skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Regardless of what you think about the concept of hinginess, I'm thoroughly unconvinced by the arguments presented against it in this article.

The first one for example, seems like an adapted doomsday argument: given that we continue to exist for x years at a certain societal level, and given the certainty of a hinge, our prior for the hinge being this century would be very low.

But this is begging the question. The entire point of a hinge is that we don't know if we're going to continue to exist at a certain level of development, thus our assumptions required to develop the prior are dependent on our conclusion that this isn't the period of the hinge.

The other arguments boil down to accusations of bias. These are a little more substantial in that we do actually know these biases exist, and we should account for them. But that doesn't mean necessary that we're not living in a hingey period. It's not necessarily an argument against moreso than a stern warning that more research is needed and the conclusion isn't warranted yet.

I'd think there should be stronger arguments against the premise, and some comments in this post have given far better arguments already.
Sad that your mother in law can't go to Costco on her own because she can't drive anymore.
Clothes industry has long stopped being about clothing and moved to stroking egos instead (infinite stream of money in that). It is even reflected in the name change ("clothing" -> "fashion").
> And I'm saying that if they end up collecting more tax money, it doesn't necessarily mean it's a net positive for society as a whole. Most of those tax benefits are reaped by big business, so in other words those benefits are reaped by the owners of those big businesses.

This seems to indicate that it is a net positive for everyone else. If they don't collect tax money from those owners, all of the benefits of that money goes to those owners and none of it goes to anyone else.

> The low vs high tax debate is kind of a moot argument anyways since the US govt can pretty much print money as needed...which ends up being an indirect tax on the general public via inflation.

So... it's not a moot point? One group, through taxation policies, is asked to pay a larger share of what would have been an indirect tax on the general public.
It looks to me as if people who started with dynamic types discover static types after many years, and vice versa.

There’s a zen koan about it, I am sure.
Yeah, that was part of the point I implied. Much fossils were found before “modern archaeological practices” were invented and used. Now, we only have myths (for lack of a better word) about them. So it only enhances the unbelievability of the item.

Another point that I don’t see made, is that if there was advanced tech, the “artifacts” were likely used until they ceased to exist and/or their purpose was lost.

Just think about our own society. If our entire power grid was lost, we would probably lose the ability to repair/rebuild them within a few generations. There may be pockets where electricity still runs, and some people will remember, but there will be no way to build new computers or phones, so they will invariably be brought to wherever electricity still exists, but even then, the ability to recreate them will cease to exist.
This crosses into personal attack. That's not allowed on HN and we ban accounts that do it, so please don't post like this.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Some CSS-in-JS libraries will create a hash of the underlying CSS and use that as the class name. So not quite random, and should remain consistent if the underlying CSS hasn't changed.
Quite similar to the antifragility[1] principle - but not all areas benefit from randomness. The key is to understand which is which and apply randomisation there.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifragility
> A small village would typically have a train station

Having been born and raised in a typical small village in The Netherlands (population then ± 12000) with a lot of smaller and slightly larger villages around, there were no train station in sight for at least 30km. I had to travel to the big city to get to the nearest train station, which took about an hour by bus. And this is the norm rather than the exception.

The problem with trains is that the tracks are put in relatively straight between large cities. If your village is on that line between these cities, you're in luck and probably have a station close-by. Otherwise, you're out of luck and have to hope there is a reasonable frequent bus line going to your closest station.

Of course, because these bus lines tend to follow the more historical routes between cities, visiting each and every village in between, getting to the nearest big city by bus might take up to three times as long as just taking your own car.

Heck, if I'd not mind cycling fast (just over 20km/h) for an hour and a half I'd also be in the city. Just half an hour after the bus would get there. Actually, that was nice in summer as a poor high school student.
Been on an automation drive during lockdown.

Highly recommend Automate the Boring Stuff with Python (https://amzn.to/3mVuKSx) if you are interested in automation + coding (from beginner level).

Have automated banking tasks and programmatically getting information from the internet (aka scrapping).

Amazing what you can do with python libraries - beautiful soup, selenium...
Actual title edited down from:

“Why green spaces, walkable neighbourhoods and life-enhancing buildings can all help in the fight against dementia”

I’m not sure if the trying to keyword stuff the titles, it would help it “reach more people” people if they could tighten up the titles.

I probably need to read up more on what The Conversation is about; publicity for academic papers, outreach, or knowledge sharing and making the research more well known?
Oh yeah, I remeber also driving once next to a large farm with cows, it's crazy how much of the gas they produce.
Ok, added. Thanks.
> In a way, anything discrete is a logical assertion that exists purely in imagination. Base reality is continuous in every way.

This is a strong statement. What about any thing that can be counted? Apples, sheep, atoms in a molecule, permutations of objects? Certainly these are discrete quantities?
Nokia 7.3 specs launch date and prices in us
Oil, especially, would probably be less common if there was an ancient industrial civilization.
Firesim: Cycle-Accurate Rack Scale System Simulation Using FPGAs in the Cloud
Fortunately Audacious does, and you can use WinAmp skins with Audacious.

Doesn't at all discount your point, just wanted to help out anyone who's still using WinAmp because of the skins (I was up to last year).
I shower every morning with the purpose of washing my hair, looks ridiculous and feels nasty if I don't. Perhaps it's conditioned to 'expect' it, but frankly I'd rather do it than stop for a period to find out.
Dogs clearly have consciousness. Consciousness is not exclusive to humans.

Do mice? Probably.

Do insects? I doubt it.
I agree with OP on this, YAML seems better suited for such a tool as you can easily add some form validation to it and then serialize it into Go data structures. You really shouldn't have to recompile your codebase in order to modify a diagram.
I followed a similar trajectory. Types were the bane of my early career. Hideous, extraneous.

But really, they're the light at the end of the tunnel once you've worked your way though the dynamic / weak typing minefield. It took me a lot of Python, Javascript, and Ruby for me to get there, but now I'm way more comfortable on the other side.

The correct type system is actually way more expressive than not having strong static types. Sum types let you combine multiple return types elegantly and not be sloppy. Option types remind you to check for an absent value.

Static types let you refactor and jump to definition quickly and with confidence.

Your interfaces become concrete and don't erode with the sifting sands of change. As an added bonus, you don't need to precondition check your functions for type.

Types are organizational. Records, transactional details, context. You can bundle things sensibly rather than put them in a mysterious grab bag untyped dictionary or map.

Types help literate programming. You'll find yourself writing fewer comments as the types naturally help document the code. They're way more concrete than comments, too.

With types, bad code often won't compile. Catching bugs early saves so much time.

Types are powerful. It's worth the 3% of extra cognitive load and pays dividends in the long haul. Before long you'll be writing types with minimal effort.
Prince Andrew? Is that you?
> Do you honestly think that if the IRS successfully collected more taxes that politicians would reduce taxes?

These numbers on budget shortfalls, deficits, and CBO estimates that are thrown around every time a tax credit or additional tax is considered are very much affected by revenue collection. In SF where there's quite a bit of direct democracy, they were also thrown around to the public when considering several tax or tax-adjacent referenda such as the recent tax on high-revenue businesses or a few on the upcoming ballot, all of which come with their own budget estimates. I'm doubtful that all of this would have no effect the next time balancing the budgets is considered.
It is defined in the article what she means by it. time gained = (time doing task manually)-(time to automate task)
Yes, it will definitely be possible via hundreds of different pathways, some of which they thought of in the paper and others that they didn't.

> The Anthropocene layer in ocean sediment will be abrupt and multi-variate, consisting of seemingly concurrent specific peaks in multiple geochemical proxies, biomarkers, elemental composition, and mineralogy. It will likely demarcate a clear transition of faunal taxa prior to the event compared to afterwards. Most of the individual markers will not be unique in the context of Earth history, but the combination of tracers may be. However, we speculate that some specific tracers that would be unique, specifically persistent synthetic molecules, plastics, and (potentially) very long-lived radioactive fallout in the event of nuclear catastrophe.

One that they didn't mention was our artifacts on the moon which will last 100 million years or so. Geostationary and HEO satellites will stay for a while but I'm not exactly sure how long.

However if you wait 50 million years or so, most of the stuff on earth won't be obvious and you would need to check very carefully.
I'm pretty sure not everyone at MS agrees with the spyware they're adding to Windows either.
I am reminded of a quote attributed to the German mathematician Leopold Kronecker,
"God made the integers, all else is the work of man".
My entrypoint was "Thinking with Type" from Ellen Lupton which gives a very nice and broad introduction to typography. Highly recommend it

I also discovered https://practicaltypography.com/ in a HN commment a few years back, it's brilliant and may give you a quicker start.
Did you run any specific hardware or something? W2k was rock solid for me from RC2 and onwards. The only thing that really didn't run stable was the drivers for Via's crappy chipset, and they released improved drivers fairly quickly.
Read the “challenger sale” book. I’m 20 years in tech sales and it’s easily the best way to get started.

Also - sales is 1:1 conversations. Marketing is 1:many. That’s the easiest way to figure out the difference between the two.
Some nationalities would have to re-roll quite a lot:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_requirements_for_Pakist...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_requirements_for_Indian...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_requirements_for_Chines...

And that’s about 3 billion people. So the real deciding factor for a lot of them would be finding a country that will allow you to get a proper visa.
It's a shame there isn't a -paywall option
Start panic buying water now.
I’m two years into brokering a deal between a client and two blue-chip behemoths. It has been endless cycles of documentation, specification, certification, auditing, horse-trading, rescoping, consulting, wargaming, ratifying, and many of the faces have changed over the last two years.

It’ll be a big deal for all of them, but just getting everything in place for them to all agree and sign is just insane - my longest sales process before this was maybe 4 months, 400 hours - this has easily eaten tens of thousands of man hours so far.

One thing I’ve observed is that the deal almost becomes secondary - by this point, there’s an entire self-sustaining bureaucracy around the deal, many of the deliverables the deal specified are already in place and money has changed hands, hires have been made, everything has essentially happened as though the deal has gone ahead - yet I’m spending this afternoon rejigging information security roles and responsibilities to make the interfaces more on parity with the security team of one of the blue chips, because until the contract is signed, the deal isn’t done, and all parties are just merrily swimming out into deeper waters together, growing technical and operational dependencies around each other with no legal agreement. At this point, the businesses are just getting on with stuff as though the deal is done, the counsels are screaming because nobody is interested in moving the boring paperwork forwards, and I’m charging by the hour. Buys a lot of popcorn.

Sales is weird.

Edit: just realised we might be talking about the same healthcare customers.
I code without types. My "proof", that types do not pay for themselves goes like this:

Every time I encounter a bug (during coding, testing or in production) I make a note what type of bug it was and how it could have been prevented.

Types are way down on the list of what could have prevented the bug. Especially for production bugs, which are the most important of course. It is so rare, that a bug could have prevented by types that I can say with confidence that they would have been a net negative.

Talking about which tool can prevent the most bugs, integration tests win by a large margin.

The reason is that most bugs are conceptual. Like "Oh shit! We have allowed people to tag items as duplicates of other items. And we have a function that traverses the list up to the original item. But now this new feature over there had a bug where it marks the last original as a duplicate of another duplicate and then when the traversal function in that other module is used, it ends up in an infinite loop".

Another example of a popular bug category: The code contains assumptions about the environment that do not hold true. For example PHP's mb_strtolower() will not always create the same string as MySQL's LOWER(). It is very rare and only holds true for a tiny tiny fraction of the UTF-8 characters. So you might expect them to behave the same until you one day trip over one of those few chars.
Just move to one of several cities where the combination of parking and environmental restrictions has had a noticeable impact. It has been done and it should and probably will be done to a greater extent over time.

The city where I used to live in the US, which probably has small cars as US cities go, is very comparable (in this respect) to the city I currently live in across the pond, which probably has large cars as European cities go.
I find it very concerning that all your (excellent) examples of progress are not just 20th century inventions, but entirely before 1970. I do believe progress has slowed down.

We can debate its cause... I'd go for financial incentives drawing smart people to banking and advertising instead of more socially beneficial pursuits.
Graeber & Thiel: On Technology
I can't say that's been my experience. But some very precise questions are sometimes mistaken for general questions when they can be mistaken for general questions when only skimmed over.
Is this tool beyond creating diagrams? If not, I don’t grasp the point of porting, writing the diagram is like scripting, for which python is arguably a better choice.

I hope this isn’t a trend similar to Atwood's Law: “Any application that can be written in JavaScript, will eventually be written in JavaScript.”
Iverson Bracket
Eh, there are still huge legacy codebaes around that benefit from pypy, not everything is worth a rewrite
Can you share the tally? I wonder about the categories you used.
There are many more examples on the shader toy web site.

https://www.shadertoy.com/results?query=webcam

It's running fine on my MacBook Pro with Chrome.
An interesting insight I came across a little while ago is that for mainstream, industrial languages, this way of thinking about types is relatively new. It's not that we're seeing the pendulum swing back to types, it's that we're discovering them for the first time!

In earlier typed languages, the types weren't there for reasons of soundness or productivity at all. The types were there for the compiler alone, as the compiler needed them to know which machine instructions to emit for various operations. Types were just a cost imposed on programmers.

Once computers became powerful enough that we could afford to spend cycles and memory making these decisions at runtime, dynamic languages became viable and we saw industry shift over to them, except in domains where dynamic languages still weren't viable, or where existing codebases or ecosystems made it not economically viable.

Fast forward to the present and decades worth of type theory knowledge is finally filtering through to industry in the form of languages like Rust, TypeScript, Swift, Kotlin, and others. For the very first time we're embracing types for their soundness and productivity benefits. This is an exciting new era.
Damn I love haxe, I wonder how many ex Actionscripters are out there? Haxe, Flixel and Haxeflixel (thanks Adam Atomic) had a big influence on me as a young Dev. Even in the massively scaling SaaS work I do now I'm always inspired by 2d blitting stuff and what I learned about frame economising. Lovely.
The heuristic I use for choosing a statically typed language vs a dynamically typed language for a task is whether or not the code will sanely fit in a single file.

If that is the case, then that means I’ll probably be able to keep the structure of the code in my head and therefore I’ll be able to get by with a dynamically typed language. However, once the code starts to span multiple files, typed method signatures in a statically typed language are invaluable. It sucks having to navigate a codebase with tens of thousands of lines of ruby or python code trying to work out exactly what structure of object can be passed to the method you’re working on.
> Do insects? I doubt it.

May I ask why? Given there are single-cell-organisms which display complex, intelligent behaviour [1]?

Where do you draw the line, and why? Are lobsters with their 18 'neurons' conscious to you? Because they look very conscious to me, although I'm biased (since electromagnetical imbalance is a sufficient explanation for consciousness in my eyes)

[1] https://www.sciencealert.com/this-single-celled-animal-can-m...

^ there's lots more to this than this single link. For example, I've read about single cell organisms that build shelter for themselves, not to mention 'the blob' (not sure if the ARTE-documentation was translated to english)
It's easy to write off as a failure, as doing so requires little to no engagement with the internal structure and struggle of the project, which is the largest in informatics and neuroscience that I am aware of. If you don't agree, please cite something else on the same scale.

I'm involved with HBP and other non-European and European national neuroscience projects (though I am neutral here, just a university-employed engineer), and the science in the recent phase (starting in April this year) is a complete break with preceding funding phase and on-par with other projects. The people leading the science subproject are actually leading PIs on the topics. For comparison, let's name Allen Institute, though Allen is more a monolith, whereas HBP is more like micro-services, with a high cost in coordination, but now a focus on "FAIR" aspects like open-ness and reusability.

The infrastructure side is also coming along, and will provide an AWS of neuroscience (6 national HPC sites, multi-zone OpenStack/OpenShift, 2 neuro-morphic platforms, neuro-robotics platform, federated IAM, metadata and object storage stack, dedicated clinical infrastructure, etc) , but the failure or success will depend a lot more on the larger community getting convinced to engage their workflows on the platform. If people collectively agree that it isn't worth using, then the infrastructure teams never get to justify the whole thing, and it will flop. In that sense, the marketing aspect is not a facade, but a necessary condition for HBP to become a EU RI.

Of course I have no chickens in the fight; if it flops I can keep writing my shitty works-on-my-computer codes for one off unreproducible research projects.
Given that you don't code with types, how are you certain which bugs you could have prevented?

I'd be curious to see this list. Is it anecdote, anecdata, or is it a spreadsheet you have somewhere?
The methane has lower cumulative impact and is a closed loop where it gets recycled over time. [1]

[1] https://onezero.medium.com/cow-farts-are-not-the-problem-f57...
HEBs in that area have lines out the door with people trying to buy water.

"MAGA"
@MalwareMinigun is Billy O'Neal BTW. I have a Wikipedia article about this topic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Upgrade_Readiness

Appraiser not only consumes CPU (and HDD/SSD!) time, but is also technically quite interesting as well. For example it loads a simple kernel driver (nxquery.sys) into your Windows 7 machine to read a MSR to determine if NX has been disabled in the BIOS.
Precisely. The phrase is pretty popular in prose, particularly when prefixed with 'perfect'.
the project is actually in 3 stages, the first 2 dubious, the one which just started in April is worth reconsidering, see my sibling comment here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24605138
ATBS is also free to read online [0] and the author has _automated_ to provide free coupons [1] (applicable during first week of a month) for the online course on udemy

I'd also suggest realpython [2] for resources on web scraping

[0] https://automatetheboringstuff.com/2e/

[1] https://inventwithpython.com/automateudemy

[2] https://realpython.com/tutorials/web-scraping/
"The ancient Greeks" are certainly not a homogeneous group. Here's Euclid's proof of the Pythagorean theorem: https://mathcs.clarku.edu/~djoyce/java/elements/bookI/propI4...

There are no concrete quantities in sight. I don't think that they were removed by the translator. Much more plausibly the original reasoning was symbolic in the way indicated here. Though again, possibly using different notation.
It must rather be about what their users need - their users use libraries for sure. But maybe their users are still on Py 2.7.
Types for checking things are correct is really important which is what this talks about.

For me though they really come into their own when those types then help to eliminate boilerplate. Haskell's foldMap function is my classic example of handling the accumulation of a result where it does the hard work based on the types. Idris goes even further by supporting the ability to infer obvious code for your code editor like handling each case in a sum type.
I like the Gom Jabbar theory: "You are never more alive, more awake, more conscious, than when in excruciating conflict with yourself" https://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=791
The long lost manual for the Zuse Z4 has been found