skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
An interesting theoretical calculation is the rate of entropy production due simply to mixing of smokestack gasses (high partial pressure of CO2) with atmosphere (low partial pressure of CO2). In principle this is wasted exergy -- lots of it. One could imagine some combination of semipermeable membranes and turbines to extract power from the mixing process (your mention of membrane separation reminded me of this). To be clear this is sci-fi though at this point.

(I do believe, however, that there exist methods to extract energy from the mixing of salt and fresh water.)

Likewise, this same idea is a strong argument for capturing CO2 from smokestacks instead of from atmosphere: Fundamentally, it takes energy to undo mixing. And if you want to capture the CO2 eventually anyway, then better to just do that than invent a theoretical "heat engine" driven by the difference in CO2 partial pressure, to get energy that you'll just need to spend somewhere else later (and then some) to get the CO2 back out of atmosphere...

...Actually this phrase "heat engine" now makes me think that maybe this isn't even that hard (in theory) using cold temperatures and phase changes to make dry ice. If it's possible to efficiently cycle the gas through these large temperature swings at all, it must require some kind of heat exchangers and regeneration between stages... (Surely if this were realistic people would have figured out how to do it by now, but it's an interesting thought/design experiment in thermodynamics...)
Planhat – Customer success made simple
The first three times you go over the cap they notify you and you're not charged anything extra. There's nothing to be "scared" of.
Affidavit of Russel James Ramsland, Jr. [pdf]
Have you spent time with all of them around the table and thinking about their needs and problems, not features?

In my experience, if you're not careful during the early product design phase, people will spit out features or their solution/implementation. One has to snap out of it and figure out the reasons of these. They want a button, you must ask why and figure out the job to be done.

Second, from all the 'features' which you figured out the problems for, what is common between the two (users and decision makers)? Is there a core/common set you can extract ?

Third: you can sort of layer specific features of one and the other on top of the core, if there is a core, and propose two products. Depending the budget.

Lastly, it may be frustrating, but ultimately: who is paying you? If you're doing consulting, you may provide input but the one who pays you have the last word. Get your input and their explicit decision to go a certain route in writing, and do what they ask of you.

I wrote a tiny bit about this here https://mobile.twitter.com/jugurthahadjar/status/13106682933...

Again, spend time on problems and unearthing the underlying problems that the features they propose are solutions/implementations to. Don't let the product driven by feature proposition.
But What for Newsletter – No. 012
Other than SF, no. You'd do better to change your tastes - "plaid, hippy and Alanis Morissette" - b/c then you would have many more choices.
Oh, I almost forgot.

Every single agenda I ever had in high school, was a Garfield agenda.

No exceptions. Ever.

No regrets, either.
I hope this isn't the black Marker.
Found this interesting:

> And here’s the important part: Sometimes this disagreement happens between the more senior person and a subordinate. The subordinate really wants to do it one way, and the senior person really thinks it should be done a different way. And it’s often the case that the more senior person should disagree and commit. I disagree and commit all the time. I’ll debate something for an hour or a day or a week. And I’ll say, “You know what? I really disagree with this, but you have more ground truth than I do. We’re going to do it your way. And I promise I will never tell you I told you so.”
Hacking the Perfect Auction
The second amendment seems to protect some kind of carrying. It's not clear from my reading that it protects concealed carry.
That does t hold. Aluminum that big isn’t just something you’d buy from McMaster-Carr.
He was mad at you because he didn't like his software made by the company he owned?
One weird wrinkle here that nobody has mentioned yet:

In the US, freight trains have priority over passenger trains. As far as I know, generally in Europe it's the opposite.
Transcript here: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/932048876
It's hot, it's new, it's our first print magazine
The project doesn’t say that there isn’t a counter, but just that the ALU is a single NOR gate. Obviously, that’s not enough for an ALU, but through repeated operations (such as with microcode), it can be enough.

Why one would do this? Probably for fun; There’s no practical application of this that I can see.
Some games (looking at you COD) have patches that are 50GB to download.
Yeah it’s like the inverse. A bot would never draw an analogy between Beethoven’s deafness and Jobs’s firing, but then say “life service you lemons”.
I've seen this pattern frequently on a few data science teams. However, I do think there is a lot of value to data science, but it more has to do with incorporating metrics and accountability rather than modeling.

For example, I've seen many mission-critical rules-based systems with no accuracy metrics. A data scientist is asked to beat this system using machine learning and fails miserably because the rules were developed by experts over years and the data scientist has a month and is only a few years out of grad school. However, in the process of building the model that data scientist built data pipelines for measuring the rules-based system's accuracy and fixed a small number of major data integrity issues. Unfortunately this isn't considered a win and the data scientist usually leaves the company soon after. :shrug:
I know that, you know that, but their average consumer doesn’t. Their sales people push it even.
Most monoliths I've dealt with are 20,000+ line legacy C files
All the federally managed public land policies have been on display at the local planning department in Alpha Centauri for fifty years now.
From the article:

>The department has not disclosed the exact location of the monolith, fearing explorers may try to seek it out and "become stranded". The big horn sheep wildlife officials were counting are native to many parts of southern Utah, where the terrain is rugged.
I could imagine having to demo on Saturday and needing to work all day to incorporate feedback by Sunday would be called abusive, even at small startups, these days.
I've found executives don't like to be told no. If they want something done in 3 months, but it will take 6 months, let them know some options such as:
1) Pulling resources off of another project to help
2) Taking on tech debt that will make future development slower
3) Scoping down the work

When given a task, I've explicitly asked which out of time, scope, and quality, is the most important to them.

Another important thing to keep in mind is that you get to choose the situation you are in. For future jobs it might be worth carefully evaluating who you will be reporting to and working with and their background. Even if they are not an engineer, have they worked with engineers before? Do they have realistic expectations around timelines? Do they have a level of understanding to at least talk at a high level about what you are working on? If the answer is no, it might not be the right job for you.

It's also worth understanding the working styles of the company you will join. I had previously been at a company with 100 engineers that focused on agile and used lightweight processes like tracking tasks on notecards in swimlanes on a physical wall. The next company I joined was over a thousand engineers and expected JIRA tickets for everything and writing large numbers of docs and getting sign offs from numerous people and departments before starting work. I know see that the first way of working is a better fit with my natural style, but you may fit in better with the second way.

For your situation, it sounds like the non-engineers had unrealistic expectations of what could be done with ML and how fast. Was there a discussion around timelines and you ended up going greatly over them? Or where you just going off to work and then they decided you weren't getting enough done.

I agree with everyone else who says that you have to understand your audience and tailor your message for what they care about.
I use the same technique in my book to show how a REST API can be used to exploit XSS even it it always produces and consumes only valid JSON: https://livebook.manning.com/book/api-security-in-action/cha...
Why I've Liked Chess So Much
Neural Networks for Option Pricing
As a former NeRD (NeXT Registered Developer) who started a company that did custom NeXT development, I both strongly agree and strongly disagree.

The technology really was great. Their understanding of object orientation was superior. The developer tools were wonderful. The user experience was generally a delight. We could develop custom software in a fraction of the time of people using the tools of the day. NeXT had a true vision of the future.

However, what they didn't have was much understanding of economics. The only reason that NeXT wasn't a complete commercial failure was that Apple's board wanted Steve Jobs back. If not, Apple might instead have bought out Be. And if Apple had succeeded in developing their own next-gen OS, both NeXT and Be might be minor footnotes these days. Even prior to the deus ex machina buyout, NeXT was on a slow and steady path to failure. They'd gone from an integrated hardware vendor to an OS-on-other-hardware vendor to a dev-tools-on-other-OSes vendor, and it's not clear that would have worked either. Once the acquisition was announced, they promised to take care of the people who had stuck with them and then did jack.

I took a few lessons away from my time with NeXT. 1) Just because I thought something was technically superior didn't mean it was commercially viable. 2) Being too far ahead of the market is worse than being behind it. 3) Never trust a "visionary leader" to look out for you, no matter what he says. He's in it for himself and the vision; the little people are expendable.

But you're definitely right that it made using other stuff painful. I stopped doing GUI development altogether rather than shift to Windows, which was incomparably awful by comparison.
Partly ad tech. It changed the reward profile away from inventing cool new stuff towards lowest-common-denominator monetisation.

The real change was the change in the culture of computer use from original creation to consumption and distribution of certain limited kinds of creation - which are mostly imitative, nostalgic, and either backwards- or (at best) sideways-looking rather than genuinely original.

Real invention is now actively disfavoured. Google did a fair amount in the 00s but has slowly abandoned most of it, Amazon does a bit of blue sky but is mostly focussed on consumerism, Musk's idea of blue sky is straight out of a 1950s Tom Swift novel, and Facebook and Twitter are both hopeless. Netflix is cable TV done right - finally. But it's still cable TV.

There are some exceptions at Apple, which still has a kind of legacy tradition of doing cool new stuff (see also, M1) but even that is a mix of invention for the sake of it and strategic lock-in as a goal.

The result is a landscape full of development geared to comfortable suburban consumerism and associated corporate bureaucracy. There's very little interest in game changing technical development for the sake of it - which was more or less what NeXT was about. And there's even less interest in computing as subversion and empowerment, which was - believe it or not - a big interest in the 70s.

FOSS doesn't change this. (It likes to believe it does, but practically it really doesn't.)

Quantum computing and AI may be on the cusp - but even if they do something interesting they're going to be coopted by ad tech as soon as the paint dries.

So it's not about technical scope so much as imagination failure. The real loss is the loss of imagination - something that tech and media have both done a lot of damage to over the last couple of decades.
Just published study on mask efficiency: https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/5.0029767
For all metrics my rule of thumb has always been to just do my job as best as I can and ignore the metrics. If a manager ever says anything about them, I ask them what they think of my actual performance. Then when they say they are happy with my performance, I suggest that they are looking at the wrong metrics. The few times that has failed i flatly tell them that I will not do anything to game the metrics, and I'm just going to keep doing my job as best as I can. So far that has always kept them busy until I got a promotion, switched companies, or the short sighted manager got fired.
Russian variant of it: if your local authorities aren't cleaning snow, just write "Навальный" on it and it'll be gone at the speed of light. (Navalny is the leader of opposition.)
That's quite bizarre logic. I'd prefer the natural areas stay pristine and not cluttered up with art that was left randomly in the middle of nowhere.

This isn't that great, it's not worthy of any sort of exception here.

People are really suffering from "it's new and shiny" syndrome.
I friggin love guerilla art. It always weirds me out how much effort is put into making the world un-artistic. Amazing murals being painted over, shrines being removed from nature, amazing homes made by off-skew people being demolished to put in bland main-stream housing.

At least this one lives on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mill_Ends_Park
Please, ask him
Tesla expanding to Europe with smaller vehicles
That's what is downloaded. Cyberpunk 2077 (releases next month) is supposedly a svelte 70 GB, while the new Call of Duty is a hefty ~133 GB download on the new consoles (and close to 200 when installed).
As someone who also remembers Garfield being funny as a kid, I don't read the OP as saying it was never funny, but that being funny was a secondary concern to Davis after being marketable. I just looked up a random Garfield strip from 1988 [1] and I have to say, it's kind of a funny visual gag. Nothing groundbreaking but for a daily strip in a newspaper, it's not bad, and I'm an adult now, as a kid I probably would have found it hilarious. Combine decent humor like that with recognizable and cute characters appearing in the newspaper daily and it's not surprising that the strip became so popular.

[1] http://images.ucomics.com/comics/ga/1988/ga880101.gif
Canonical Publishes Ubuntu LTS Docker Image Portfolio on Docker Hub
I think part of the problem is you comparing to a fairly different industry. Companies that employ "Front End" and "Back end" engineers are very different than NeXT, which had products from asic to high level.

If you work at a hardware company, even in a role that's very far from hardware, you become aware of this stuff because it effects you. Even if you don't understand ASIC at all, you still know about, oh, such and such process node has this issue, because it impacted our schedule and somebody told me about it at a lunch table. And you may not even know how to solder, but you can say, oh this needs rework, 0 ohm resistor at point such and such to make the display work, because you need to know it to go to the lab and have the work done.

Really the thing I understood the least working at a company like that was actual productization. You hear about something you worked on a year and a half ago being a tablet, or an embedded device, and you'd be like, oh, that old thing is just being released now? And it's in that form factor? huh.
I always found Garfield hilariously downright funny.

Maybe that's why most people don't get my sense of humour.
Curious, what are some example use cases for a low-code platform vs others that might have some other better aspect?
It felt incomplete because it's not a real game, it's a pageant — like little kids dressing up as shepherds and wise men and telling the story of Christmas.

You feel it's cool and big, because you're looking at the story of going from the origins of life to the galaxy, but the gameplay doesn't actually support that ambition. Most of what you accomplish has very little impact; it's just a series of hoops you need to jump through, so that you can say that you did them.
Facebook blocks The Spectator's news on DANMASK 19 study as false information
Soar Payments – High risk merchant account solutions
When people say this kind of stuff, I always wonder if it's post-hoc rationalization.

"Oh...so you don't like Garfield? Well, ummm, it wasn't meant to be funny anyway, I WIN!"

Doesn't Tommy Wiseau claim that The Room was meant to be a comedy now?
Interesting that the immediate counterpoint is the New Yorker comic strips. While certainly witty, I'd question whether these are even intended to be funny. As in, do people literally read them and laugh out loud, find themselves thinking back on a particular strip and laughing and so on. I always assumed the New Yorker panels were more of an acerbic, dry, 'aha' kind of observation than anything designed to be 'funny' in the traditional sense. Meanwhile, Garfield while hackneyed (as the article points out, even intentionally so) has its moments.

The classic New Yorker panel is perhaps 'On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_...
Clever, timely and memorable, sure. But inducing of mirth? Questionable.

Comedians make the differentiation between 'funny' and 'funny, funny', as between a 'bit' and a 'joke, joke', something that follows the traditional structure of a joke book or cracker. It's an interesting distinction for something that isn't particularly well described by the subtleties of English.
"Then, he consciously developed a stable of recurring, repetitive jokes for the cat. He hates Mondays. He loves lasagna. He sure is fat."

Basically, Garfield is for people who like grumpy cats and relatable, albeit, repetitively dry and not particularly witty humor.
But corporate farms have swallowed family farms and there has been a massive consolidation. With every aspect of farming.

Big tractor and the guy who sells you herbicide and suggests what seed to buy. You seed, inputs and yield projection is all done for you. And now with data collection..esp with tractors being outfitted with modern tech and AI, the farmer is like chopped meat...they are basically overseers with inherited land who collect subsidies, do the accounting, pay taxes and deliver to grain elevator.

The system is designed to slowly chip away farms so the balance sheet becomes debt heavy and cash poor/land rich farmers end up selling anyways. The whole thing is rigged. The name of the game is consolidation.

Across the border, I don’t know how it works w/Canadian commodity farms but at their dairy industry works with a diff subsidies model. It’s not like they have eliminated subsidies completely but it has helped not shutter dairy farms and is more protectionist.

Perhaps relatedly..a slightly dated article: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/09/american...
That's the original Zoomquilt, which is not either of the videos I asked about.
Personally, this makes me very happy. Tech-wise Tesla's are really impressive.

But it's always annoyed by how huge they are. Aside from space for four people, there's those two trunks that I can't imagine filling up unless a family of four is going on vacation for a month.
Agreed. No regrets.
Ha!
I once reduced a 10,000 line module in a Broadcom 802.11 driver to one page - a template to construct a message. Calls to the old code (5-6 lines) went to nothing - simply pass your structure to the message API.

But that was an eggregious driver. Previous version: ~15 modules. Rewritten by some purist: 900(!) modules. I kid you not.
In 1994 when Steve Jobs got to use a device like an iPhone (2018)
> Look at your local antivaxx FB group, they think Wakefield is authoritative.

Every single individual within that group thinks "Wakefield is authoritative", and thinks that precisely and literally?

Might we be asking of others, that which we refuse to do ourselves?