skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
They're working on that, actually:

https://www.cfs.gov.hk/english/whatsnew/whatsnew_fst/whatsne...
> It’s seductive to think AGI will suddenly advance technology dramatically, but dumping more effort into existing technology has a bad habit of hitting diminishing returns. Ideas like nano-machines seem to have vast potential, until you realize biology is already operating at those scales and has significant limitations.

There are a few reasons to think that AGI will significantly outproduce humans; it's likely cheap to run compared to the training costs. GPT-3 can generate text quite a bit faster than a human at maybe a billionth of the cost of its training, for example. Once achieved it's likely that practical progress on a lot of problems will actually be pretty rapid. Even if we only achieve parity with human intelligence and can never improve AGI beyond that we'll experience a few orders of magnitude in speedup of research.

I think it's a little early to write off nanotechnology when we haven't seen much more than tech demos at this point. Biology is a soup of proteins using brownian motion to find reaction sites. Highly impressive and amazing to be sure but needs to be wet, fed, and in a narrow temperature band. Precision molecular engineering is a game-changer in so many ways.
I have trouble handling others’ mistakes if I’ve corrected them before, they acknowledged the mistake, but they keep doing them.

What am I supposed to do with people who won’t learn from their mistakes (in the workplace)?

I’m directly affected by them as they increase my workload, so I can’t just ignore them.
> So to clarify, you're agreeing that the GOP is trying to overturn a solid election result, but you think the left poses a greater danger to democracy, because they are talking about what the GOP is doing?

No, I don't think this and never said anything like that. I believe the right ultimately poses the greater danger in this context. What I am saying is it's very obvious what Trump wants to do: he wants to build and support a narrative that this election is illegitimate. He wants to do it through stoking resentment against the left and center and suggesting systemic bias. We resist this by calmly saying that we as a nation are committed to fair elections, and we agree that we need to investigate any cases of impropriety that he can find in courts which are independent (and if anything are largely friendly towards his party).

If he fails to discover any issues, we say we cooperated fairly / openly, he failed to produce evidence of impropriety, this suggests the process was fair, and now we can move on. What we don't do is scream that he's wasting our time, that Republicans are assholes, that they're trying to undermine democracy, and that this whole process is bullshit. If we do, it allows Trump to say "SEE?! I told you they are biased against us! What are they trying to hide??? Why are they so impatient?!" It hands him the ammunition to build the narrative that there has been a conspiracy. If there was no conspiracy, why is the left so impatient and hostile? Why are they trying to subvert the process? Politics isn't just about facts it's about feelings and opinions. At the end of the day we want Republicans to accept the results willingly, and in my opinion that's best served by being calm and patient in our dealings with them rather than by being angry or impatient. This is a lesson the left generally fails to grasp: screaming at people and calling them assholes is not a particularly effective way to get them to agree with you.

The most effective thing we can do is allow Trump et al to burn themselves out.
> We did in fact lock the country down for several months.

No we didn't. What state or city could you not travel to? Where were you confined to your house and forbidden from going outdoors?

We closed schools, some businesses & public attractions like beaches in some places (not that there weren't still huge crowds on beaches in many places), but we did not "lock the country down." Everyone was basically free to go outside, socialize, and travel wherever they pleased.
Longitudinal study is better, but still, the causation likely goes both ways. Decreased sleep, worse diet, and more screentime are all things that happen due to getting increasingly depressed. They also drive depression (at least decreased sleep and worse diet do, and screentime likely does to the extent it is a proxy for lack of sunlight and human interaction).
That's a bit like saying you should personally vet every automobile driver before they drive close to you to see if they're intoxicated, and if you get injured by a drunk driver, that was your fault for not having vetted them sufficiently.
Agreed. Apologizing may keep the mob size small and insignificant.
> 20. CRISPR and gene therapies will minimize disease

Bear in mind that producing a vaccine to a new disease COVID-19 in 2 years would be simultaneously a) smashing existing records and b) far too slow to stop it being a catastrophe, then this prediction looks ridiculous.
I still use way too many DVDs and CDs for my write-once cold storage anti-ransomware needs. Good quality brands have sold their names out (TDK, Phillips, Taiyo Yuden AKA CMC), but MediaPro still seems to carry a few good brands left for now. Verbatim seems to be among the last brands standing that have a line of good-quality DVDs, if you go for their AZO or medical archive DVDs and HTL Blu-Rays.

If I could print text or images (or Paperbak[1] backups?) to hardback books, I would do that instead. There are machines that can take PDFs or postscript data and print a book, softback or hardback in small quantities, which I'd love to do for small files backup via Paperbak (scan that image, reconstruct the file in your computer), as well as my personal journalling (workflow: dictate to wireless headset, phone stores audio recording, syncthing syncs that folder to a folder watched by Dragon Folder Watcher Transcribe Agent, transcribed file is written to a directory which is either batch printed to a hardback book or incrementally written to a single page in an existing blank book, turning pages as needed).

While paper may not be amazing at storing large quantities of data in tiny physical space like microfiche or microSD cards, it has a staying power that the latter lacks for both physical-medium, analog-vs-digital-degredation, and binary format obsolescence reasons.

So either I grow rich enough to spend the $$$$$ to get a Book Printer[2], or I keep settling for 'good enough' solutions like M-DISC DVDs, Verbatim Blu-Rays, and the online,offline dance of several different personally owned devices that sync up via syncthing, providing eventually consistent redundant copies.

[1] http://www.ollydbg.de/Paperbak/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espresso_Book_Machine
Plenty of easy and obvious ones. Dr Matt Taylor being attacked for an anime shirt is the first that comes to mind.
The dolphin who loved me: the NASA-funded project that went wrong
> No enforced values by one or another interest group.

I wish. Try working at almost any company, and you'll have to betray your users on an unrealistic arbitrary deadline.

The industry doesn't appreciate people who think, or talented people, or good engineers. It appreciates those who can haphazardly slap together a subpar something out of ready-made libraries to meet "business goals". And this is depressing af.
Do you have a source for these allegations? It doesn't track my understanding of the Florida recount, and moreover it's pretty indisputable that SCOTUS acted illegitimately, regardless of what the outcome would have been.
TerriaJS is an open-source framework for web-based geospatial catalog explorers
Interview with two Vice Presidents at Apple about the new M1 chip [video]
> ‘German Firm’ stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33

Racially charged ownership stickers. Many added to protect from racially charged vandalism. A familiar sight in 2020 USA. On the streets and online. Does your favorite open source project sport an out of place racial banner?

True, the confidence of those in power in their ability to harm their targets increases gradually. But make no mistake, using blatant injustice and naked violence to silence inconvenient voices is there from the beginning. Only the scale grows over time.

We could wax poetically about the effects of new communication technologies, mass radio in 1930s or mass social media in 2010s. The effects are chillingly similar, and that's what matters.
That's also the argument made in the recently reposted JBS Haldane "on being the right size":

http://www.phys.ufl.edu/courses/phy3221/spring10/HaldaneRigh...

A small country is already smaller than a gigantic corporation. Of course the larger corporation try to have an internal economogy (with department charging each other), but they're still mostly centrally planned.

So you could say the modern capitalism with gigantic corporation is already an exercise in central planning.

"""To the biologist the problem of socialism appears largely as a problem of
size. The extreme socialists desire to run every nation as a single business
5
concern. I do not suppose that Henry Ford would find much difficulty in
running Andorra or Luxembourg on a socialistic basis. He has already more
men on his pay-roll than their population. It is conceivable that a syndicate
of Fords, if we could find them, would make Belgium Ltd or Denmark Inc.
pay their way. But while nationalization of certain industries is an obvious
possibility in the largest of states, I find it no easier to picture a completely
socialized British Empire or United States than an elephant turning somersaults or a hippopotamus jumping a hedge."""
Exactly, centralized religion has historically been a source of power in competition to the government, military and so on. So authoritarian governments either try to co-opt it or get rid of it.
I think Lisp's object system (CLOS) removes this limitation? (Actually a question - I believe this is what multiple dispatch does, but not certain)
If you're on AWS, you can create a private SSH host without needing to open any ports to the internet, using AWS Systems Manager:

- Create an EC2 instance in a private subnet, and assign the AmazonSSMManagedInstanceCore IAM role to it

- Install the AWS CLI tools on your desktop

- Add a function to your .bash_profile like this:

function jumphost() {
JUMP_ID=$(aws ec2 describe-instances --filter "Name=tag:Name,Values=my-jumphost-name" --query "Reservations[].Instances[].InstanceId[]")
echo "Starting jumphost..."
aws ec2 start-instances --instance-ids $JUMP_ID
sleep 30
aws ssm start-session --target $JUMP_ID
}

Then just run "jumphost" from your terminal and boom, SSH'ed in via the magic of SSM.

Bonus points: add a cronjob to your jumphost to shutdown every X hours in case you forget ;-)
WebGPU may become this
I’ve come to the realization as a leader that I just do not have the skin for budget discussions of any form or variety beyond negotiating with potential hires what they would like to be paid.

And what you just said about $20 apps is 100% why.

I think it’s probably if not the entire reason, then part of a factor of having less power and influence in the former (Though being expected to be answerable in full for “why did cost x go up?”), and measurably more in the latter-personal history has born this out with a predictable consistency.

Ask me to do the math, I will happily and eagerly get to work. Ask me to sit on a budget call and deal with the politics of who gets how many beans and I want to throw myself out a top floor window.
Haven't read the S-1, and won't be investing, but I can give you another way of looking at it.

You do an IPO to scale. Once you scale, the relative costs of systems and engineering 'disappears'.

In terms of profitability. Everyone is used to success stories of 50% margin. That's not the norm though. In retail 8% is not bad. Especially since you're hoping to get 8% of a huge market.
The sentiments on the last page is how I felt upon reading this rant.

The author seems to hate Google specifically because they don't know how to find good information. Perhaps the author is so easily distracted that they spend too much time on Google and not enough time on authoritative sources in the first place (which usually can be found with Google).

For example, if I wanted to know about a NASA mission, I can go to their site directly and read far more information about that information than any library would have available (except, unironically, on the computers they let you use for this very purpose). Why would I go to Google first when I know the most authoritative source for info on a NASA mission is NASA's website dedicated to it? Probably to find a link to that authoritative source of actual information.

Search engines have their place. Your inability to craft good search criteria, or differentiate good results from bad, doesn't invalidate the wealth of information out there. And Google does make it easy to find. But you have to actually use some of your own intelligence to know what authoritative information looks like.

A website that is pretty much a drive-it-yourself worse-than-PowerPoint slide show that is highly reminiscent of a clickbait ad bomb is a perfect example of the rubbish that is out there, though. And I doubt it would show up in any of my Google searches.
macspoofing is right. This stuff works opposite to how you and GP are describing.
> And yet, comparison of catching a virus to homicide by gun is not.

That was not intended as a comparison, but as an obvious example of where "my body, my choice" clearly does not apply to making a slight movement of your index finger.
Step 0 is admirable. I've come across business cultures where people got ahead (really!) by "outrunning their mistakes." Lots of rapid promotions and job transfers, leaving messes behind them -- and then blaming problems on their inept successors, or other saboteurs, etc. No accepting of responsibility.

Most of those places eventually go bust, but they can ruin a lot of people's lives before the final collapse happens.

Step 3.2 feels forced and a little Orwellian. Even something as hazy as invoking "bad judgment" -- and leaving the scene -- is often sufficient, at least at first. If errant people need a bit more time to process reality's sudden slap in the face, I'm in favor of giving it to them.

Eventually a lot of them do reach a fuller understanding. Or they redeem themselves in other ways. In the right settings, a little bit of mercy can be very powerful
> power corrupts

The full quote is worth repeating here.

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.
> I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

Is COVID "minimised" yet? Quite the opposite. So it looks like the prediction of "disease can be minimised" is an absurd one.
Having to wear masks is a restriction of freedom, albeit not a very severe one.
To be honest, this article reads more like one of Randall Munroe's "what if?" posts than anything that should be taken seriously.

Is there any point in investigating the maximalist claim that a nuclear war would kill literally every person on Earth? Hundreds of millions, or perhaps billions, of deaths wouldn't be bad enough? How about the almost certain collapse of what we currently understand as "human civilization"?

What's the point of all the pedantry around calculating kinetic or radiation damage? Or the various scenarios for nuclear winter?

> The most likely outcome is that most people starve to death. Many would freeze too, but starvation is likely the greatest risk. Even in this model, it appears that in equatorial regions, some farming would still be possible, enough for some populations to survive. After a 10-15 years, agriculture in most of the world would be possible at reduced capacity.

Thank goodness, after a decade of starvation, the remaining population would be able to start growing food again :))

> There appear to be several interventions possible for reducing existential risk from nuclear war. At the policy level, a commitment from the largest nuclear powers to refrain from targeting the majority of cities would reduce risk of accidental omnicide.

The idea of a nuclear war that doesn't target cities seems, to my mind, completely implausible. Why would somebody bother to use weapons that can obliterate cities strictly on military targets? Isn't that simply overkill? Not to mention that a commitment from the largest nuclear powers to refrain from targeting the majority of cities would most likely be broken once nuclear weapons start being used. What would such a commitment even look like? We promise to only destroy Moscow and Beijing, you promise to only destroy New York and Los Angeles? Preposterous.

> Improving the maximum resilience capacity of human populations best positioned to survive a nuclear winter would also make humanity less vulnerable to nuclear winter, and could also protect against other existential threats.

I have never understood this line of reasoning. Should I be consoled by the fact that, even though billions might perish, somebody somewhere will manage to scrape by and survive the holocaust? Are we supposed to be so collectivist in thought as to disregard the obliteration of a significant part of our species, just because some other part of it might live on?
The comic calculates entropy with the assumption that the attacker knows that your password is four common words. Even if they run a dictionary attack on your password, it will still be secure.

Diceware passwords are still recommended by security experts over any other method.

https://www.eff.org/dice
Firstly, that's not the same commenter. Secondly, the drunk driving and gun examples were clearly provided merely as examples where "my body, my choice" doesn't apply.
There have been dozens of papers in this area, primarily differing (as does your link) in the assumed balance of ages in a society.

The CDC citation is aggregating these studies, and (essentially) picking the middle. Cherry picking a single study from the larger pool is not a rebuttal.
>At the end of the day we want Republicans to accept the results willingly, and in my opinion that's best served by being calm and patient in our dealings with them rather than by being angry or impatient.

The thing is, most Republicans already accept the result. And I'm not saying the whole process is bullshit! Nobody is saying that. It is pretty bad that we can have an election with the popular vote won by five million and counting and have the result disputed, but that's mostly orthogonal to this situation.
> The American abhorrence for admitting fault and/or apologizing is quite mystifying to me. It's really corrosive.

I don't accept this premise. Americans don't have a lot of the cultural baggage that leads to this. If anything, Americans are quick to admit fault and address root causes. We don't have a cultural history of beating around the bush, saving face, deferring to elders who are clearly wrong, etc. Individual exceptions abound, but I think on the whole Americans are ready to admit fault most of the time.
That's not the point of the article. The article talks purely about economic systems. Western, capitalist democracies too did things like the Holodomor.

There isn't much of a reason why a (computed) planned economy would have to lead to the Holodomor, or the Great Chinese Famine.
> Authoritarianism is bad for business, there are plenty of examples where big businesses get "nationalized" or where the founders are forced to sell to a "friendly party official" who then proceeds to run it into the ground.

I think this may be true but I would like to see a better argument for it. It is not hard to find businesses that have been successful specifically due to authoritarian State patronage (e.g. Huawei in China, Chaebols in South Korea).
What you wrote reminded me of this ('Why is programming fun?' from The Mythical Man-Month, by Fred Brooks): http://grok2.com/progfun.html
I was thinking about China but it can be applied to anyone. Free market without every one following exactly the same rules is not free market, or at least is not what I understand as free market.
Bryce replied, offering to train a new maintainer: https://lists.cairographics.org/archives/cairo/2020-November...
As more jobs move remote people will discover they don't need to live in a big city. Small cities offer a best of both worlds: people around for when you want human contact, but not too many; cheap enough that you can afford some nice property in the city.
I believe that some systems are more moral than others.

That said, it's pretty clear from many comments on HN that people have no clue how far along China is, perhaps stuck in a early 2000s mindset. Nor do they seem to have any serious understanding of Chinese government.
I am saying having more options is not inherently good and the will of the individual working should not be the ultimate deciding factor in labor law. What is best for an individual Uber driver is not necessarily what is best for society as a whole or even the population of all Uber drivers.

Just like we need to protect the 12 year old who voluntary enters a coal mine, we might need to protect the Uber driver who voluntary gets into their car.
But the question was about what prosecutors are trying to do.
And Meanwhile, Clinton admitted defeat and Obama invited Trump to while house as every other president before. And Obama cooperated on power handover. Was not threatening to fire people for cooperating with new President.

You really can't bothside this.
I make an effort to do this too, I've found that it's made me more cynical of apologies on occasion. I almost feel like I'm waiting for a "but".
I read your write up, but I’m not entirely clear on one part: how do cloudflare workers handle websocket connections? Are they automatically terminated after the worker spends too much time active? If so, doesn’t handling the WS handshake have a lot more overhead than a fetch call? Maybe I’m misunderstanding something here. One of my biggest issues with serverless is its inability to handle websockets in a sane way, so this would be huge.
I also agree. I find both Twitter and Reddit to be on the most part delightful sources of information. I do have a certain self-made bubble in terms of who I follow, but it's a bubble full of creators, artists, and those that want to share what they've done in a positive way.
AllMusic has a nice monthly list of "Editor's Picks" that often have at least one or two nice albums in the haystack. That is how I discovered Big Thief, Mavis Staples' "We Get By," and some interesting indie artists. Reddit/indie and reddit/hiphopheads also have nice additions on the regular. There are some interesting music discovery tools that use a graph such as Music Map [0]

[0] https://www.music-map.com/the+civil+wars
Centralized religion has historically never existed or even anything close to it in China. And Xi has actually been a big booster for revival of the religious traditions that they do have.

Every one of these threads is full of people doing a ctrl-f find/replace Russia/China on their cold war propaganda lessons.

China's a different country, with a billion and a half people and a few thousand years of history that most Americans are completely ignorant of, but that doesn't stop them from being supremely confident in their takes.
>> the US is a very wealthy country. In 2019, something like 42 million Americans - not much below the population of Spain - had incomes over $100,000

Yet, 4 out of 5 Americans live paycheck to paycheck, and 3 in 10 have no emergency savings at all.

The numbers will vary based upon what study/report you read, but the message is clear that the majority of people are not making financially sound decisions.
$10k MRR debunking election misinformation
probably, yeah! I'm doubtful anyone would make it a high priority unless they were active cyclists themselves with some time outside of the endless cycle of feature requests from management. :)