hurry, and didn't compose my thoughts well.

I don't believe Timescale is Free software or Open Source. It's proprietary source-available software. I wish all software was Free software, but I don't have the fortitude to restrict the software I use to only Free software. Timescale is "Free" enough with this license that I'd consider using it in my personal workflow, or in a business environment.
Microsoft is. They publicly sided with and are helping to support Epic.

Google didn’t do a mobile PWA for Stadia even on Android. I thought there was a comment about some technical limitations on iOS Safari in some previous thread but I can’t remember. They probably want the same experience everywhere.
The cat is out of the bag. Sure a few close every year, but new ones start up. The risk is less than distributing anything on the streets, or dealing with anything physical.

Now they got 180 vendors by looking at data from last year, and probably by finding them at active markets and ordering from them and trying to backtrace mail, cross-reference the listings (someone got busted via a high res image that enabled law enforcement to acquire a fingerprint - and that was in the system).

But no news about any market shutdown.

And it probably takes a lot of work. The article claims that law enforcement got very good at this, but there's hardly any data to back this up.
Sweatcoin wants to pay your taxes
Well it is estrogenic
Isn't the idea that you setup something like this, and run it for a while, and then you bailout and sell it to someone else and they do the same? It's a game of hot potato. So long as you don't leave too much evidence and you launder your currencies correctly, only the last owner gets caught.

Thats how the Dread Pirate Roberts got his name no?
I personally don't feel like identity & naming want or need concensus ordering. I cited HIP & Wireguard, which don't require that total ordering.

The issues of control & power that come into play when we create distributed systems then make them all agree & work in the same way seems antithetical, to me, to the very idea of distributedness itself. I'm far more interested in systems that can range & explore possibility spaces untethered from any notion of root consensus. I would have us rely on informal weak trust models, friend of a friend, web of trust relations, rather than distributed-but-totalizing.

Thank your for your reply. I've talked some about my questions & what I want to explore, but I appreciate your comment a lot. Talking about what proof of work buys us, that it's there for total ordering, is I think a wonderful assessment, & even though it's not my priority or desire, I do think it buys a lot of interesting technical capabilities & assurances we may otherwise not be able to have.
I thought he was pretty unambiguous there. If we wants to talk about the underlying wave function before collapse, fine, its path in 2D space. But the measured spin only requires 1 bit. Note that the spin is NOT a 2D vector, but a path, which itself can described by a sequence of vectors.

Yes yes, Bell's Theorem, EPR, collapse, and all, but I still think it was sloppy.
Maybe there are some differences between offline and online compute like page response times, cluster specifics, database latency etc. There are no hard timing or effectiveness requirements for processing videos after all.
I save my snackers for the end of the day when my brain is shot during time that wouldn’t be useful for my bigger tasks. I see the author’s point though and broadly agree.
>If everyone has a gun, we aren't all safer, we're just all each at the mercy of whoever decides to pull the trigger first.

But isn't the basis behind MAD and the whole premise behind the continued existence of the world since nuclear weapons became a widespread thing, that, we're all safer having nukes instead of ridding the world of them, because if nobody had nukes, then someone would make one and use one?

I mean, i'm on the 'remove all nuclear weapons from existence' team myself but...
And yet the marketcap of the funds locked in a subset of contracts on Ethereum is almost 10 billion today (https://defipulse.com/) and I have been using a popular contract wallet for a while to hold my funds and transact with friends. So clearly it cannot be nearly as catastrophic as you mention, no?
Just for completeness. Apple also worked with Epic for years to make sure the Unreal engine worked well with iOS.

https://bgr.com/2020/09/17/fortnite-lawsuit-apple-epic-games...

Apple has also worked with Adobe, Microsoft and Amazon and given them pre-release hardware and access to software.
What’s interesting to me is how selectively this kind of understanding is applied. Why is it that we default to this reasoning to explain hate but not, say, crime. Where’s this level of nuance where we discuss riots? Why does it apply in one case but not the other? Why do we get blame upbringing and society in one scenario and then default to hard nosed personal responsibility in another?

I find your argument convincing. I just don’t understand why looking at the context of an individual’s upbringing is acceptable when explaining why aunt Becky is racist but isn’t when explaining why Mohammed is angry.
Direct consequence of Microsoft stealing the paradigm from the Mac, where it has been called the "trash" since 1984.
> I think its more likely that they are taking advantage of economic incentives.

My question is, who is taking advantage of whom? As I said originally, "one may fairly ask whether Facebook's hiring process produced this result."

It seems like Facebook specifically targets people who are amenable to Facebook's "caretaker" benefits, and then encourages those people to become dependent on those benefits. If you work for Facebook, you may have the choice of "taking advantage" of those incentives, but most people outside of Facebook don't have the choice: they're forced to take care of themselves. This is not necessarily a bad thing though, because self-reliance is an important life skill. If short-term economic incentives prevent you from learning important life skills, this may actually be to your long-term disadvantage. I'm not sure Facebook is doing anyone any favors in this respect.

If you think about it, why would Facebook approach hiring and employment any different from how Facebook approaches everything else? The goal is ultimately to increase "engagement" with Facebook.
I think this should be a lesson to developers, set a reasonable retention period for users from day one. Maybe on the back end make it longer so you can avoid some catastrophes, but once you give a user something it is very hard to take it away. I bet Google makes a lot of people very unhappy with this change.
Who said it had to be the same trashcan? You should pay for a service that syncs the contents of the trashcan, so you can reach into the nearest one to have all your files ready for you.
Yes, empire exited with 30 million in crypto.
The capability attributed to crows is that they think about (analyse) their own thinking.

The article arrives at that conclusion using two methods: 1. Behavioural analysis. 2. Reverse engineering neural circuitry.

Is "thinking about thinking" rare, or remarkable? Is it the defining trait that elevates humans above all other animals? The article tells us that the trait isn't unique to humans, because crows have it too.
I believe it's something like the adage, "it's difficult to make someone understand something their paycheck depends on their not understanding."

Think about people who will tell you lobsters can't feel pain while they're rattling in a pot. The idea we are the only intelligent species, and that everything around us exists only to be exploited for our benefit, is quite convenient.

Edited to add: I think this is also related to the way tech companies view their users. They aren't humans with needs to be fulfilled, they're a resource to be extracted. More a coal mine than a customer. (Not to lob a grenade into the discussion, I just found it relevant.)
> C is intended to run terribly fast, so optimisations are vital.

Firstly, says who? The first implementations of C, or its predecessor, by Dennis Ritchie, compiled into threaded code: sequence of function calls. He simply wanted to work at a higher level than assembler.

Secondly, which optimizations?

Optimizations like "this loop must be infinite because i is incremented from 0 and going past INT_MAX would be undefined behavior; and therefore the code after is unreachable and can be deleted" are not in "vital" in any shape or form.

That kind of thing points to the work of an ego that took the shortest possible career path into becoming a compiler committer, long before acquiring the required maturity.

> It doesn't intend to hold your hand

Modern C compilers are crossing from the "not holding your hand" territory into "knocking a tool out of your hand" territory.

> It's a good thing that compilers are capable of deep inlining and removing code that is dead for a given context.

Removing code because of "if the behavior of prior code was written by a perfect programmer who follows ISO C to the letter, this line cannot be reached" is definitely not a good thing.

Removing code because of some constant expression, or expression that is always true doe to type (like x < 0, x being unsigned) is certainly a good thing.
CIA Agents and CIA Assets are 2 completely different thing. A CIA Agent (or spy) goes into a region and recruits Assets. Assets are just normal people with no extra training, but happen to be in a position that informs them on things the CIA (or any spy agency) wants to know. An Asset could literally be the Janitor at some place that has some happenings that the CIA wants to know more about, such as a Research Lab or a local Newspaper.

Assets have no special training and routinely put their lives on the line anywhere in the world they live and are recruited.
I meant you can’t delete it anymore because I responded to it, but why not just actually delete the comment?
You can tell how much smarter crows are just by going to feed the ducks.

The crows watch YOU and your arm, predict where you'll throw and move there in advance, often catching things in mid-air. It's not just reaction speed, they're watching really carefully and making guesses. The ducks are next on the spectrum, they spot it first (after it lands) and geese are the dumbest, the feed can hit them right in the head, and even once they realise what's happening some other duck will usually get there and eat it before they do.
Welsh Village Traces 18 Months of Internet Outages to Old TV
Microsoft specifically sided with Epic with regards to Apple trying to deny Epic from developing the Unreal engine on iOS. Nothing else.
Tesla … Nikola … Nikola Tesla, good one!
i was confused a little at first.
Not a windows user. Is this directory automatically emptied on reboot or something?
I don’t really buy that it makes that much of a difference. As a child I hated all forms of broccoli, could barely stomach it. Now that I’ve grown older I find even the plain steamed stuff edible. While I certainly like it prepped like you described, it still in the end has the taste of broccoli in it. I have a hard time imagining someone who hates the vegetable caring about how it was prepared.
Hopefully someone in the field will read this and be able to answer my question:

I've spent a lot of time googling research about animal intelligence, and I now know a bunch of things intelligent animals can do, but I have no idea where their limits are, what they can't do. Everything published uses such... nonflexible tasks.

If we're trying to measure general intelligence, why isn't anybody trying to teach corvids, octopi, macaques or dolphins a task that requires building towers of abstraction in their own mind, and then gives them harder and harder "levels"? I know at least octopi can use computer screens, and I know they enjoy hard puzzles that reward them with food, so it should be easy to teach them some computer puzzle game?

Say, we could build a four key keyboard that they can use, then teach them Sokoban, starting with extremely simple levels (walk up once to get a snack; walk up twice to get a snack; walk left twice; walk up twice, then down twice; walk up, then back down and right to get beneath the second crate, then up again...) and progressing towards actual Sokoban levels humans find interesting...

If they possess general intelligence this system could tell us a lot more about its limits than a series of experiments that each requires building a physical apparatus and spending a bunch of time perfecting it and then teaching it to the animals from zero?

Did I miss the answer when googling?

Is it that it's common knowledge among researchers that no animal possesses anywhere near enough intelligence to learn Sokoban (or 2048, or any non-real-time puzzle game with simple discrete controls, but I'm pretty sure Sokoban is a near optimal choice) so nobody even tries, nor bothers publishing it (or it's written in the basic textbooks that I didn't bother looking through)?

Do researchers in the field lack access to a technologist that could help them build something like Sokoban For Crows?

Or is it something else that I don't know I don't know?
The trillion dollar companies don't get it "for free", they still have to pay employees, contractors and consultants to actually run the software. And as you know, the salaries tend to be a lot higher at bigger companies. Pick your poison.
Stay away from putting money into unique smart contracts that haven't been running for a long time with a lot of activity. Stay away from smart contracts that are custodial (where the creator is given privilege to all depositors' funds).
There are many templates for failure, and the funny part is that often the people who contribute to the failure are the ones complaining. But in all cases a good scrum master should be picking up on this and fixing it.

Most typical one is that a team member wants to go deep into details about a task which isn't important and not the case. And after explaining for 10 mins about how they where brilliant in so many ways, they complain when the rest of the team "wastes" their time spending 5 min in total explaining why that brilliant feature was actually not needed which is why it wasn't on the board and no-one asked for it etc. The solution here is to repeat time and time again what the purpose of the meeting is, and cutting people off mid explanation when they go outside their timebox Note though, don't do individual timeboxes unless you are facing this specific issue, it's not good overall but sometimes you need to correct behavior.

Then there are cases where team members aren't paying attention to others and complain the stand-up is wasteful because they never learn anything new anyways, but when you talk to other team members that person spends the rest of they day asking questions that where already answered at the daily. Obvious here you need to do some coaching for that specific member, but I've found it also helps to let them not do their own points, either skip them completely or do them for them. My experience is that it's often coupled to that person going through what they need to say and forgetting to listen.

And on and on. There are so many cases where teams need to correct bad habits rather than complain about the stand-up being there. But sadly the retrospective is often the first thing to go out the window on teams, and they never get to discussing overall how the process is going, and then the daily stand-up gets changed into a 30 min status meeting, and people start hating it.
Why Your CLS Sucks
If you're curious, you can try out GeForce Now free of charge with any of its supported titles, they just limit your sessions to 1 hour and deprioritise you in the queue when there's high demand.

I've found it generally works very well, but with the occasional hiccup.

I can't comment on how it compares against the other services, I presume they're roughly as good as each other.
> I just got out of my team's standup. MY team has 8 people. The standup lasted 6 minutes. I think the people who complain about this, are the ones who have a reason to complain. You don't hear the success stories.

I'm not sure if I'd count a 6 minute standup as a success story. My guess is the only person deriving any value from it is some kind of manager who's tracking status, and pulling everyone into a meeting room to do that is mainly just a convenience for that person.

The kind of information that can be conveyed in less than 1 minute per person is likely information that can be collected less disruptively in other ways.

From my perspective as a developer, the best "standups" were the ones that actually deviated from orthodoxy, where we talked about some technical issue or something.
I kept thinking this too. Cow movement seems to be a very thoroughly solved problem. Would love to hear if other ranchers think otherwise.
All games on computer are piratable. On mobile they are not as easy to pirate as you noticed. Do you think the gaming environment is better on mobile? Are dev better paid on mobile? From what I have seen I could answer no to both, and would even say the walled garden is really really not helping indie devs break through on mobile.

I see actually many ways in which devs are impacted :
- discovery is basically null, both on Android and Apple. You need to just pay ads if you want people finding your game. Steam is much MUCH better at it.
- you can't really have a good mod environment or a hackable game, which is very important for a lot of indie games
- you cannot do some kinds of game. Right now that include gore and sexual games (see kawaii killer for instance) but also some other things like a weed growing simulator. Who knows what it will be tomorrow
- as Google is going into gaming, and who knows maybe Apple at some point, you are basically on the hands of a competitor many times your size with no alternative