skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm not for UBI but I totally get & agree with the reasoning behind it; including yours here which I think is pretty dead on as to why it would be beneficial (in theory). In fact the "stealing from our future" part jumped out at me as similar to the way I think of societal debt cycles (the kind Ray Dalio talks about in his books - short-and long-term [~10yr; ~100yr] cyclical sine waves of waxing & waning [in/de]flation). You probably would avoid taking on a ton of debt during the peak of a given credit cycle (when rates are at their highest %), especially if you know you're simply fking yourself that much harder than if you were to take on the debt at some point in the future, when rates are much more likely to be low, and thus save you a ton of money in the long run.

Same thing with putting in extra effort at work. No reason to actually take on the extra hustle if it pays off minimally when all is said & done anyway. Better to say no thank you, I'd rather not take on a burden of effort-debt yet and wait till it makes significantly more sense to do so
Well, yea in a larger sense they would but they don't have cash so you can't rent to them for any significant sums. This is why socialists critique the market system as irrational.
'Sonic attacks' suffered by US diplomats likely caused by microwave energy
Microsoft hasn't been a monopoly for a long time.

And they didn't crush Slask by being one.

Actually, they didn't crush Slack, period. Slack was just sold for tens of billions. Many multinational giants would only wish they were "crushed" like that.

As for the "Teams has 115M users over Slack's 12M" - isn't that because it bogusly counts non-users with access to Team (which is everybody having Office 365, which was already in that range).
> It is very popular. Rememember, it was once scientifically-supported objective fact that smoking was perfectly safe.

Sure, but that's why you update your beliefs based on new information. You don't consider an institution being wrong once as a complete repudiation of everything else. Consensus reality based on division of labor and a web of trust in our authorities, combined with peer review and criticism, is the only way for society to function.

Our institutions can be wrong, but what is argument are placing your trust in hearsay, innuendo and rumor? If you want to be skeptical of what the scientific authorities say, that is fine and healthy. It is quite another thing to go from skeptical to believing in unproven conspiracy theories with no authority behind them and no history of being right.

In other words, you're going from a source of information whom you might think is wrong sometimes, to a source of information with practically no reason to trust it.

When 97% of the world's climate scientists say global warming is a threat, when the basic thermodynamics of the situation, the paleo-climate data, even the recent temperature records, and flooding, lead you to give credence to their conclusions, and take reasonable precautions, shouldn't it encourage you to take it seriously even if it turns out wrong, instead of assuming it's all an elaborate hoax driven by wealthy scientists trying to get government grants?

I mean, there's a real false equivalence that keeps coming up when people discuss these issues. They act like the repercussions and risks on both sides are the same, and that both sides are being equally reasonable.

But the other side, for example of the climate debate, makes fully unsubstantiated claims about the massive harm that addressing climate change will have (if it is wrong), when there is not much evidence for these claims, other than very mild slightly lower GDP growth numbers. So if the scientific community is right, climate change leads to massive ecosystem disruption, massive economic losses, a refugee crisis, probably more wars, and if they're wrong, a fraction of a % of future GDP growth is lost.

It's crazy to me to go from "some people have been harmed by our institutions" to "whatever they say, I'm going to believe the opposite, even if it is a looney conspiracy"

There's no way to call what's happening right now rational. And the "priors" you're talking about, have largely been manipulated by conservative media for financial benefit. Fox/Murduch, Mercer & Koch funded media, Limbaugh, Hannity, Clearchannel, largely spend a great deal of their time undermining trust in Western scientific institutions, largely by gaslighting.

Healthy skepticism is what people should aim for, not cult beliefs. You know, when a new medical study comes out and claims that chocolate extends your life, or another comes out and says it shortens it, you're right to question it, and be skeptical, and ask for more confirmation. What you don't do is go "fuck scientists, my uncle told me that Trump said chocolate protects you from the effects of the Deep State chemtrails"
The article directly contradicts that, above the fold:

"I still have sleepless nights trying to figure out how I’m going to pay the guys the next pay cycle"
> As the parent poster mentioned, the US’ monetary policy is awful and many believe is on the brink of major problems.

Ah yes, "the brink of major problems". That's the undying adage of USSR and later Russian news programs. "Dollar is on the brink of collapse".

> So, yeah, some new alternative financial instrument seems attractive to me.

How can one forget, that these crises are unique, are happening for the first time ever, d no one in the history in the world ever had 10 million dollars before, so they have no idea what to do with this money.
Cookie.AI | Remote | Full time

Cookie.AI is an early-stage startup (stealth stage) headquartered in Silicon Valley, operating with a remote-first mindset - we have teams across US continental states and in Europe. We are building a market category defining data security company for the dynamic world of cybersecurity. We are well-funded (Series-A), backed by top-tier VCs, and CEOs / Security veterans as our angel investors. The founding team consists of serial entrepreneurs and early engineers from startups and veterans from big companies. We are looking for fullstack engineers (React, TypeScript, Jest, Enzyme, etc.) and DevOps engineers with hands-on experiences with cloud-native and SaaS products. You will play a critical role in building products working closely with our early customers, founders, and collaborating with senior engineers who have built and shipped $1B+ products. You will gain hands-on experience with cutting-edge technologies (Presto, Kafka, Golang, Docker, K8s, etc.) and many others from the open-source world. We are looking for characteristics such as ambition and agility, commitment to build an enduring company, passion to build products, self-driven and self-motivated, and intellectual curiosity to innovate! Location is open to anywhere you are at your best. Please reach out: hello AT cookie.ai.
Bitcoin does not replace traditional banking even if you view it as a legitimate currency.
I know what formulas are, I just don’t see what’s the connection with the proposed change:

‘\(x) x + 1’ is parsed as ‘function(x) x + 1’

I also know that R has some vestigial scheme under the hood, but the syntax is not lisp (it was taken from S). In common lisp one could easily use a macro or reader macro but in R a change in the parser is needed so “\” can be used instead of “function”.

Note that the existing “f <- function(...) ...” syntax is not being removed. But I write a lot of code like

state.range <- apply(state.x77, 2, function(x) c(min(x), median(x), max(x)))

and it will be an improvement to be able to condense it a bit to

state.range <- apply(state.x77, 2, \(x) c(min(x), median(x), max(x)))
What is the difference between call/cc and delimited continuations?
The famous quote that da Vinci never said (“Once you have tasted flight...”)
I have commented on this elsewhere but because energy is not just a cost for bitcoin mining but essentially the only cost outside initial capital investment, Bitcoin's POW will in the long-term drive all mining to off-grid self-power by renewables.
It lives on in the Sunway Taihu Light.

https://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/20...
I disagree that bitcoins are made "in response" to work performed. The value of a bitcoin doesn't come from the work performed. Otherwise recently mined bitcoins would be more valuable than early mined bitcoins, due to different hash difficulty level.

Anyways, currency is not value. Currency represents value. It is symbol. I feel like confusing the symbol with what it represents is the source of much of the misunderstandings of how money works.
I find it funny how some companies first refused to adopt slack due to lack on onsite storage, later adopted teams with no such reservations
Typical HN user:

“Disrupt incumbents! Topple the establishment! We have the power to do great things! Let’s found a startup!”

When it comes to bitcoin:

“Well actually individuals shouldn’t be trusted, decentralization bad, I LOVE my ancient bank with its shitty website, how dare you question authority?”
Certainly it's more preferable to learn of these flaws or to be reminded of them in order to recognize them more readily, than to not concern oneself with this matter at all. Of course I think the optimal path is that which has one actively practice the recognition of these flaws in order to make spotting them a quicker and easier task with time. The ultimate outcome is that it becomes an effortless background process.
Just buy the top rated book on Amazon (or download the pdf for free):

https://www.amazon.com/Bitcoin-Standard-Decentralized-Altern...

The author didn't really do serious research. I can imagine having doubts or questions after reading this book, but without basic knowledge about money there's no point in arguing (I agree with Jimmy Song's comment, but I find Saifedean's book much better researched)
What is the cost of forcing researchers to spend all this time piecing together little bits of money?

Perhaps a bit off topic, but it seems like the poor guy has to spend a lot of time not doing research.
And dangerous, too.
In my view, money is a technology. A technology is designed to serve a purpose, and is said to work if it achieves that purpose reasonably well.

My simplistic view is that government money such as the dollar serves a small handful of purposes: It's a medium of exchange, short term store of value, and tool of government economic policy. The government has loosely defined "short term" by the target inflation rate. I suppose that regularizing the taxation process is another purpose.

Does it work? Apparently some national currencies work better than others. People in some countries will, if possible, use some other country's money in preference over their own, for all but minor daily transactions. Thus, objecting to one kind of money, and swapping it for another, predates bitcoins.

What I think makes bitcoin different is that no government can influence its purpose, leaving its purpose up to each user to define on their own terms.

Perhaps another way of thinking about it, is that its own behavior defines its purpose, because if your use is in opposition to its behavior, then it doesn't work for you. This could be said to be true of dollars as well.
Please don't post in the flamewar style here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
How many people attended high school back in those days? Did people in every country have the same opportunities in terms of education? Remember that when people say education standards are improving, they are not talking about a particular country, but rather about an overall global measurement. I’m sure countries in the global south (where the majority of the world’s population lives) were not having those same education opportunities back in the 60s. But now they have widespread access to education.

Also, how useful it is/was reading in Anglo Saxon? And please, could you point out all those examples and arguments with verifiable evidence, rather than anecdotal ones?
I think there are technicalities to bitcoin that make typical economic reasoning futile, and as a result non-tech people argue for things they don't really understand.

The energy consumption argument alone should completely destroy bitcoin's prospects. I'm not sure how you can even apply classical economics principles to something as uniquely different as bitcoin. Maybe the cost means people should only trade in extremely high amounts of bitcoin so there are less transactions? I don't know.
A typo in the title? It should read “electric”.
Show HN: A Jumpcut inspired clipboard history tool for Windows 10
I got used to the ease of Jumpcut on Mac and wanted something similar for Windows. Some selling points are the hotkeys which allow you to copy a past item to the clipboard without having to leave the keyboard, similarly a search which can be used exclusively through the keyboard, and also an unlimited search history ... the last part I'm not so sure about I think likely I'll have to limit the history to < 200 or so to be useful.

Some drawbacks are that unlike Jumpcut I have not found a way to trigger a 'paste' command to the calling window ( line 155 here https://github.com/qorrect/Yachty/blob/main/JumpcutW/Yachty.... if anyone knows a better way ). And you have to manually tell Windows 10 to always show the Yachty icon in the tray.
That's the synthesis we've come to now, after great effort. It was far from clear in the 1980s and 1990s, when Bayesian networks and neural networks looked a lot more like competitors.
Which state will win? Will USD fall to CryptoYuan, or will the US solution have advantage?

Where can you follow design of these initiatives?

Could a state actor DDoS another state's crypto, or will these just be centralized systems with just the crypto moniker?

Will Libra make it?
"A neutral starter would be: Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking. Once you have some formal thinking tools, I would approach philosophy building organically by writing down your beliefs and identifying questions and gaps, and then researching those ad-hoc"

There are probably many HN readers who would find this a congenial approach, since there are so many programmers here, and logic is so close to math and programming.

I also can't deny that studying it does make one's thinking more rigorous, and it's useful for working with other philosophy (and with math and programming).

However, I am concerned that someone who starts off with logic might get the impression that that's what all philosophy is about, or that's what it builds on, and just stop there. While that's true for some types of philosophy, it's not true for the majority of philosophy.

Also, for those people who aren't in to math, logic, puzzles, or programming, I'm not sure this approach would be particularly engaging for them.

When starting from the Socratic dialogues, I think pretty much everyone gets engaged, since they deal with questions which are of universal concern. They are also questions and themes that run throughout the whole course of Western philosophy (and many in Eastern philosophy too, though from a different direction).

People who start with Socrates instead of logic might not have the tools to analyze his arguments rigorously (though if that's even possible is debatable), but they'd get a much better feel for what philosophy was about.
Huh, when I started as a Master's student at UBC we got a tour of some of the labs in the ECE and CS departments there, one of which was the media lab that had one of this HDR displays. I remember being blown away by how realistic the display looked compared to an SDR display. It's cool that some of their tech lives on!
I read China used this on the Indian border too.

Here’s the fake news version:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2020/11/20/disput...

As this news turns less fake, how does one defend against microwave attacks?
Bitcoin is darknet money; it definitely makes sense in that context, but that's about it.
Actually 1850s is a perfect time period to look at, since it's when compulsory education starting taking hold in the U.S.
Bad machine translation from Spanish to English - is there a native English source?
Overall these are good recommendations. For instance Sellars is hard but extremely important. His disciple Brandom is comparatively more readable and worth investigating as well.
With incrementAccountBalance(a, n), it's impossible to tell exactly what each argument is from the function signature alone. Of course I could assume that a = account and n = amount to increment by, but that's nothing more than an assumption, which only invites inevitable bugs. Alternatively I could look at the function body, and try to figure out what's going on, but that's time wasted that could be spent more productively.

Further, non-descriptive naming often assumes that the programmer reading and modifying the code has domain-specific knowledge. That might be true of mid level or senior engineers have have been with a particular company for years, but the new grad coming into a financial services company (a field he has no training or familiarity with) will have no idea what "a" or "b" means. I was in that position, and the descriptive naming absolutely would have helped me to learn and become productive with the codebase faster.

I'd say that your reasonable middle ground would be the best practice.
Don't forget if you are using a public client, you need to be concerned not just with the client secret, but also with the access token. Unless the token is sender constrained (via MTLS, DPOP or something similar), anyone who gets it can use it to access whatever resources it grants permission to.

While losing a client secret to an attacker is obviously worse, because it allows for repeated grant requests, losing an access token can be bad too.

So, be aware of both things when you are running in a client like a browser or mobile application which can't be trusted to keep a secret. You can try to minimize the risk by using a HttpOnly cookie for the browser or secure storage (keychain, etc) on a mobile app, as well as keeping your token lifetimes short.

Disclosure: I work for an IDaaS provider.
> Dimas,

I would appreciate if you called me by the nickname I specifically chose for the purpose of online communication

> Dimas, I already clearly listed the problems with those investments, in case you didn't understand, I will repeat:

In case yo didn't understand, I will repeat:

- If a person has a spare 10 million dollars they want to "park", it most likely means they already know how to manage their own money

- Ask yourself: how did people manage to "park" their 10 million dollars in the ancient era of 10 years ago, before blockchain.

> Diversified portfolios - oh, I guess you are. Next you are going to say "Index funds" - what do I win?

You win exactly nothing. Diversified portfolios is the way to "park" money: "don't put all your eggs in one basket" and all that.
You can also train a neural network with a single shared weight parameter:

https://weightagnostic.github.io/
Hah, great account name! [0]

Brown's security camera surveillance is about twenty years in the making. [1] There were student complaints as it was initially expanded, but it's long since faded into being just another part of campus life.

Its electronic building access control system is perhaps about thirty years in the making? It seems to have been rolled out without any controversy. I've trolled the Brown Daily Herald archives and have failed to find any sign that the community discussed the convenience/privacy tradeoff being made.

[0] https://library.brown.edu/info/hay/carberry

[1] https://twitter.com/tenellous/status/1323752004775223302
Is this an Android-wide thing or really specific to OnePlus?
I don't think bitcoin should be entirely dismissed as a scam (its more complex than that), but if we're going to compare it to a scam (and there are definitely plenty of scammers in the bitcoin ecosystem), i think its important to remember that neither scams nor speculative bubbles are new to human history.
As someone who is addicted to nicotine gum, I think this is a genius policy.

Nicotine is an intensely habit forming drug.

You smoke for the nicotine, whether you realize it or not. Take it out, and you've lost the primary reason you smoke: the true sweetness of all cigarettes is due to one flavor, just like the true sweetness of all wine is due to one flavor.

If you eliminate nicotine from legal cigarettes, the vast majority of smokers will stop smoking. Sure, maybe after a few binge sessions where they desperately and fruitlessly seek that hit.

I think the fraction of smokers who will sustain a smoking addiction via black market cigarettes is less than 10%. To maintain a smoking addiction, you need to buy a lot of cigarettes. Few have sufficiently frequent access to black markets to sustain it.

And yes, I'm chewing that damn gum as I write this;)

To clarify, I don't advocate banning nicotine. I advocate banning nicotine delivered via toxic trash-heap. The same way I'd advocate banning alcohol mixed with methanol, if that was a super popular drink.
Integer factorization (ie. Shor's algorithm) would only be useful to break RSA, not Elliptic Curve cryptography...
It's pretty useful for exactly one case of cross-border payments: into countries that are under international sanctions.

For every other country literally anything else is more useful and convenient.
Boto3 – AWS SDK for Python
It doesn’t conceptually. As long as you have the conditions described in the end, the suit order is irrelevant.

3 of a kind with 3 card straight flush around one of the cards in a 3 of a kind.

But yeah it’s still weird to have a geometric pattern with one axis defined by an unordered set
> Because bitcoin requires substatial inputs... it will end up being controlled by whoever controls the most capital

Huh? Whoever has the most capital has the most capital? I don't get it.

> Citation needed

The boom/bust cycle is caused by what we declare to be the solution: active management and printing of the money supply as desired to achieve short-term economic or political goals.

> an anonymous market manipulator caused bitcoin to top $20k

I was speaking about the money supply, not the price. Dunno if you meant to misinterpret or not. But regardless, even that criticism isn't really doable at the scale Bitcoin will achieve.

> I'm sure that'll work...

I don't consider this to be a real criticism. I don't consider any scaling criticism to be valid, because they all come from the perspective of "Bitcoin hasn't scaled already, therefore it will never scale." 80% of software engineering is scaling. It's what we do, it's what's being done. It's a lazy argument. For it to be interesting, you have to tell me why Bitcoin can't scale, ever, in principle.
Depending on the wavelength I guess there exist lightweight mesh fabrics that are pretty efficient at blocking waves. Wonder if that would work for this application.