skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Thanks for the kind words!

> What's the performance impact of dependency inference on `pants dependencies`?

There are two components to inferring dependencies:

1) Extracting dependencies from the code being built (in Python this means extracting `import` statements). This involves reading source files, but its runtime is proportional to the amount of code being built, rather than to the repository size.

2) Determining which files throughout the repository provide the various packages (due to how Python's module system requires things to be laid out in directories, this is possible with only file existence checks). This part is proportional to repository size, but in many languages it only requires file existence checks.

Since they're proportional to different things, the amount of time spent on each step depends on what is being built. But the output of both steps is very stable, so with the `pantsd` daemon running (by default), you pay a first build cost that is approximately "listing all files in the repository, and parsing the ASTs of only the files you asked to build". After that, edits to files incur a small incremental cost to parse their ASTs to update imports. Because Pants implements "early cutoff"/cleaning (see https://github.com/pantsbuild/pants/blob/master/src/rust/eng...), if you haven't edited the import statements of a file, the dependencies of that file will not be invalidated.

> For comparison, users of Bazel sometimes use tools to generate/update the BUILD files when they modify a source file. You could view the BUILD file as a cache layer in that case.

Yea. Since it isn't integrated, it's a slightly error prone arrangement, since you must always use wrapper tools (with their own daemons) to invoke Bazel.

How Pants accomplishes the second step above depends on the particular inference plugin that is in use: it's entirely possible to cache the indexing, but it would provide little benefit for Python due to the index only requiring file existence checks.
As someone who has developed hardware for >10y now, there’s one crucial mistake a lot of startups make:

- Thinking that making hardware is profitable.

Don’t get me wrong, there’s some markets where hardware is profitable, but they are niches, and the prices might surprise you.

As a reference, check the mechanical keyboard scene. Check out how much the components cost, and at what price those keyboards are sold.

When it comes to general consumer hardware, a cursory look to hardware companies will show you that the margins are razor thin, the risk is real, the problems are many.

You don’t build hardware to make money, nowadays you make hardware because it enables you to sell software. That’s a better approach for most “hardware” companies.
A deep-learning model for simultaneous earthquake detection and phase picking
This thread seems as good a place as any to ask:

Does anyone have experience (good, bad, otherwise) using the gRPC JSON transcoding option for real-world stuff? I'm debating using it (still need REST clients sometimes) but I'm not sure how hacky it is.
Xkcd: Xkcd Phone 12
Would be great if this worked on mobile - unfortunately drawing triggers the "drag down to refresh" gesture on Chrome.
It's one of those 'simple at first glace' standards. If you want to confuse someone who advocates for JSON's 'simplicity' as a feature, ask them what happens when their favorite JSON deserializer receives repeated dictionary keys (yes, that's valid JSON per RFC 7159).
Spin–orbit torque switching of a ferromagnet with picosecond electrical pulses
Researchers break magnetic memory speed record
The biggest problem with awk is that unless you use it regularly, you'll easily forget how to use it. So it's important to keep a running cheatsheet like you did. Nothing more frustrating than forgetting the awk command and searching for it in your history only to find it aged out.
We might have to agree to disagree a bit.

If I am driving in the uncontrolled direction and see a car crossing in the controlled direction, then I slow down enough in case the crossing car slows down or stops unexpectedly. If the crossing car doesn't give enough space (i.e. cuts people off), then they're at fault. Otherwise the uncontrolled direction is at fault.

To simplify it: Everyone should give everyone enough space/time to stop before hitting something. Everyone should use that space/time when something unexpected happens. Anyone who breaks either of those should be at fault.

Again, just my opinion about how it should be. I have no idea what the law says.
Cocoa: A Bittersweet Supply Chain
NPVIC still assumes a two-party system, so it's fundamentally flawed.

Of course, if the whole country used RCV (or any other non-FPTP system) for federal legislative elections, then the presidential election would be far less important, since one party would be less likely to control the legislature and might actually deign to exercise some oversight, unlike our current Senate.
I'm just going to jump in with an utterly pointless "woohoo!" As a gRPC shop, this is going to open up a lot of options for both our own infra and make it easier to support clients on AWS. Now if only Azure would make it easy to implement solutions that leverage gRPC...
But the Clojure Vega implementation still uses Javascript!
Eye contact is a big thing when driving at low speeds - if you don't make eye contact with a driver you can assume they either don't see you or are not going to give you right of way (e.g., if you're jaywalking). I can imagine moments of confusion at intersections where pedestrians are unsure what the AV car is "thinking".

Similarly with other situations where you might leave a gap in traffic for someone to make that left turn across your congested road (would an AV even do this?), it helps to see that other driver wave you across (even if technically you don't have right of way).
The wolf is the species of animal that has saved more human lifes also (excepting humans of course). Is also in a really select club of animals deliberately adopting and taking care of lost children. They had a strong desire to protect cubs.
I've often compared GraphQL to SOAP-XML with WSDL. It's nearly the same thing, and just about as boilerplate-y.

XSLT is about templating/transforming one XML doc into some other format. And there are simple replacements that largely fill the same role. Mustache, Handlebars, Template Toolkit (which was also the simpler solution back when XSLT was popular).
Personally I’d rather have one hand crafted Geocities page about something someone is passionate about than 100 Instagram accounts
There is a way around this limitation on consumer versions of Windows. There's a patch by Wen Jia Liu and it works even to this day on the very latest build of Windows 10 (20H2).

https://wj32.org/wp/2016/02/01/pae-patch-updated-for-windows...

Granted, in 2020, I can't imagine why you'd still want to run a 32-bit version of Windows these days outside of select scenarios, like IoT or embedded systems.
Only if it would support EDN (https://github.com/edn-format/edn) too... :)
Although I was satisfied with Jet (https://github.com/borkdude/jet) so far.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8pkCZBjgrk Glenn Greenwald on fox news (starting with 4:00) My summary: During the last four years the left lost its scepticism towards the secret service, this as the CIA has tried to topple Trump. Now they are in the same boat (in his words 'full union with') the CIA/security state. Snowden was motivated by his anger at the interference of the NSA in internal affairs (who are all supposed to deal in foreign affairs only), now the whole lot is deep within internal matters and 'telling Americans what to think'. He says the whole thing is very dangerous - as the CIA guys are professional disinformation specialists with an authoritarian mindset, and they are likely to gain a lot of influence.
Property taxes pay for city streets.
It probably varies by the language and library but for java it has been flawless. I wouldn’t expect many issues for any major language.
I watched the video at your link, but it wasn't very descriptive as to how the votes are actually tallied.

This video does a good job of explaining RCV:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE

Is there a similar video for STAR?

I can see the problem with RCV now. It doesn't completely eliminate the spoiler effect, just makes it less likely.

I understand how votes are cast in each system and they seem similar. STAR seems like RCV, but you can put multiple candidates in the same rank.
I'm not sure how STAR votes are tallied, but wouldn't you be able to implement that same system with RCV? The only difference is same-ranking candidates. Is that the key to STAR's improvement?

EDIT:

Is it just this simple? You sum their score, then instant runoff the top 2?:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuVSn2rAFVU

I can't tell if it's better or not yet. It still definitely doesn't elect the condorcet winner... which you can see from 3 voters and 12 candidates:

Voter 1: 4 for A, 3 for B, 2 for C, 1 for J

Voter 2: 4 for D, 3 for E, 2 for F, 1 for J

Voter 3: 4 for G, 3 for H, 2 for I, 1 for J

It's more contrived than the example for RCV, so I think it's more resistant to spoiler effect, but it clearly happens here. Essentially, every favored candidate higher than 1 is different and they all have the same candidate for their last favorite candidate. As you can see, A,D,G have the most votes, but in 1-on-1 face-offs, J would win most of the elections. Voter 1 likes J more than D,E,F,G,H, and I. Voter 2 like J more than 6 other candidates as well and same with Voter 3. But in STAR, he gets eliminated.

I believe you could come up with an example where the top two candidates aren't tied, but it would be more complicated.

These voting systems are difficult to measure. I thought RCV was very secure until this HN thread. Hopefully STAR holds up, but I think you'd have to look more into the incentives to fully know if it eliminates the spoiler effect.
http://n8n.com is a nice alternative that you can self host.
Also writing bespoke REST clients for every single endpoint is just a huge waste of time and error prone since there’s so many ways of doing everything.

One of my biggest gripes with REST APIs is having identifiers in url path instead of in query params or the request body
Show HN: Haunted Halloween walkthrough in Augmented Reality with your friends
The Evolution of Adobe and Future of Creative Software
Or you want a better example:

GPT-3 on Progress. “Civilization rose on the exponential curve. We shouldn’t expect progress to follow a straight line.”

Google with date restriction before 1 April 2020: "progress to follow a straight line".

Do you see only one result that come :-)

https://chrismukiibi.com/2019/11/26/the-valley-of-disappoint...

"We shouldn’t expect progress to follow a straight line." and "we expect our progress to follow a straight line"

Do you understand now, how they use conjunctions(joining words) to insert or to delete insignificant words as "shouldn't" and "our" to plagiarize so that they are not caught.

OpenAI are scammers and crooks. They will be silent now and will not respond to Yann LeCun, because if they do - Facebook will simply accuse them of fraud and they will have to open their GPT-3 codes, something they can't do without compromising themselves.
I could at least hope this means they will also censor dishonest marketing and advertising.

I'll believe it when I see it and in the meantime this is just political posturing.
No I think UK law already makes an exception for highways (in the sense you mean), so no I don't think people should be able to cross for example three-lane roads purpose built for cars where people are going 70 mph.

This thread has digressed a bit. It was originally about jaywalking in cities. Should it be a named crime to cross a road in the middle of New York City? Come on - no - pedestrians owned those first and should still do.
> Becoming an expert takes time, and many of the strong ideas that experts share are ideated during the time when they were an unheard of “peer.”

I agree with this author’s sentiment that peers should not be dismissed in favor of experts. This is especially true when considering early stage speculation or anecdotes, which can be the seed of an eventual change in expert opinion. Expert communities can also develop their own subcultures and associated biases. We have seen this in academia in the US (strong leftward ideological bias) but it also applies to academic journals, which have traditionally been viewed as a record of expert knowledge. A recent example: the authors of the largest mask study have had trouble getting journals to publish it (https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-danish-newspaper-rev...). A former NYT reporter recently shared that the study’s author feels it’ll be published only as soon as a journal is “brave enough” to do so: https://mobile.twitter.com/AlexBerenson/status/1317875526997...

Blind faith and blind dismissal are both obstacles to seeking the truth. Unfortunately the side effect of the heavy politicization of everything is that every situation, even peer review or the publishing of scientific information, is a power struggle between ideologies, rather than a civil exchange of ideas and joint mission to ascertain the truth. Correcting this requires general awareness of our peer and expert biases.

Also see related past discussion about peer reviews as the gold standard:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20607259
I think this is easily addressed by using approval voting in the open primary. (And this has the benefit of being extremely simple while likely getting all the benefits of IRV/Condorcet.) Any sort of RCV ends up so convoluted I think a lot of people will try to be strategic but completely misunderstand some edge cases.
I'd suggest that any new voting system in Canada would lead to very different results given time.

Parties that aren't in contention for a given riding will be replaced by parties that are (think evolutionary niches).
> don't, say you stand for freedom of expression when you have appointed yourself the arbiter of truth

This is a great point. I always thought of the big tech companies as upholding classically liberal ideals; however, now that they’ve grown up they’re much more interested in stability that keeps the profit machine running (which we all benefit from in the short term). In a way they’re not so naive about the world anymore, nor should we be about them.
Thank you, this is helpful feedback and I agree, we could do a better job of framing this distinction as a useful overall heuristic!
The scent of authentic technical chops?
A Navy Seal, a Quadcopter, and a Quest to Save Lives in Combat
That page doesn't seem to mention the method used for president/governor/mayor elections here in Brazil: there will be an election for mayor (and the municipal legislative) on November 15. If none of the mayor candidates has at least 50% of the vote, there will be a second round on November 29 with only the two candidates which got the most votes in the first round.

This system has the advantage of being very simple to explain (I just did it above in one sentence) and implement, and works well enough in practice.
The stuff that has been corroborated by others (like Tony Bobulinksi) is already quite suspect, and includes implications that Biden knew about, and was even a part of, a bribery scheme with foreign governments.

It now sounds like the emails have been digitally authenticated by an outside firm: https://amp.dailycaller.com/2020/10/29/cybersecurity-expert-.... That is, they confirmed that contents of the emails match is contained in Gmail's servers.

And what evidence is there that the DNC emails were in anyway inauthentic?
There's always been people who believe in nonsense. Most people, throughout most of history have. The meaning of "post-truth" today is that people in power are no longer being asked to justify what they do on the basis of fact. (It doesn't mean that facts don't exist or that they don't matter, I just found it off-putting that you'd try to suggest that.)

Allow me to paraphrase a concept from Tolkien: evil doesn't win because it's a superior force, it wins because it convinces you that it's already won. "Look over there, evil wins. Look here, evil already won. Evil always wins, that's the way it has always been. You can't fight it so give up."

You can't win by spreading evil's messages, even sarcastically. You win by being a superior force and never giving up. People's credibility should actually suffer when they do or say things that are incredible, and people who appeal to us with facts and compassion should be rewarded.
Ancient ice beneath the surface of comet 67P is softer than candyfloss
> Yes, but why does the US have a structural duopoly.

Because of the electoral system.

> I don't think it is close to provable that the US's system of government innately requires a duopoly.

The structural incentive to duopoly in FPTP voting is mathematically provable.

> First of all the US has a two round system in most states (most states are open primaries).

Open partisan primaries, which is what most states with open primaries have, aren't the same as a two-round system in terms of promoting multiparty democracy (in fact, they just further reinforce duopoly, since they give voters not aligned with the major parties a chance to influence major party candidate selection instead of participating in alternative parties, which opportunity has a higher expected value when the general election is by plurality.)

That said, France is, nevertheless, the one major example that superficially seems to work.

OTOH, despite having multiple parties, it's also the established democracy that has empirically nearly as bad a problem with ineffective representation and dissatisfaction with government as the US (see, Arend Lijphart’s Patterns of Democracy), so while it manages to paper over the partisan duopoly symptom, it doesn't actually deal with the representational problem.

> And some of us have actually lived under the electoral process and politics of other countries

So have lots of people in America, and outside of America, including many of the people who have literally written the books on how the US electoral systems causes the both the narrow dimensionality of political discourse, and the partisan duopoly, and the representational failures of the American system of government.
Is it possible to read this without logging into medium?
gRPC is not necessarily binary. It is often conflated with protobuf but it is in fact payload format agnostic. You can run it with JSON payloads if you want.
Not familiar with gRPC, questions: how does the tooling compare to HTTP? Browser devtools lets you look what's on the wire, replay requests with slight alterations for debugging, have timelines and visualizations for the history of communication, extract and send self contained scriptlets (like you can do with curl) to someone else, etc. Which of these have some equivalents in generally available gRPC tooling?
Ecstasy of Order is really great. After watching King of Kong I expected it to have a similar villain and was happy with how it turned out.
This really would require these sources to be more transparent about where accounts are coming from and who is spending money on their platforms, and why would they be if they agree with what is happening? But at least we know how many accounts they delete.

https://www.cnet.com/news/twitter-removed-130-accounts-linke...

https://www.technologyreview.com/2017/01/20/154481/cybersecu...

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jun/12/twitter-d...

https://www.thedailybeast.com/twitter-shuts-down-200000-chin...

You can find many more sources like these. They do also delete accounts from far right troll farms, but the amount of astroturfing and gaslighting with the intention of pushing civil unrest, especially during this election, is palpable. Right now I'm looking at Reddit where garbage posts are somehow getting massively upvoted and gilded (with real money), pushing encouragement for civil unrest and paranoia about our democratic processes and whether or not they work.

It's state-sponsored. I don't have the keys to Reddit's back-end so I can't prove it, but there are plenty of sources on nation states trying to spread this type of garbage. Proceed to Google to find further sources beyond the ones I already gave.
$100 on Patreon your way :)
I used pygame for a reinforcement learning course assignment: I built a gridworld simulator where you can input a text file with the origin, goal and obstacles, and watch as an agent learns a policy using Q-learning. It's based on a visualization used in a Berkeley RL bootcamp: https://miro.medium.com/max/992/1*FnCKMEFZC9QRnxLWT3lSCA.png

I never got to open-sourcing it though
All correct. It's just important to remember who's the attacker:

Alice -- ISP1 -- 1000 hops -- ISP2 -- Bob

Alice and Bob's identities are protected from each other, but not from the govt because ISPs collect metadata.
Try reading it reversed, i.e.:

Uber ditching delivery fees for category X

can be also read as:

Uber charging delivery fees for those not belonging to category X

The net effect is anyway that a same meal, with the same list price will arrive at your home with - say - 20% different (+ or -) cost due uniquely to the race of who prepared it.

Sure it is a form of discrimination, whether it is "good" and/or made in "good will" and for a "good cause" should be irrelevant for the Law, of course it has to be seen.
Download sizes are definitely a problem but they’re not really a Blazor-specific issue these days. Also I would be curious to learn about the relative density of JavaScript bloat vs Blazor download sizes because the .NET class library is much more feature rich before adding dependencies and I could imagine bundle sizes actually being smaller for similar functionality above a certain point. But you’re right that it’s probably never going to get as small as a pure HTML + CSS app with progressive enhancement and minimal JavaScript.
Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution says,

> The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

There have been two Supreme Court decisions that have analogized the electorate as a legislative body in ballot measures, referendums, public initiatives, etc. The latest was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_State_Legislature_v._A... [1] In that decision it was the liberals and Kennedy who upheld precedent; all the conservatives would have prohibited direct public votes on Congressional election rules. But now Kennedy and Ginsburg are gone, and their replacements are very likely to vote against precedent if the question comes back to the court. (In fact, IIRC, some justices, like Thomas, don't even like the idea of public initiatives for purely state elections, an argument based on their own peculiar notions of Federalism. Also, if you read the order opinions over the last few weeks by Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, some of their arguments seem to be aimed at reversing Arizona.) Roberts might switch his vote to uphold precedent, but Roberts would only make 4 votes, not enough to save it.

If (or, rather, when) SCOTUS prohibits the public from directly legislating their Congressional elections, only Congress could restore the ability, unless the Constitution was amended.

[1] Skimming through the Arizona case, I think the first was Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon, 223 U. S. 118 (1912). But I don't have time to reread the Arizona opinions carefully to refresh my memory.
The primary goal of RCV in the US is to address the hostile partisan divide. Making more parties viable is secondary.

When you have a ranked choice system (even if it's only in a fraction of states), it incentivizes the candidates to not disparage each other. If candidate A attacks B, it means the B supporters will rank A lower. RCV draws candidates closer together.