skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>I'm not sure splitting off the crawler would have the effect you want it to. Crawling is hard, but actually one of the easier parts of building a search engine. There are less complete, but still pretty impressive public crawls available already, like Common Crawl.

When they saw crawler they don't mean Googlebot or something.

They mean the whole thing you've described, the search engine as a backend.

What the law proposes is that other companies should be able to just buy the search engine service from a new company split from Google, of which Google which will just be just another client.

>I don't see a good way to split indexing out as a separate company from the rest of the search engine. It's tightly integrated with ranking.

The idea is to split the whole search part from Google. Let them have the ad business, Android and so on, and just rent the search from the spin-off company...
Let us say the internet was created 50 years ago, and Facebook decided to eradicate all homosexual content. Perhaps, not even maliciously but as collateral damage for another goal. Would it have been as shocking or obviously bad?
I'm ok banning emotional appeals in advertising. Would be great to include political ads. No music, no triggering words, just cold hard facts please.
Prometheus is not easy to run at scale on the storage side.
Nope, the -E has to do with the "trap" command. This example happily echoes "hello" to stdout:

#!/bin/bash
set -euE -o pipefail
FOO=/this/does/not/exist
foo() {
cd "$FOO"
echo hello
}

if foo; then true; fi
I don't know about jessaustin's claims, but it definitely isn't beyond a US government agency to attack its own personnel:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiki_Camarena
Hilarious build-time dependencies. You need Perl and Go and a C++ toolchain to build a Rust library!
I disagree with this characterization of "well-regulated;" the relevant Federalist goes into detail on how a state could organize its militia. Simply giving people the capacity to show up with guns is not what the preamble means.

Still, I think the rememdy is to amend it out if it is no longer useful; I agree with the plain interpretation that the right is an individual right, not a state right. The preamble can be part of a rational argument for the 2nd Amendment's lack of utility toward the end of repealing it; the argument can start with something like "The Second Amendment's preamble gives justification to its inclusion in the Constitution. That justification clearly doesn't apply to the modern world because modern civil defense looks nothing like what the Founders envisioned. It's time to ask whether the Second Amendment places contortions on proper regulation of deadly weapons that hinder a free and happy society in the 21st century."
Yea I have gains to offset, good idea to try and donate to charity thanks
---“SNES” and “Super Nintendo” are trademarks of Nintendo Co Ltd. This is a hobby project and completely unassociated with Nintendo.---

But I think Nintendo would gladly like to accept your suggestions :-)
Ask HN: Experiences with Open University?
The Open University look like an interesting idea to me, particularly the "Open Degree" that allows you to select you courses and curate your degree.

However, there are some oddities about it, particularly for non-UK students. And, I occasionally hear from people who attended in the past that quality has dropped over the years and its not as good anymore.

How many people here have participated in an OU program recently? Where were you from and what sort of degree did you pursue. Was it worth it given the price and quality?

Additionally how is the credential viewed in general? I understand it s a legitimate university in the UK, but something about a degree with very little to no academic admission requirements seems like a bad idea.
I'll grant you that Bay Area zoning is fucked up. That's under local jurisdiction, though: the state keeps trying to override local zoning requirements to build more housing and keeps getting shot down at the ballot box.

My sister lives in Houston (well, Sugarland technically), so I'm well acquainted with the metro area. It's a very different lifestyle. The housing stock in the Bay Area is uniquely terrible - most of it is 3BR Eichlers that were mass-produced in the 60s. But people don't spend all that much time indoors. Pre-COVID, my wife and I were out every weekend to museums, hiking, the beach, picnics, restaurants, etc. There are 4 parks within walking distance of my home, 2 commercial downtowns, then the mountains are 5 minutes away, the beach 20, SF 30, SJC 30, the Bay 5, etc. And the weather cooperates - it's a consistent 70 and sunny for 8 months out of the year. Meanwhile, my sister's place is 50% larger for a quarter of the price - but it better be, because it's 100 degrees with sweltering humidity for 8 months out of the year. They need to take a highway onramp to get anywhere. They have no friends, because everyone they meet is so far away. Downtown Houston is a little different (my sister went to Rice, Rice Village is pretty nice), but also a completely different story in terms of housing prices - you start seeing million dollar homes once you get to the downtown areas of Houston.

Different strokes for different folks. We could've purchased my sister's house for cash at the time they bought it. I floated the idea by my wife, and she was like "But then we'd have to live in Houston!"
Last week I found a bug where if I could go back in time 6 months, I'd go back and slap myself silly.
I haven't, I was trying to work it out with the finance department and leadership first but they will not buy back the stock OR take it back for free.
2020 is coming to a close. In a couple of weeks we will have the final tally for the year. This is good because we can then compare it to other years in total. I suggest you check the all cause excess mortality figure. It's already been projected to be essentially the same. This is a really good metric to evaluate the threat level.

Here's a nice graph of deaths per month per millon for a nearly 200 year perspective:
https://swprs.org/facts-about-covid-19/#foobox-1/3/sweden-mo...
My guess is that the existance of Neverware Chrome OS prevents Google from making certain changes to Chrome OS, and that buying out Neverware eliminates that obstacle.
They refused that too unfortunately.
Some people seem to physically resist arrest more than others. That's really not a smart thing to do, and leads to related stats like that.
To the brain, reading computer code is not the same as reading language
> This article seems to point out why TikTok is widly successful:

Yes! 2.5 years later it seems obvious, since TikTok solves this problem by avoiding a newsfeed focus and just showing people whatever makes them happy and keeps them engaged, no matter the source.

The business motivation aligns much more closely with the user's motivation - as such, I trust TikTok to do content curation for me, whereas I hated whenever Facebook did the content curation and I felt just ok that Twitter let me do the content curation myself.

It's a complete paradigm shift that is not fully imagined in the article, nor in HN's 2018 comments.
> To the extent they are incorporated with schemes that limit access to the rated content imposed by powerful entities outside of the transaction, they are part of schemes of censorship. (Public censorship schemes that incorporate movie ratings, and thus delegate to movie raters the role of public censor, are common.)

No doubt they are part of "schemes of censorship" in some literal sense, but if someone publishes a rating and another chooses to use that rating as the basis of censorship, the onus is still squarely on the part of the censor and not the rater.

> Censorship by a third party equally impacts the rights of the parties on both sides of a potential transaction; broadcast media censorship restricts the freedom of both massive media companies and millions of private citizens.

You're conflating several things. Yes, censorship by a third party has similar effects to government censorship, but we treat them differently because the government is a special entity (ultimately because it enjoys a monopoly on violence and force). There are legitimate questions about when a third party becomes so powerful that it can unilaterally affect government (as with social media companies being a vector for the manipulation of elections), but this is the purview of anti-trust as I understand it (and I strongly support anti-trust action against social media corporations for precisely this reason).

The other conflated issues are "freedom to speak" vs "freedom to hear". Yes, restrictions on the content of broadcast media corporations limits the "freedom to hear" of millions of citizens as it does with restrictions on social media; however, restricting social media also infringes on millions' freedoms to speak.

Indeed, when you consider that the volume of communication in a social media network is combinatorial, the impact on regulations is far greater than for restrictions on traditional broadcast media.
On the note of disposing properly:

To protect wildlife, it's been recommended by wildlife nonprofits to snip the straps of your face masks before disposing, to minimize the potential for it to harm an animal.

[1] https://www.heart.co.uk/lifestyle/rspca-warn-face-masks-wild...
The recent Danish study was the very first randomized controlled trial involving face masks and COVID-19 that reported (so far), and concluded:

"the plausible effect of the mask intervention ranged all the way from a 46% decrease in infection to a 23% increase"

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/11/danish-study-doesnt-prove-...
I'd be tempted to think the concept of "corporations" pre-dates "government" as we know them today, and these secular traditions were merely enshrined in Law.
I don't think it's that. People have always seen things they disagreed with in the news. The bias now is undeniably real. For example, the NYT has lost its credibility with me by firing its editor for running an opinion that I disagree with.
You describe the post-1993 evolution of the internet, but I feel the need to add that in 1993, the internet had already been in constant operation for 24 years; it was already the largest network of computers ever. And many could see that it would probably transform society (which I know about from personal conversations with people before 1993). And before 1993 there was basically zero investor interest in the internet.

Before 1993 the internet was funded mostly by the US Government, which started funding research into packet-switched networking in 1961. In 1977, unhappy with the cost of operating the network, the US Government offered the internet to AT&T for a token sum. AT&T could see no way to make money from it, so declined. In 1987, they offered it to them for a token sum again, with the same response.

(Some pedants maintain the internet did not begin until 1987 with the introduction of the TCP/IP protocol, and that before then there was the ARPAnet. I feel that using the word "internet" for the network before 1987 is justified because the same services, e.g., email, mailing lists, ftp, telnet, netnews (what we now call Usenet, i.e., the newsgroups) that ran on the 1987 internet ran on the ARPAnet. Many users of the network probably didn't realize (or were only dimly aware) that anything had changed!)

Starting about 1986 for-profit corporations started offering access to the internet for a fee, but before 1993 even the largest of these for-profits -- Netcom probably -- was small as American corporations go. I would not be surprised if most of Netcom's revenue came from renting out shell accounts on Unix boxes with internet connections for $20 a month to individuals. (Before for-profit ISPs, the way an organization got on the internet was basically to lease a dedicated phone line from a telephone company. The organization at the other end of the dedicated phone line rarely charged money for routing the new organization's traffic.)

Aside from government contractors (e.g., Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc, and the Mitre Corporation) and the early ISPs I just described, possibly the largest internet for-profit at the start of 1993 was Brad Templeton's Clari-Net, which posted the output of some "news wire" (e.g., Associated Press or such) to netnews. (Netnews was much bigger then the web at the start of 93.) I doubt Clari-Net ever had more than 3 employees. It probably only ever had one.

In comparison, before the start of 1993, the US government had spent many billions of dollars on the internet -- over the course of 32 years if we count the package-switching research, not just when the internet got deployed in 1969.
I’m glad this made an impression in you! (I know what you mean about the receipts.)
I have respirators and filters left over from home improvement projects - have you ever tried to communicate through those? Your voice takes on this indescribable warbly tone. I wouldn't want to try and accomplish any errands wearing one of those. Maybe if I were riding public transit and able to not speak to anyone...
I find people misunderstand what RAW is about and what and who it is for.

If you think your pictures are better, you are deluding yourself the same way audiophiles moan about qualities of their high end, thousand dollar per feet audio cables.

I use RAW files and full manual because I have an actual workflow where I shoot a bunch of photos in similar setting and want to be able to create Lightroom preset and apply to all photos shot with same place, lighting and exposure.

It also sometimes saves me because when I am super clumsy and forget to calculate and adjust exposure I may get a photo that is under or overexposed a lot but for some reason I still want to keep it.

No, it is not going to let you make better pictures. If you want to make better pictures here are some things that are infinitely more productive to achieve that:

- try to do some exercises like trying to move about, compose and visualize your shot before taking the photo,

- try another exercise and for 6 months only take a single photo whenever you see an occasion to make photos,

- try another exercise and for 6 months only go about with a single primary lens (I have used original Fuji X100 to not be tempted, with great results),

- try to learn zone system. Learn to evaluate highlights and shadows and adjust your exposure without any meter. Use it to make pictures you want in lighting with extremely high dynamic range,

etc.

Camera gear and RAW are just tools and will not make your pictures better.
Reminds me of 15 years ago, when I used Slax in a similar way. Glad to see the project still exists: https://www.slax.org/
I don't quite understand the policy argument. Can you explain the difference in the 2 policies?

The main policy issues I see are (a) unavailability of good masks, not ramping up mask production, not controlling hoarding with strict consequences (b) advocating for not wearing masks
I wear reusable masks every day. If I go on a plane, yeah I also have disposable masks for those events.

Do you have any non-travel related examples where they don't also hand out said masks?
I had an OG Chromebook Pixel, too. Beautifully-crafted laptop, still probably my favorite looking piece of hardware I've ever owned

I hated to see it gathering dust in a drawer, so I removed the write-protect screw on the motherboard, blew away the BIOS, and installed a normal BIOS w/ Linux Mint on it. Runs fine. In hindsight I wish I had tracked down the 2015 LS version, since the OG version only has about 4 hours of battery life.
I found out first hand that when you enter most hospitals they make you replace your mask with a disposable surgical mask.
not best but a start https://github.com/bregman-arie/devops-exercises
A picture is worth a thousand words :)
Can you define what a social network is then?

As for Matrix, I’m not personally familiar with it but a quick look up suggests it’s a protocol so by my offered explanation, the answer is no.
Those of us who know better bristle and retain pedantry. Consider semi-annual and biannual. Grr.
It no longer jumps in big increments but it's still janky and very much non-native.
Naive question. If cattle eat on grass how can they increase CO2 emissions?

I know farming will create some to run the machinery and transport the meant and milk but isn't it a closed loop for the cattle? They eat grass for energy. They use that energy and create CO2. But the grass had to pull the same amount of CO2 out of the air to store that energy right?

Is it that the other gases are more harmful or is there something I'm missing?
It’s a bulletin board with a bunch of hired people with megaphones around it. The company decides which announcements the people with megaphones shout out. It’s free to decide not to.
JSDoc typings: all the benefits of TypeScript, with none of the drawbacks
You might want to look into "fair use" laws...that's not "stealing." If he was stealing them, why aren't they suing him over it? They're just very nice?

The point I was making with Andy Ngo is he publishes the public arrest records so you can plainly see what they were actually arrested/charged with. In fact, they are just the official images of the records released by the police.

So, what makes these "kill lists?" The person reading them? Lists of public arrest records are considered "kill lists?"

Nice Antifa activist you link to. And you say I need better sources? I'm talking about public records, not opinion.
This thread seems to be triggering rate limiting:

What "hard evidence" contradicts it? Can you provide evidence that no such dispersal order was given? Or that they were arrested prior to such order, or curfew?

In fact the source you posted doesn't even claim that they were arrested for filming. This idea that the reporter was arrested for filming seems to be entirely your own.

Your question isn't, "Why am I ready to take police's words at face value?" The question you're really asking is "why aren't I ready to take an anonymous internet commenter's claims at face value?"
Others have given great responses, but one thing not emphasized enough is recognizing the type of language used. It failed for various reasons, but The Knife used to do a textual analysis of articles and point out the manipulative language used. A quick example off the top of my head is recent reporting on the US election (all paraphrased, but I bet you can find real examples easily):

"... baseless claims"
"... without evidence"
"... debunked conspiracy theory"

These may be factual in some (or all) cases, but it is manipulative language. It prejudices the reader without giving the reader a chance to even consider the claims or theory. There's much to be discussed about dis- and misinformation, but overall the truth emerges only in sunlight.

Also watch those adjectives. They love their superfluous adjectives.
They need to clear their logs.
Israeli dual citizens volunteered their passports to the Mossad
Talking (as opposed to quietly thinking) is the best tool at your disposal to keep sanity. If you live alone do it.
It is known as brigading. They see a post critical of police and the right wing people come in and do a bunch of posts to obscure the fact that BLM and the police accountability movement is extremely popular.

It is 100% planned and engineered. They know their talking points. They know what to point to in response to police accountability discussions. Change the subject to talk about random looters instead of the 99% of protestors who peacefully assemble and then are brutalized night over night.
Eyelashes delivered to your home every month
The sad part is that many people won't believe you, even though it's true, because it was intentionally excluded from the reporting of the major news outlets.
I didn't mention Facebook at all...? My comment certainly wasn't intended to be subtext about any particular Facebook drama.
> I've said it before, but I think this move was a mistake. They've thrown away the benefits of a incredible wiki-based platform (where changes were pretty much instantaneous and any of us could easily make a difference to the docs!), the (actually pretty decent) WYSIWYG editor and an overall frictionless editing experience and replaced it with what, some (not even Markdown) document files in a GitHub repository. I honestly believe this will dissuade people from making small, quick fixes and ultimately drive away contributors.

Yeah, I really agree with this. Having built a website which relied on people submitting PRs to add their content on GitHub - I wouldn't do it again. It's a lot of friction for both the maintainers and people contributing.
Definitely fancier these days, but meme images are as old as civilization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictogram
> He wrote a 6502 assembler in Logo!

I'd love to see the turtle JMP.
So MBA actually means MBA from top 10, maybe top 15 school? I can’t imagine the network being too useful for the 25th best MBA program.

My friends have only recently graduated from their MBAs. Will be interesting to see if their networks help.
So much confusion. ProRAW is not raw because it stores demosaiced (not raw) data. ProRAW is good ole Linear DNG[1] and it has been around forever. However, it's very cool we now have real-time HDR merged linear captures. This has been possible post shot[2].

Lastly, I'm not sure why Apple chose to go with RAW (not raw), because that's how them n00bs spell it out. Raw is not an abbreviation.

[1] http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/linear.htm

[2] https://jcelaya.github.io/hdrmerge/
Looking forward to benchmarks vs. Safari for battery life and performance.
They're both DNG files, but there's a very big difference in what they contain. It's explained in the article.
>The American capitalist bankrolled all the internet when there was no clear path to make money from it.

Umm, no, the US DARPA bankrolled the intrnet, then corporations took it mainstream and for profit, not for loss. The modern WWW originated at CERN in Switzerland.

>Simply, there is no that kind of money in Europe.

Europe definitely has money to throw away, just look at Berlin airport and all the useless projects being bankrolled from EU tax money. How many startups could that have funded?

>If you made the YouTube in Europe you would go bankrupt because you wouldn’t be able to pay the server bills.

Edit: Dailymotion(not Vimeo) is European and it seems to be able to pay their server bills.
Are there any tools that simulate control plane failures for AWS or other cloud providers? This looks great, but it seems to only work on compute resources.

Many AWS outages result in APIs failing or returning errors, which should be possible to simulate. I'd like to create experiments where EC2 instances won't spin up in a particular AZ, EBS disks can't be reattached, Route53 zones can't be updated, IAM changes don't take effect, etc.
Would you say people aren't software developers unless they are employed by a company to predominately develop software? Because your comment certainly reads like that type of gatekeeping regarding who is and is not a journalist.
That would mean taking every drug commercial, removing the unrelated stock video and slowing down the sped up narration of symptoms and side-effects.
When the lockdown hit in March I used this to repurpose a stack of old Thinkpads I had lying around as Chromebooks and handed them out to nieces and nephews that needed them. It worked great.

I hope Google does not intend to shut them down.
Can't misuse it if you can't even build it.
> Whats even the point of becoming a Google or Apple if then some clueless bureaucrat gets to tell you what you are allowed to do with your market position?

I think you may have inadvertently stumbled on the point of these laws.

The EU doesn't want companies getting to Google or Apple scale, and all the power that amasses with it, without it being possible to ensure they're holding up EU ideals, rather than their own.