skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> why the total RDOF grant closed at only $9 billion instead of the anticipated $16 billion

It closed low because SpaceX placed a bid in a ton of territorries that were expected to be monopoly single-bid areas. In the ones SpaceX didn't win, the winning bid was nonetheless forced lower by their competitive bid. The ILECs are furious. No pity, they can eat a bag.

Over the course of the next year the winners need to submit detailed plans for their networks to the FCC, including (for the first time ever) the "oversell" ratio (i.e. how many customers with "1gbit service" are sharing a 10gbit backhaul). So it could be up to a year before we find out exactly what sort of service each ISP is claiming fits into the performance+latency tiers they bid for.

The FCC did lay down some hard rules though: (1) no DSL technologies allowed in the "gigabit" tier and (2) no geosynchronous or medium-earth-orbit satellites in the "low latency" tier. SpaceX is classified as low-earth-orbit.
The version of PUF I’ve read about in a decade or so ago was you make a cryptographic chip, except you leave the key field blank, but let manufacturing variances “generate” the key by itself, and mathematically declare that it is so impossibly unlikely that two of its examples end up having the same bit patterns.

IIRC major challenges included ensuring and proving randomness, stability of bit patterns over time, and general longevity of the whole chip.

The alternative to it is to just generate the key and write it at some point in the chip production line, and that’s generally considered good enough, so...
I agree.

It is ok that my comment above is downvoted but It would nice to hear any counter arguments (it is hard for me to imagine a passionate programmer who can't learn English).
The thing with English grammar is that it's very malleable. And exception-ridden. In this particular case, the specificity of what you're describing is important as well.

> absolutely have to be in this order: opinion-size-age-shape-colour-origin-material-purpose Noun. So you can have a lovely little old rectangular green French silver whittling knife

For instance, "An expensive, peaty fifteen year old Scotch" is a potential counter-example, because [fifteen year old scotch] is the specific item you're talking about.

"Barman, a peaty large|double Scotch for me please" would also be a counterexample, I think, because the key here is that you want a [large|double Scotch]. Large and Double are both size descriptors for a bar drink in different parts of the world.

And I'm not seeing why "I received a hand-painted wooden Native-American jewellery box as a present" would somehow be wrong, if I wanted to emphasize the origin, over "I received a hand-painted Native-American wooden jewellery box as a present".
But enough about you. There are a lot of places where people aren’t exposed to English-spoken media even if they might consume American media (dubbing in particular).
Where is the point where you should be able to protect your interests against nameless huge entities?

Is it based on your flat income or on how many times the cost of your labor they make off you?
Why is age vaguer than colour?
The article's thesis can be summed up as "low-code and other UI development trends (eg, non-2D) are taking over, but there will be plenty of opportunities for UI developers if they adapt".

However I find the premise that low-code is taking over highly questionable. It may be for some use cases, but they will likely remain just a small slice of the pie in the big picture.

Judging by the amount of job offers alone, React is also taking over - to the chagrin of some, and the delight of others -, yet React is anything but low-code.

We all know the limitations of low-code solutions too: they're good up until a certain point, they make you feel like an utter genius for the speed at which you are shipping, causing nods of approval and high fives all-around.

That is, until you want to stray out of the trodden path: then you wish you hadn't adopted them in the first place, and that behemoth of a React or Angular app you shipped last year suddenly elicits the nostalgia of a long-lost lover with all its shortcomings and misgivings.

So it is hard to believe that the next 10 years will see the decline of custom UI 2D development, or anything close to it. I'd wager if anything low-code will be another tool in the developer's toolbox, and shipping great products at speed will mean carefully architecting them to mix and match the best of both worlds. On the other hand, I predict that those going all-guns-blazing on no-code will encounter some unpleasant surprises at best, and in the worst cases will see spectacular project implosions.

Such has been the history of radical cost-cutting and time-saving measures in software engineering in the last 30 years (outsourcing, low-code itself, etc.). And so it goes...
The 10 scripting examples video in the article states that to increase your chance of winning the game, you need to have the best players on your team. Apparently there's some online market where players can be bought and sold. The theory is that EA makes players lose, so they feel more incentives to spend money to buy stronger players.

I saw the video, but I have to say I am not wholly convinced of their argument. For example 1 of the "scripting examples" show a ball going through a goalkeepers' hands. In my opinion the game could have already decided that the player would shoot inside the goal (partially using RNG) and perhaps the rendering messed up a bit when the goalkeeper was jumping towards the ball. I am not sure if this is solid proof of so-called "scripting". Other examples can't really convince me either.
> Plus, there is no way I will install a proprietary banking app.

I'm glad that you found a problem for your solution.
What do those prior charges against her have to do with whether or not she's a whistleblower in this specific case? Nothing.

> Giving details of someone's previous publicly available criminal record isn't a "personal attack".

It is when it's irrelevant information tacked on just just to give an impression that her account of what happened here is untrustworthy. If you had left that sentence off and not mentioned her prior charges, would anything about the rest of your comment have needed to change? What were you trying to accomplish by bringing up unrelated prior charges other than to impugn her character?

> I outlined the facts that we have available, which seem to show she wasn't.

Eh... let's not go overboard here. You linked 2 relevant articles, one of which is largely sympathetic to Jones' account, and one of which is an opinion piece that devolves into the same personal attacks in your own comment.

Then to drive home the point of how important you thought her prior charges were, you linked a 3rd article that's only talking about those charges and nothing else.
I love how the US government, having long been very anti-collectivisation themselves, are now attacking firms for this behaviour. That should tell you how powerful private corporations have become.
Rather silly question - perhaps someone can help:

I get a mechanic to repair my car; he charges me for labour, and VAT (20%) on top. The VAT he charges me, he pays that to the Government.

I render my services as a software engineer, and I must pay income tax (~40%), and not VAT.

How's my income different to the mechanic's income w.r.t. the kind of tax we pay? Or does the mechanic also pays income tax additionally?
By that metric no one can in the west, compared to the third world countries we all do well.
Is that legal in the US? Wow.
Do they agree, though? And will you want your kids that far away when you are old?
Best Blogs to Keep a Close Eye on the Forex Market
What does everyone think of the idea that there is an 80/20 rule in play for Coronavirus? Specifically, 80% of the infections come from 20% of the infected. I’ve heard some hearsay about it, but nothing conclusive; I was hoping someone knew either way.
This illustrates that we teach languages "wrong" or rather that we don't take advantage of the innate part of the brain that children use to learn their primary language.

My pet theory is that it isn't a decline of brain ability but rather a psychological shift: Adults expect results, get frustrated more quickly, can't tolerate speaking "silly" for long etc.
Exactly, all you really need is a fresh cup of really hot tea
Also it'so easy to start making new components dependent on the store, and ending with reusability.
Google has a lot of employees and contractors and the ones trying to unionize are neither the smartest nor the highest paid. That you describe the most profitable monopoly in America as "highly benevolent" from a 48 minute old account is also hilarious.
> A sort of learned sociopathy if you will.

Maybe a good description for Ivy League MBA degrees? :)
I'm glad you enjoy our dystopian world.
Sex is like a game of Bridge. If you don't have a good partner, then you'd better have a strong hand.
Talking about karma makes for boring reading too.
Serves them right for hiring political activists in engineering, research and policy positions
If you have a law and a politician seems to be breaking it, then the usual answer is to have a prosecutor to look into it.

Politician also have what is called a position of trust, so in addition to legal enforcement there could also be a vote at that political level to remove said politician.

In addition, I would imagine that encouraging people to drink water poisoned with lead can put that politician in legal liability if anyone got sick.

I will add that the US has a odd legal system which potentially give the president permission to ignore laws. The best way to fix that is to remove that exclusive protection, and if its a constitutional problem, fix the constitution.
Ask HN: Was 20% time a good policy for Google's working culture?
I know the policy doesn't really exist anymore, but I still like the idea a lot in principle (for large and financially secure startups, say 1k developers and up). Just wondering what Xooglers and others think about it.
It's not legal in the U.S., where union organizing is protected under law. The beginning of the article says:

"Google unlawfully fired employees for attempting to organise a union, a US federal agency has said.

A complaint filed by the US National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) alleged that Google unlawfully monitored and questioned its employees about their union activity."
Are all of Google's employees the smartest and the highest paid people on Earth? Wikipedia says that there's about 114 000 Google employees.
It takes like a week of posting articles to get to 500 karma. I've done it 12 times now which means if I want to, I can make anyone's comment instantly go dead. But they are imaginary points so don't care too much
The disconcerting part is that right here in this thread the Americans are still arguing as if this is a battle with two teams, one of which wins, the other loses.

So here's the thing.

The US [social media] corporations have to lose. Simply because we already found out years ago, that ethics doesn't scale. UNLESS they solve this problem, this simply means that they OUGHT not to exist, at that scale.

The American people are of course inevitably coming out as the losers too, because of the gigantic inequalities, and the corporate capitalist culture grazing on the weak.

So it's lose/lose. Everything's broken. GLHF
> And the schools are not closed right now because of the fear that younger children are going to get the virus. Schools are closed because teachers are (rightly) concerned about getting the virus

Schools in the UK have been open since September. Typically if there's a positive case then they isolate and typically their closest contacts isolate, if there's more than one then the entire class isolates.

There's no evidence that teachers are any more likely to die from covid than many other essential workers who aren't working from home.

There's no evidence that these vaccines stop spread, so there's little point in prioritising vaccination of children who - even if they did catch covid - are practically immune. Same with the majority of teachers. Makes far more sense to vaccinate older people who are at serious risk (with IFR in the 5, 10, 15% range) - then they don't need to worry about the kids bringing the virus home.
That sounds pretty cool. Do you get a choice of what kind of project you want to contribute to?
The main reason is that most homicides are not the fancy middle class pre meditated murder type of crime as seen on TV but are often related to other criminal activities and with low evidence. This means that any witnesses are likely going to be within that world of not speaking to the police and any evidence in a gang killing for example, will be of low quality.

But it also matters what we mean by "solved" too.
On Undoing, Fixing, or Removing Commits in Git
Synthetic event system + render decoupling. Preact uses the event system of the platform (browser) and only renders to it (there's no react native support).

Anyway we are using it at prod and allowed us to reduce our bundle sizes ;)
Depends on the country. In some places it ended way into the 80s.
What does this have to do with the fact that the majority of old people in USA live alone because they are left alone?

Are you saying that most elderly have no family or kids?

And why people with no family or kids should live in solitude?

I have no kids, for example.

Family is not built on blood alone.

A good chunk of what I call family is formed by people who had no family, lost everything during the ww2 and are not my blood relatives.

I simply said that a community that cares about its members is not a pastoral, there are place where it's still the way they live.

The community can be a group of houses in the Italian country in the middle of nowhere.
> You want to vaccinate people most likely to spread it. Who that is, I'm not sure.

Not when your vaccine isn't proven to stop spread.
Firefox seems to never return any memory if you close tabs. My workaround for Firefox is using cgroups and limit memory for Firefox there, then it will not swap trash on my 24GB RAM system. Also every couple of weeks I restart it to reclaim the memory, or faster if needed.
On the other hand, we are today daily using tools that 20 years ago certainly was studied as AI, such as speech recognition and image classification. Maybe they are not using general artificial intelligence to do it, but I think that is beside the point. They are accomplishing something that used to be thought to require some kind of intelligence to accomplish. But as soon we succeed with one of these tasks, the magic disappears among the practitioners, and the goalpost for what is allowed to be called AI is moved. Our understanding what intelligence really is, is very vague to begin with, so what’s wrong with calling progress in machine learning AI even after we actually succeeded with something?
Who chooses the model, metrics and data?
> I find it almost beyond belief that someone with a [supposedly] large amount of experience in software development would to think that allowing clients to implement UI themselves is a good idea.

It's not at all strange as there are many different types of UIs that have to be built.

I think what the author is thinking about is the typical CRUD applications that many businesses need and that are only built in-house, where the UI matters less than in consumer software, and the UX is still important but as long as it's changable, could be done by the users themselves.

I feel like the UI you're thinking about is the one for consumer software, where you're innovating on some solution for a particular problem, and the UI/UX of the tool is probably the most important thing, otherwise people won't pick up the tool in the first place.

If you look at the output of many software agencies, most of what they are producing is simple CRUD applications (and some startups do this too, I guess) which probably could be built by the users themselves, if it's basic enough. While the output of the ones building B2C software is slightly more complex and requires more thoughts behind it to even work out.
Anyone who thinks a game with microtransactions isn't designed to push you towards buying them is a fool. And I don't mean only what EA is doing. They affect any game's design when they are present.

Just. Avoid. Them.
1) Yes you can include it as the default or optional search engine.

2) We used to have an add URL page but a significant proportion of the submissions were spam. We will look into ways genuine submissions could be accepted as lots of people have asked for this.

3) We do, docs can be found at: https://www.mojeek.com/support/api/search/
Not if it's built into the communication platform you happen to be using. Just one or a few basic indicators to give you even the slightest bit of information about who wrote what you're reading. Just a simple "p = 0.03 US resident" or an aggregate trust score based on a combination of social graph connectivity and spam reports or something. Sure, people could intentionally ignore it, but right now there's no indicator to be had even if you want it!

To be clear, I'm not talking about present day clunky GPG web of trust with key signing parties and all that. I'm talking about a hypothetical (ie as yet nonexistent) magical web of trust that somehow doesn't destroy your privacy in the process of being used. (It's not as crazy as it sounds - we already have zero knowledge proofs, blinded encryption, and various other privacy preserving cryptographic schemes.)
Unions do more than just negotiate wages and benefits. I imagine some of these other functions may be desirable to Google employees
The problem is that now we have weapons of mass information distraction.
Somehow syncing Github was not part of the onboarding process? You might want to add it to make it easier to get started.

I guess I'm too used to StackOverflow's UI - will be hard to switch!

But funny that a Pioneer company is building a dev version of the startup that got Daniel Gross into YC :)
Yes, I wouldn't touch this. Any willing victims out there who can give us a review? ;)
This is cool! Simple and solves a real problem. Good job!
FBI agents work for the FBI
I also like the fact that you can still send even when the device is turned off.
I did. Thank you.
Hard to believe, but true - because it didn't outcompete other alleles, it was just in the right place at the right time, as has been carefully documented:

https://twitter.com/ballouxfrancois/status/13316691180015370...

Still, assuming that massive success is due to competitive advantage rather than random chance is extremely on-brand for HN.
Previous discussions:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25278781

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25290009
If you think that this isn't censorship, then I strongly encourage you to read Manufacturing Consent.
Yes. I think learning rules is mostly helpful to bootstrap you enough to be able to pick things up naturally, and to enable you to use dictionaries and analyse your mistakes.
People love convenience too much. Look at what Gmail has done to mailto.
The two that are conflated according to this author: Machine intelligence in general, and A specific bundle of technologies.

But the goal is specifically to conflate these two, isn't it? If I create a machine that beats a chess grandmaster, does it matter whether or not the machine "knows" how to play chess? If I create an app that takes you to a great restaurant for the mood you're in, does it matter whether or not it understands "mood" or "restaurant"? At some point, the stringing together of specific bundles of technologies becomes indistinguishable to the average person from real intelligence. (This probably happens far, far sooner for the average person than it does tech folks and researchers)

At that point, we've created something that for a specific domain _is_ intelligent: it reasons about things in an internal way that is opaque to us and provides what we perceive to be interactive value. Then, that thing just becomes another bundled to be assembled in an even larger chain. True AGI would be able to create and assemble the bundles.

But even then, the same end-state occurs: at some point whatever we're calling AGI will be able to do things with bundles of technologies that we perceive to provide interactive value. Will it matter at that point whether or not the machine is "truly" intelligent? (Apologies for the scare quotes, but many of these terms are quite suspect in this conversation and are used in all sorts of ways by authors)

To put it bluntly, the goal of AI work is to do cool stuff for reasons we're not exactly sure about. Otherwise it'd just be programming. We are using a lot of programming tools, like NN, to do this. At some point, various groups will fake themselves out and stop working in that area. Whether or not that's intelligence or not, whether or not anything new will ever happen in that field, is beside the point and not in the (commercial) scope of work. Aside from all the formal work and really cool stuff happening, in the end, when it gets used somewhere, this is a "looks good enough to me" situation. We're not looking to create intelligence, we're looking to create an uber-duber supreme version of Eliza for some given problem. The we find other, more complex and interesting problems. Then if we need to we'll join them together (There is a lot of detail that I have ignored, including how GANs play into my argument)
What I find most interesting about these situations - and they've happened in google before - is that the employees are almost always fired for 'security breaches'. Is it a huge coincidence that the employees who want to unionise happen to always be breaching security, or is google just stretching the definition of security breach?

One could even say that their need to breach protocol to unionise is a violation on google's part in the first place. It should be incredibly easy to unionise.
The problem with IPv6 is that it's a fundamentally flawed design. Which looks easier to input / dictate over the phone / write down somewhere? 220.12.30.01 or 2001:cdba:0000:0000:0000:0000:3257:9652?
> 1) 3.4% of people who catch it die every year, and life changes

Why do you think the IFR will increase by a factor of almost 7?
FTA:

> Oranchak, a 46-year-old web designer who lives in Virginia, has been working on the Zodiac’s codes since 2006.

The YouTube video you linked (disclaimer: I did not watch it) appears to be by the very same author, David (Dave) Oranchak.
It's survival bias in that we don't know about the criminals that get away with stuff, only the ones we catch.

Most burglaries and robberies are performed close to where the criminal lives. They are mostly opportunistic crimes done criminals with no thought at the time of what they are doing and no fear of the consequences.

The stereotypical version of that is the drug addict doing anything to get money for their fix, but generally it's associated with not very smart people who do stuff and do not fear the consequences.
@modeeators so it is now ok to offend people and blame the poor?

Even if I was poor, which is not a shame outside of the US, I live near the Colosseum in an historical buildings older than the USA, so I think I'm ok.

I hope Apple pays you, it would be sad to know that you really believe what you say...
Maybe you just don't know? The simple fact that some people want to unionize shows your picture may differ from reality.

I know some people at lower levels (blurring, moderating) being laid off just before one year just because they don't want to consider them as full blown employees.
Pedantry over rules that do not actually reflect the way native speakers speak is bad.
This is likely a Google PR account. They could act smarter and be less obvious. It is almost insulting.
Singapore is essentially an extremely well-run, technocratic police state.

Lovely place, but I definitely wouldn't want to live there.