skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I like this quote “Don’t try to procedurally generate something that you can’t already create”.

I’ve been actively making music full time for a good 15 years now. I work as a writer/producer and despite all of my experience and theoretical understanding I’d probably be hard pressed to come up with a way to algorithmically describe my musical instincts in a way that generates satisfying music.

I think a large part of the trouble comes from the notion that most music requires a certain degree of subversion of expectation. And not randomly selected subversions either. Deliberate choices that feel meaningful. I could spend a lot of time defining one melodic phrase and immediately need to tweak the rule for the second half or a reharmonization. Not to mention rhythmic cadences and groove.

I’ve been doing a deep dive on Autechre recently and am revisiting interviews where they hint at their process. The duo is notorious for using self-built tools that algorithmically generate the sounds, texture, and rhythms. These programs are not expected to run independently or generate great music on their own. They are actively guided and performed by the band as they jam and compose. In this way it’s more of an augmentation of their will that allows them to create such rhythmically dense compositions.

In re-reading these interviews what I found interesting is that for them the act of building the program is one and the same with the act of composition. They’re defining the parameters, limits, and characteristics of a composition and then using their judgement to steer and flex the sonic structures that they’ve built up.

When it comes to generative music, I think they’ve got the right attitude in not expecting the software to do the heavy lifting. It’s instead treated as an extension of their performance.
A relative talking about it at the funeral is quite different than anonymous claims that are impossible to (dis)prove within hours of the death.
Switch to B-Trees if you ever need to reject all candidates :P (And astonishingly, a comprehensive description of them including the tools for complexity analysis in a form practical for real-world implementers - not just CS student writing toy exercise projects - is very hard to find.)
This is I think generally (although not exclusively) used for "buying" an apartment (ie a "flat" in the UK), rather than a free-standing house -- what in the U.S. would be a condominium. Such as it would be in the case of Grenfell Tower.

Condominium ownership required specific legal authorization in the U.S., which only happened mid 20th century. Before that there was no way to have different people owning different units in a larger building. The closest thing to it was a cooperative, in which you also don't really own your unit as real estate, although it isn't quite the same thing as a UK leasehold, it overlaps.

So, the UK didn't even pass similar legislation to legalize a condoninium-like ownership structure ("commonhold") until the 21st century. And it's still not quite the same. And for whatever reasons hasn't taken off much, maybe because the leasehold system was already so developed at that point. Switching over ownership structures in existing properties is of course a big hassle (why are there so many more cooperatives than condominiums in NYC, even decades after condos were legally authorized? that's part of it)

So, people do it, because that's what evolved from the particular historical and political context to allow "ownership" of an apartment in a building. There's noting "natural" about condominiums, they needed specific legislation to make them possible in the USA too.

In the context of council estates specifically, well there's a bunch more historical and political context. Land ownership and tenure is a social and political construct, it isn't "naturally" any particular way, it turns out.
Ah, good times.
Back when most games didn't have mac versions (before everyone used unity/unreal/godot), this was a real boon for me. I have since moved to windows but I still appreciate the effort.
R.I.P. that venice instagib server that I played the hell out of as a teenager.
Unless they decide to cat-and-mouse: issue a new one.
You are right, for a c programmer this is bread and butter. The readability of the example would increase a lot with better named variables, however.
I just checked it out, and it only had one server with a meaningful amount of people, but that one server was still fun!
Reminds me of how pedos were using the blur tool, and by using the unblur tool there you go, haha.

Still cool edge case.
I'd add to that list:

- At the time Olsen made that statement VMS had shareable libraries (DLLs), and none of the several Unixes I used did. The system administrator had to manually enable sharing of their code pages between processes if you wanted that, but they were there.

- The indexed files mentioned above were called ISAM. There were also utilities to reindex them, and load and save them to flat files with fixed column sizes; since that was the common way data was held in those days, it would be like having automatic conversion to and from JSON, XML and CSV now. At extra cost, there was a SQL-like query language, just different enough from IBM's SQL language not to get sued.

- The compilers were far ahead of Unix's. The FORTRAN77 had a lot of IBM extensions, so scientists could just compile their existing programs. It also had keyword extensions to work with the ISAM files. Later on, a newer and better Pascal came out, as well as an Ada.

- Terminal handling was handled by the kernel, in contrast to Unix where applications went off and read /etc/termcap and the user had to babysit eval tset in their dotfiles. If a command line program was nonresponsive, the input was queued instead of being half-duplex interleaved with program output as Unix still does it.

- The symbolic debugger was far ahead of Unix's adb.
Sorry I got the ordering of replies confused?

If you agree with pc86, this is what the problem is:
"It is often confused with oil depletion; however, whereas depletion refers to a period of falling reserves and supply, peak oil refers to the point of maximum production."

We need to come to an agreement on the word peak oil? I'd rather use a written source, like the Wikipedia article mentioned way up this thread.
Yeah, I think it depends, for high-interaction web apps and games it's fine, but for content based sites it's very unnecessary and hurts accessibility.
Oh wow, wasn't expecting that. Guess I'd better build the portable release as well.
This person clearly stated they weren't speculating, and any long time HN user could tell that they were likely credible and not a troll account. At least that's my take, that's why it would be good to hear from dang why this was buried.
Correct, gossipy comments from throwaway accounts do not have any credibility. Being apparently correct in this instance doesn't change that.
It is a first-person shooter game. It has been around since the mid-2000s.
Wait for a TCP port to come up or wait for a HTTP healthcheck to succeed. I think it's exactly the sort of things that should be supported by the tool out of the box. It's a very common need.

The job of the tool is to manage a bunch of containers that depend on one another and restart them on failure. The tool has to know about dependencies and liveness anyway.
I think (1) potentially has a place for cases where it’s supposed to be background music that you wouldn’t really pay attention to (but shouldn’t repeat).

It’s pretty easy to take a style of music and produce something that sort of goes round and round modulating into different keys and so forth without actually going anywhere in particular.

But what you’re really doing is composing a parameterised piece of music and the randomly substituting parameters as you play it. This is what people are doing in real-life with things like cocktail piano anyway. If you can’t compose to begin with then you don’t stand a chance, however.
Appstore distribution seems a simple problem compared to becoming a payment provider. Payment infrastructure is a lot more complex and difficult to implement, and it also needs integrations.
BBC or random on twitter? Who to trust?
So I hate to use the word I'm about to use, because of the modern connotations associated with it, but it does apply here.

There are billions of people who are abused by their government, who cannot trust their government, who's local money is debased by their government at a whim. You are privileged (there's that word) to have a government that you feel you can trust to control the value of your savings and your purchasing power. You do not see the value proposition because there is not much of one for you. Cryptocurrency doesn't exist for you. It exists for the people who do need it. And again, there are billions of people who need it, as much as half the world's population, possibly more.
Element public roadmap
Isn't it expected that as scientists understand their field in greater depth, they make less mistakes and their papers would be closer to the truth and be rejected less?

It's not like many of these fields are just starting up.
Rather than inventing a completely new peer-to-peer protocol, I would have liked it more if they had worked on smaller improvements of git itself, that would reduce the need for platforms like github.

For example, integrating the bug tracker into the git repo. That would be very useful, since it’s one of the most important reasons people use github at all.
Somehow the BBS was so much easier to connect to than your bookstore LAN is today. No TOR required, just a modem and a phone line.
I had a .com domain lapse while I was in hospital a couple of years ago, and The hijackers wanted $20,000 to sell it back to me. I don’t know what planet they were from, but it is a name that would be useful to literally only five or ten people at most. I just waited a year or so and then bought it back when it became available again for the more sane $10. Somebody is paying these idiots or else they would not be up to that sort of rubbish.
The police, just like when you use cash for commerce and someone scams you.
Hindsight is 20-20, but looking back it seems clear they were credible and correct, which is why I just wonder if dang could explain why they were flagged. Were moderators involved? Was any attempt made to verify? Or was it just lost in a sea of comments flagged daily (I don't know, not sure how the backend works here).
Art of War: Appear weak when you are strong.

IME, it's plausible that nation/state strat pertinent to QC advances is to hide the true extent of cutting edge breakthroughs. This makes sense considering what's at stake. China is suspected to engage in bioengineering for their soldiers and it's not a stretch to speculate they also seek such synthetic advantages with their vast armies of engineers and scientists. This would lay fertile ground for secret breakthroughs in, e.g., QC.

I assume that both China and USA/fyev seek to obtain secret radical advances in key areas such as QC. The urgency for adopting quantum resistant crypto suggests such concerns might be shared by powers that be. QC breakthroughs are unpredictable, so the smart move is to assume the enemy could make secret advances at any time.
Yes, the anonymous account certainly did claim to know for sure.
The lang attribute added to the span tag in HTML really helps with ensuring that a screenreader outputs quoted foreign-language text in that language, instead of just pronouncing gibberish. And this tag and attribute go pretty far back into the 1990s, it is not part of the modern-web-gone-mad. So, similar markup is one of those little things that Gemini should have thought about from the very beginning, and it would not have made their stack appreciably more complex.
If you plug the powercable in the usb-c on the right the laptop gets less hot so the fans make less noise.
Traffic Cataclysm Review: Making Money Online Made Easy System
The clear answer is to use pixelated lorem ipsum for obfuscation. :)
HDR10 isn’t really “HDR”. You want at least HDR600.

Anything else, in my opinion, is like selling LTE as “5Ge”.
It’s ARM64, so why would they be needed? I imagine Mach-O doesn’t differ significantly when the arch changes.
It is easier to carry cryptocurrency than gold while fleeing from armed men.
> but the key problem is dealing with older operating systems that either don't have the correct root certificate, or don't have support for either the SHA-1 or ECDSA protocols that are used in the process of verifying a certificate.

Say what now? Pretty sure sha-1 support for certs is much older than android 7.
Digital Transformation Has Too Much Baggage
Might not be so bad. Firefox uses its internal certificate store, and Chrome will have its own certificate store soon as well.
But if it's already good enough to cool the pi at max load why go and make it ugly too?
Flagging is a user action, not something mods do, and I don't see why mods should have overridden that here. It's obviously always possible that strong claims that are impossible to confirm quickly turn out to be true, that doesn't mean we should let them always stand as if they are true in such circumstances.

EDIT: and usual hint, the most reliable way to get an answer from dang is emailing him.
This article has some errors which are unfortunate.

> From the start, Let's Encrypt used a top-level certificate (known as a CA Root) that was signed by ISRG Root X1 and cross-signed by IdenTrust

Their "top-level" root is in fact ISRG Root X1. This was not cross-signed by IdenTrust (that wouldn't be impossible, several popular CAs took this approach, but ISRG, the people behind Let's Encrypt, did not).

The CAs which were cross-signed were the Let's Encrypt intermediates (sometimes called subCAs), so far these have been named Let's Encrypt Authority X1, X2, X3 and X4 and now just R3 and R4 (the name has to be sent over the wire every time you connect anywhere, and just "R3" is fewer bytes than "Let's Encrypt Authority R3")

[ Why are there intermediates? Well, an issuing CA has to be connected, albeit not directly, to the public Internet. That's obviously not the most secure situation conceivable. To protect the roots they can't be kept online, they usually live in dedicated hardware modules used only for relatively rare ceremonies like creating a new intermediate. Then the intermediates are kept online. If anything goes wrong it's relatively painless to distrust a mere intermediate, whereas distrusting a root causes massive disruption ]

Let's Encrypt provide a handy diagram:

https://letsencrypt.org/certificates/

Anyway, what changes in January is not anything about the certificates you actually get from Let's Encrypt. Not one byte. What changes is essentially metadata, starting in January the Let's Encrypt backend system will by default stop giving subscribers a chain of certificates that proves this can be traced back to Identrust's DST Root CA X3, and instead give you a chain that traces back to ISRG Root X1.

Your certificate is the same either way, for most people it will say it was issued by R3 (the shorter name I mentioned above, began being used at the start of December so many Let's Encrypt users haven't got a certificate from R3 yet but will do so automatically when next renewing). What changes is the accompanying certificate for R3 itself, there are two versions of that certificate.

If you need to service clients which don't yet trust ISRG Root X1 you can (tell your software to) continue to request the other version of R3 that's signed by Identrust's "DST Root CA X1" until later in 2021 when that expires.

But there is no change to the actual end subscriber "leaf" certificate and that's a mistake in the linked article.

I thought we might see a HN link for Let's Encrypt new intermediate R3 going live in the middle of the week, but we didn't. So I guess that means it went so well that nobody even noticed.
I looked at using this for a game years ago but it didn't fit my needs at the time as well as some other engines. I liked what they did, though. The comments in here are a great legacy for it, my goal with my next game is to have similar comments years from now.
I meant that's an awful function. I never, ever, ever have a single letter identifier. So I can't respond yet.
for me it seemed:

- they stopped evolving the Dockerfile. Really this is the complexity killer that developers just "get".

(also they wouldn't have their entire API cloned if they were moving it forward)

- they subtly force everything through docker hub and conveniently forgot to do something like let people have a local repo. (redhat lets you define a local repo with --add-registry)

- telemetry. I went to install it on macos and it started collecting telemetry the moment I launched the installer.
Without the Javascript:

curl -s https://roarmag.org/essays/win-back-the-internet/|

grep -o "<p>.*</p>" > 1.htm

firefox ./1.htm
Tour of the element roadmap from a couple of days ago https://youtu.be/qnHAAkY2Cx0
Since one of the major audiences is emerging economies, what happens if one of them goes to war with another? Can one side get their superpower patrons to order Diem to freeze the accounts of the other?
Cyberpunk 2077 has involved months of crunch, despite past promises
> When you start instructing landowners what to do with their property

Nowhere is anyone instructing anyone else. Requiring landowners to internalize the opportunity costs they externalize onto everyone else is not unreasonable.

> If land owners should be taxed for owning land they don’t use

They should be taxed for land period, whether they're using it or not, since all land ownership inherently entails the externalization of opportunity costs on everyone else. And if they're using it for something productive, they'll have a much easier time paying that tax.

> we should also have a child tax

That's already built into a land value tax. Land's value - like the value of anything else - is a function of supply and demand. The supply of land is fixed, and demand is a function of population (more people in the world = more people needing places to live and work and play = more demand for land). So, as more humans enter the world, the value of land goes up, and therefore so does the tax on that land's value.

> people who own property don’t contribute to suburbs and rural sprawl.

They literally do, be it by owning the land encompassing that sprawl or by owning the land within urban centers and refusing to develop it into denser residential spaces. This is the mathematical reality. If you want a reduction in humanity's carbon footprint, a land value tax is one of the most effective levers to drive that reduction.
They also announced the LET expression which helps a bit with the formatting problem - https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/excel-blog/let-names-...
> probably because kubernetes creators had experience from running an actual production system before viz. Borg

I think Red Hat deserve a lot of credit for being early to package and productionise Kubernetes.
Happy 100th Birthday to the Great Dave Brubeck
it’s a childish distraction, and a testament to the demise of the org
"If she can do that and do it in a positive way then I think an Internet forum could do it too. "

You just compared an Internet forum to a grieving mother.

Not the right comparison by a longshot.

Allowing a publication run by professional journalists ( they follow a code of ethics) to share news is slightly better than internet forum participants to share their opinions on such a sensitive topic.
no one on here has credibility due to the anonymous nature of this site.
I felt this during the big injectable estrogen shortage of 2019. Ended up begging an ex for some of their vial because I couldn't get my Rx filled anywhere.
So they are going to hide their breakthroughs by announcing their breakthroughs?
This is a valid concern, but what do you say to the current system that does not prevent all kinds of fraud. Perhaps even rampant with it. An easy search will show you that large regulated institutions participate and engage in fraud at all levels of their institution. Why is it that crypto must bear a larger burden of scrutiny against the status quo?

I believe that fraud is easier to identify and financially punish on public blockchains. Exchanges and other entities already have the ability to blacklist an address's assets and prevent them from off-ramping into fiat ms being used in future transfers. Businesses exist today to prevent payments of blacklisted assets.
Compared to cash, blockchain based cryptoassets have more choice in enforcement against fraud. Also, crypto assets can be seen by all publicly on chain. It fairly easy to trace the work of cryptoasset fraudsters
Right, it's "ridiculous" to point out that the very premise of that "genuine" concern is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how land ownership works in pretty much every common law jurisdiction (the US included) because... reasons.
In those dark times before the internet, we searched for the limit to how many books one could read in a lifetime.

We never found it.
The article has quite a few mistakes. Nobody issues with SHA-1 any more, haven't for several years. It's almost all SHA-256 and at Let's Encrypt I believe it always has been because SHA-1 deprecation was already well underway before they span up Let's Encrypt so it would have made no sense to implement that only to immediately rip it back out.
I've been playing around with trying to arbitrarily quantify perceived intellect.

Here's my working formula at the moment:

`P = A * SUM([B * C * TopicA] + [B * C * TopicB] + [B * C * TopicC] [...])`

Where:

P = Perceived intellect

A = Coefficient that measures the ability to connect different concepts

B = Depth of knowledge of a topic

C = Ability to break down topic into concepts

The people I perceive to be smart come up with logically-sound answers to questions they don't know the answer to, based on past knowledge.

If I ask `what is X?`, they say `I don't know what X is, but based on Y and Z, it might be ...`

So if you're trying to identify if this person can come off as smart, perhaps a tactic could be asking them a question about a domain they are not an expert in.
I guess they meant SHA-256?
We should teach philosophy in schools (2019)
There is no shortcut to these things. You have to work through some textbooks, doing the problems. The Feynman Lectures on Physics are great, and they are free online. These three volumes will give you a good overview and a taste of what is beautiful and exciting about physics.
No. I was using Netscape in the 90s. Somewhere, Netscape published a new version that was very buggy. I switched to IE because it was way more stable. And never come back.

Same thing for MS Word vs Wordperfect and Excel vs Lotus 123.
> In the concrete version, the code says that every Zero in the arguments should be un-vanished into 0.0 before doing the calculation; I am assuming that the generic multiply will be monomorphized, the concrete result expressions will be inlined, and constant propagation will turn expressions involving the Zero arguments back into no-ops.

Did you actually test whether this happens? If I understand correctly, you want to rely on the optimizer constant-folding multiplications with zero to zero. But strict IEEE floating point conformance notoriously does not allow collapsing multiplication with zero to zero (consider NaNs and infinities), or addition of zero to be a no-op (consider signed zeros).

Example:

https://godbolt.org/z/cGv17o

That also affects the overall goal, seeing as the type-level optimizations do assume the above properties. This means that you will get different results in certain edge cases than a "naive" implementation that always stores 16 floating point values for each multivector (and that's before getting to things like non-associativity of floating point operations).