skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/welcome.html

That's the archive, talked about in the linked article. Letters (mostly) that he wrote and sent out to people. Today we'd consider their content and length equivalent to a technical blog. Some were much longer, though.
If you need something mature, [tiddlywiki](https://lesser.occult.institute/an-opinionated-approach-to-t...). If you're open to something real new (and like that shiny interface), [Logseq looks really good](https://github.com/logseq/logseq)
I'm not so sure about this. I routinely see comments that start like that with a lot of upvotes. It could be survival bias, but I have a feeling reverse psychology could be coming into play.
The Supreme Court is a political institution, none of the members have any obligation to precedent, and they aren't required to be lawyers. There's a lot of pomp and rhetoric around it that implies otherwise, but that's required in order for it to maintain the respect it needs to function.
I understand the point of view, but aside from the analogue vs. digital debate of passing double blind tests of final output, in my personal experience the real big difference is in real-time when the sound is being produced. The subtleties of latency and transient responses, microphonic feedback, and distortion while playing are what make tubes preferable for audio. I suppose it’s not unlike comparing driving a Tesla and a rear-wheel drive combustion engine car - the outcomes can certainly be similar, but the process is vastly different.
Exactly.

> All of which leads to a system whereby people are subjected to ostracism and official censure for violating unwritten rules, all without proof

Aka which hunt.

The downvoter crew has already arrived though.
If you need a system of written laws that apply to everyone what you have is a deeper problem
Cue the cries of "I broke no rules!" when someone is "gotten rid of" without a CoC.
The 10 top-performing link posts by U.S. Facebook pages are almost always right to far-right. Whoever is behind this liberal conspiracy must be really bad at their job.

https://twitter.com/facebookstop10
I just visited the Royal Tyrrell Museum in Alberta, and thankfully there is quite a bit of display real estate devoted to mentioning things like this. For example, one talks about how the initial hypothesis about a particular dinosaur had them die during river crossing, but later research suggests they were probably washed into the river during floods, based on the likelihood of them residing a great distance away.
> Is it just arbitrary?

Yes. Just as "kind" is. To the reporters and the officials, "saying somebody is wrong" is unkind, so it's clearly arbitrary.
Hey there! I'd recommend using your webcam to quickly add images of things on your desk or in your house :) to get a feel for the magic of machine learning. Press and hold on the shutter button to take a burst of images and move the object around to get variety. Then use the Play tab to try it out and see live results from the model!
Ok, I'm not heavily steeped in this, but at first glance this seems like total bullshit.

Note that the original complaint was both 1) that the code of conduct people were being, well, total assholes, and 2) that the complaints were so obviously ridiculous that the entire exercise seemed like it could only be a power trip for those involved.

The apology addressed neither. They apologized for being unclear about what stage of the investigation they were in. No apology for laughing at Jeremy's distress, no apology for the witch hunt, etc.

The grand remedy? Replace 3/4 of the people on the committee.

Did I miss something here?
As a gamer, I prefer investments into things that actually give me something, such as containers, Proton. Wayland compact at best is going to give me what I already can get with X, so frankly I'm not terribly interested. The fact that NVidia seems utterly uninterested in Wayland doesn't help either, because that remains the best way to get your games to run on Linux.
This is the difference between computer science and software engineering.

And the vast majority of people who graduate with a CS degree are going to work as software engineers, not as computer scientists. They are therefore being mis-educated to the degree that their CS program agrees with Dijkstra's philosophy. (Which doesn't mean that Dijkstra is wrong about CS. It just means that a CS degree shouldn't be the passport to a career in software engineering, or even a job as a grunt programmer.)
I practically chuckled and smirked reading the clever title with Medium in all caps

Because this article does not deliver time for a repost with a newly inspired blog post... on Substack
I'm not entirely sure how this got past the Nature editors, since a lot of this is old hat, having been discussed widely, and for many years.

The message is fine, as far as it goes.

However, I would argue that perceptual neutrality is not the only measure of a colour scale.

I hate jet as much as the next person, but I still do use the similar turbo scheme (which is less 'jagged' in perceptual space) when I teach. Why? Because it lets me show an image of a complex field (perhaps sea-surface temperature) and point to a spot of some value, and ask students to visually trace nearby spots of the same hue. It doesn't really matter if some students perceive the same hue for two different actual hues. So long as the neighbouring hues differ, the students can trace a local contour. I need that to explain certain topics.

Using a colour scheme with just a couple of hues makes it very, very, difficult to trace contours. It's even worse when an image is projected onto a screen, in a classroom or at a meeting. Speaker: "See this slightly yellowish green on the colourbar, at 10C? Where is it in the map?" Audience: "I dunno, when's the next coffee break?"

Essentially, colour maps with a lot of hues can make images into something like a contour diagram. This can help, because some fields are so ragged that contours are difficult to understand.

Sometimes, a linear mapping between data values and the perceived colour is the end goal. Other times, not.
It shouldn't be that hard to to follow the "Don't be an asshole" rule, unfortunately for the rest of us, 0.001% can't figure out how to get along with other humans.

I think CoCs just become a new tool for a different subset of assholes to abuse. Yes it does suck for those who have a legitimate issue. I've yet to see how CoCs solve that problem in practice.
Why do we not want to make it public? Not trolling but really asking this. It could lead us to a better overall system. If people can find out who I voted for and hence I would be in trouble then we have a broader systemic issue. If we can solve that voting can be so much more efficient and more importantly impactful.

Also could we anonymize the voter that way it’s like any other legally private information that can be accessed with a warrant etc.
The board should make those 4 people (3 staffers and the president) step down. If not, they should abandon any pretext about supporting a code of conduct while they use it to bully others.
Is this the end of American optimism?
I mean, obviously they’re not worse than the problems they’re trying to solve. Sexual harassment, etc. is worse than someone getting their talk canceled unfairly, distraction, or worry about contributing to a project, full stop.

Whether they’re effective in practice, or if there are more effective methods is another question. But it’s hard to overstate the importance of their intentions.
Yet you participate here on HN, and there is effectively a CoC: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
omg please make this project haha I love this - we'll make it a project highlight on our twitter @lobe_ai! And be a hit on our subreddit https://reddit.com/r/lobe
"Propaganda doesn't work, so we should let the government spread propaganda and not worry about it" is certainly a new one.
That is also true in most of Europe, but not legally, and lybia is not generally considered an advanced country.
At least to me, it's pretty obvious that the shadow follows the form. Gravity is like an echo for mass. It seems that we are now realizing it was wrong to assume that the echo was homogenous. The electron movement process in atoms is emitting gravitational waves. The movement of any type of energy causes gravitational waves. Gravity won't be homogenous if the pattern of mass-energy emitting it, isn't homogenous. We know most mass comes from cyclic processes, ie. the inner processes of hadrons. So it stands to reason that those processes should have a unique and animated gravitational field.
Anyone nostalgic for this kind of internet might really enjoy "Hypnospace Outlaw", a game where you police an alternate universe version of the 90s internet.
Looks like the title should be corrected to possibly enable discussion of the actual article rather than the paraphrased misleading title given here. Should be:

"Television: It’s Called a Medium Because It’s Never Well Done"
That was the committee at the time of writing. If anyone refers to this in, say, a year, they will have no idea who was responsible. As an analogy, transaction histories, if done in a DB, are not normalized because you wouldn't want the price and total sale of a past transaction to change when you later change the price of the items that were in that transaction. Sometimes, it's actually good to duplicate code/data/effort, especially if it helps to make something clear.
> Really illustrates the dumbassery of sticking a (relatively) fast-moving application-layer protocol into the kernel.

Really? There are lots of problems with doing HTTP in the kernel, but “fast moving” is a new one. HTTP was stuck in permafrost from 1995 to 2015. If it weren’t for Google, neither of HTTP 2 or 3 would have ever happened.
Just reading from the website... I would like use the condorcet method and if it "crashes" just use first past the post.
There's overlap with the people on that Committee and the Board of Directors, so the transparency isn't exactly their intention
As this whole debacles shows codifying doesn't remove arbitrary standards. Human social interactions are far too complex to codify in a concise way without massive edge cases. So all too often it just gives people a tool with which to better force their own arbitrary standards onto others.
I was personally bothered by this response.

Maybe it's worth looking at this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24945750
Fact Checks and Context for Wayback Machine Pages
Well, if nobody tells you you're being a shit, humans rarely realize it on their own, squeaky wheels get the grease.
NumFOCUS Code of Conduct Enforcement Team:

Leah Silen, Executive Director

Andy Terrel, President

Nicole Foster, Executive Operations Administrator

Walker Chabbott, Communications & Marketing Manager

NumFOCUS Board of Directors:

Andy Terrel

Lorena Barba

Jane Herriman

Sylvain Corlay

Katrina Riehl

Stéfan van der Walt

James Powell

I was wondering how much overlap there would be.
> Really? Where can I inspect that contract?

What we have right now is Greenwald's word, which given that A) I can't think of a time he's published an outright falsehood, and B) the letter from the editor didn't deny any of the facts but instead just jumped to describing the process as Greenwald having a "tantrum", I'm inclined to believe at face value.

> Clearly, the terms that allow him to publish elsewhere if TI doesn't want to publish his stuff that he claims exist seem at odds with the claim that there are terms that he is free to publish whatever he wants in TI without TI exercising editorial control.

Or it's a clause that if they mutually agree that TI isn't the best forum for an article Greenwald has written, he's explicitly allowed to take it to another forum, in contrast to the normal staff writer contract provisions.
Right, I think I'd put univalence in my list of "I want this for my dream general-purpose dependently-typed programming language" features; being able to prove properties on simple representations of data and transport those properties to more optimized forms is pretty important, imo.
I am a mathematician with some physics background and have been skimming this article: they took mathematical inspiration from string theory in terms of how they formulated the path integrals, but the physical concept of a string doesn’t actually appear. So string theory provided analytic tools but didn’t actually provide physics.
For "extremism" to be anything but a meaningless slur, it has to at least include in its meaning "not common."
> If you need a CoC to get rid of someone who harasses others what you have is a deeper problem

How many conferences did you run before CoC's became popular?
> In particular, I was concerned that if only partial information became available, the anti-CoC crowd might jump on this as an example of problems with codes of conduct more generally, or might point at this as part of “cancel culture” (a concept I vehemently disagree with, since what is referred to as “cancellation” is often just “facing consequences”).

I believe the author was referring to you.
Oh man, this is a doozy of an explanation to go through, so I won't try. Wikipedia has a good explainer on it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

TLDR and very over-simplified:

Legal precedent is established until the laws change. The various legislatures/governing-bodies of the US can change the law whenever they please. When those laws then come into conflict with other laws out there, you have to have a ruling by a court. Sometimes this is intentional.

Which court does the ruling is super complex and sometimes they are not called courts, FYI. Judicial bodies, sometimes called courts, are also super complex. In general, the US legal system is more like the Ancien Régime than anything else, in that we strive to make sure no two people are governed under the same law. Just kidding, sorta. ;)

In the case of SCOTUS, they mostly rule on matters that affect the US constitution, and only if they feel doing so. They then make a ruling, and that becomes the new way the laws work. Sometimes this makes a law null-and-void, sometimes it just sets guidelines on how to make a law function. Again, super complex. There are many other courts in the US that can similarly do things at laws, but SCOTUS gets the most news.
If you replace gay with white/black/christian/jewish, does that still make you an authoritarian?
> See, you said "enforcement of the CoC".

I said "improper enforcement of the CoC". As an example, "improper enforcement of the law" might suggest that something was enforced which wasn't the law. Is there a reason you're set on this interpretation of my words?

In this, and the Scotsman case, you seem to have chosen an interpretation fits your argument. I'm not sure this is a good way to carry on a conversation, though. This whole discussion was about whether pindab0ter made a valid point. It's not clear to me you are interested in understanding the point made. Maybe it's easier for you to label it as a fallacy. I know that's something I do frequently when I don't understand something -- assume it's incorrect.
Remember you can only have one mutable reference whereas you can have any number of immutable references. The ownership rules incentivize immutability.
I think it's really hard to fully close an old email address. I migrated from one email address to another ten years ago, and I still get personal correspondence sent to the old one.

I told everyone I know that I'm using a new email address, I set up forwarding, I only send using the new email address, and I have an auto-respond message that I'm not using that email address and to send to the new one instead, and nonetheless people still send to it.

Also, for security reasons I'd recommend to not close the old email address, because if you happen to forget an account there, there is some risk that someone nefarious could grab the old email address and have password resets sent there.
It's probably outside the scope (and possibly cheating) but could a DPDK stack & supported nic[1] push you past the PCIe limit?

[1] https://core.dpdk.org/supported/
I read Dijkstra's goto considered harmful in college, circa 1970. I was a young programmer at the time, and it made me think and reconsider how and why big programs were often hard to understand.

Years later, in grad school, my research was on program verification. Dijkstra was a big influence on the field. I attended a lecture at UT Austin that he gave before moving to the US.

Dijkstra's approach to proving the correctness of programs is hard to apply in practice. Like a geometry proof, there are ways in which a proof of correctness can have mistakes that aren't obvious. Here's an example, prove that a sorting algorithm works. If the specification is that the output must be in sorted order, a proven program can still fail to sort correctly. The specification has an error, the output must not only be in sorted order, it must ensure that all of the input elements make it somewhere to the output. But this isn't good enough. A sort proven to meet this specification might leave out some duplicate values. Requiring that the output be the same length as the input still isn't good enough, multiple copies of one element might hide missing duplicate input values for another element. The specification requires that the output be a sorted permutation of the input.

Sorting is a well understood problem, but real verification must deal with the strange mathematics implemented by computers. The mathematical theories that we are accustomed to from school assume infinite precision and no overflow, real life hardware doesn't act this way.

All of this makes program verification hard, and my hope is that AI programming assistants will someday aid in the construction of meaningful specifications and work with the programmer to verify the correctness of programs or determine their safe operating boundaries. Progress has been slow, and the tools are still impractical for use by most programmers on most programs.
I think you're saying that people who harass should be able to be removed absent a code of conduct. I agree. However, harassment isn't always the overt act you may be picturing, it can be more subtle. Code of Conducts give a single canonical state for what's considered acceptable, but more importantly, give organizers something tangible to point to when there is a violation. In addition to that, they inform people (even the harassed, who may not have considered what's happening to them harassment!) of what I'd acceptable.

As a white, male engineer, I haven't ever found a need for codes of conduct because I've had the privilege of never having been harassed. This isn't the case for all groups, so it's best to have one.
So the Code of Conduct Committee violated their own Code of Conduct, but they won't take action against themselves.

https://numfocus.org/code-of-conduct
DNS providers, hosting companies, banks and payment processors all have the freedom to associate with and do business with whomever they choose.
Trump in 2016, and again in 2020 is running a disintermediation campaign and going straight to the voters with the rallies.

If again effective, perhaps the teachers will return to school and learn something.
Would that truly be able to test send / receive of a full (up to) gigabit of data to/from the interface? If it's loopback, it could test either sending 500 + receiving 500, or... sending 500 + receiving 500. It's like sending data through localhost, it doesn't seem to reflect a more real-world scenario (but could be especially helpful just for testing).
It's better to follow 10 commandments than any code of conduct

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments
That word is overloaded in this context.

The "proxy" could be a network node or a person/service/entity which contractually takes the place of one side of the contract.
> 7-person board of directors overlaps with the 4-person code of conduct committee

The overlap is one person: Andy Terrel, NumFOCUS President.
no GAN support?
Which reminds me of The Funarg Problem Explained by Joseph Weizenbaum https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/10272070.... I used its "diagrams" to understand the closure mechanism (definition vs invocation environments) during the course of a Scheme class in 1996.
Jeremy says in own post on this subject:

> I was concerned that if only partial information became available, the anti-CoC crowd might jump on this as an example of problems with codes of conduct more generally, or might point at this as part of “cancel culture”

The person at the center of this actually disagrees with you. Having a vague CoC that was then not even really followed by the committee should not damn all CoCs. If you only see the worst most poorly executed examples of something then of course you'd be against them but that's not fair.
How AI Revolutionized the World of Fitness Freak?
I get the sense that Dijkstra would've agreed with you and perhaps had harsh words for that interview process.

Sometimes these interview stories sound like selecting a professor of mathematics by picking the one who can calculate the square-root-of-2 to 12 digits in their head the fastest.
I'm super interested in this topic. Recently (and still ongoing) I started on hashing out how to diff large datasets and what that even means.

I would love to get an understanding of how the HN crowd sees diffing datasets should be (lets say >1GB in size).

Are you more interested in a "patch" quality diff of the data which is more machine tailored? Or is a change report/summary/highlights more interesting in that case?

Currently I'm leaning more towards the understanding/human consumption perspective which offers some interesting tradeoffs.
New Game by the Name of Trippy Hike
We'd love to hear about any projects people are working on! We hope to see projects and ideas shared to our subreddit https://reddit.com/r/lobe
Can anyone fill me in on how this compares to Java's Project Loom approach where they have said a hard no to coloring functions. What are the advantages and disadvantages of async/await vs introducing a green thread like approach for problems?

Is async/await more suitable for user interfaces?
I think you’ve just mixed up wait-free with lock-free.

- Lock-free: at least one thread will make progress

- Wait-free: all threads will make progress

The difference between locks and lock-free is very noticeable if a thread holding a lock is suspended (which can happen on a modern system just by accessing memory that is paged out). On real-time systems it’s also possible to guarantee that high-priority tasks will make progress, regardless of how a low-priority task behaves. With locks, a low-priority task can easily prevent a high-priority task from running at all.
I put together a halloween display using a Kinect and pygame for my front yard (very quickly hacked together by the way):

https://github.com/erahhal/kinect-halloween-skeleton

Pygame is nice and easy to use, though I think I'd go with something else next time, as it doesn't support multiple monitors or OpenGL very well. I see OpenGL stuff at the top of the Pygame 2.0 change list so maybe worth checking out.
Murder? Really?
I agree that some conduct guidelines are justified, but should be minimal. The feeling against them is due to overreach, where they stray away from codifying generally acceptable behaviour and move into territory that the general population would find incomprehensible, such as not being able to say that someone with the opposite opinion is wrong.
I think it was a drive-by jab at Medium. Submitted title: It’s called Medium because it’s neither rare nor well done.

The quote investigation is interesting but not really pertinent.
They're meant as a reminder for people who actually read them, but otherwise they're meant as a list for enforcement. They're something to point to as "you knew the rules - that's why we're removing that person". That's why in this case the affected person complained about the CoC using very ambiguous rules that were up for personal interpretation.