skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm not saying I expect it to be done now, I'm saying I expect a good subset of audio companies to still be dragging their feet a year from now, judging by history. Yours may not be one of those :-)
> Now the question: how often do these increase?

With respect to .io renewal on Gandi.net based on personal records:

US$35.00/yr through 2018
US$38.00/yr (+8.6%) into 2019
US$42.18/yr (+11%) into 2021

If I recall correctly, .io renewal was limited to something like 1- or 2-year intervals not too long ago; this appears to have changed, but I'm unsure when that happened.
I’ve always found these “Drake equation” and “Fermi paradox” discussions pseudoscientific at best. Its fun speculation and poses interesting questions but there’s no need to interpret these formulas as scientific fact.

Its much more likely that our estimates are off or our calculations are incorrect than we can draw conclusions from these roundabout statistical inferences. Nothing I’ve read has convinced me otherwise. Its a great pop-sci discussion but I’m more interested in direct evidence rather than speculation for why no direct evidence exists.

Drake Equation fans please explain what makes these theories so compelling and I will be indebted to you.
Creator Economy News
Cool thank you!
Care to elaborate more?
I'm very proud to see this go to negative votes, as it entirely proves my point. Every time democracies abandon that for authoritarian measures there is always a seemingly highly justified reason at the time and those who speak out would be similarly pilloried...

Injustices are always justified but never just.
That's more a case of UI rather than implementation, yeah?

What's stopping us from just using those words to describe operations with Git?

I mean, what Git is, is a data structure with a set of operations on it, and the design of that is pretty fundamental at this point. We'd need to see something more novel[1].

(Sidenote: Git almost seemed an obvious trajectory for version control given how problematic file-based approaches have been. I've used far too many version control systems, including "ancient" awful ones like Harvest[2], and it just felt inevitable that we'd one day rely on an "always-branching" model.)

[1]: I did think of something more novel: semantic version control (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25537455)

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CA_Harvest_Software_Change_Man...
Can’t tell if that’s sarcasm or sincerity!
It wouldn’t take that much. Fissile material can be bred in fast breeder reactors, and in a thermonuclear Orion type pulse drive most of the power comes from hydrogen fusion. The fissile warheads are primers for each fusion charge.

We could probably send a probe to Centauri for the price of one Iraq war.

Of course launching “the devil’s pogo stick” from within our biosphere would be rather horrible for the environment. It would be a lot better to build a base on the Moon and launch it from there. You wouldn’t need to burn as much power getting out of a big gravity well. The Moon, being formed from the same stuff as Earth, certainly has fissile material, and it may be closer to the surface and easier to get there.

I really think the most likely answer to the Fermi paradox is that extreme intelligence is rare. There probably isn’t a single great filter per se. It’s probably just unlikely for an environment to be simultaneously stable enough over billions of years to produce high intelligence and interesting enough to stimulate its evolution. Most interesting environments will be unstable, and most stable environments uninteresting (a.k.a. having low Shannon information content).

The universe is probably full of microbes, simple microbial colonies, and maybe a few worms and bugs, but there are probably not very many minds around capable of harnessing the atom and plotting orbital trajectories. Fewer still may have the motivation to invest in such an epic and likely one way journey.

For the latter point keep in mind that solar systems are huge. There are enough bodies and resources in our solar system to keep even a spacefaring humanity busy for millions of years. No necessity to travel to the stars for quite a long time. Space is called space for a reason.
I’m that person in my current team and it feels very lonely.

I keep speaking up about our tech debt and poor processes. Management pretends to care but nothing changes.

Meanwhile people keep doing the rituals as you say, as if it were a normal part of life. It’s sad to watch.
That sounds like an intentional feature for Apple.
Having worked and working with rails projects spanning ruby 1.9 through 2.4 and rails 3.2, 4.1, 4.2 and 5.2 - the major issue I've seen with legacy rails is how difficult it is to keep views refactored and seperateted into widgets. Some teams seem to blame erb for this and run towards various different template dsls like haml (equivalent to writing a template language for php, which already is a template language, because the team can't keep views/templates simple).

Fat/smart models help - but the old/standard tools in rails (helpers and partials) INMHO is poor tooling for the "view" layer - and this just gets worse with Javascript in the mix.

That is finally being addressed - I've yet to experiment with it, but I like the idea:
https://github.blog/2020-12-15-encapsulating-ruby-on-rails-v...

Another option is of course to just use rails as an api server, and do the front end in react/vue etc. Although, at that point, you might be better off just using postgraphile or hasura.

The other real problem I see in some of our projects, is developers simply not trying to learn minimal best practices (just reading a few paragraphs on rails guides...). And that leads to many awkward choices, a lot of re-inventing subsystems that already exist in rails (because developers didn't have a look before coding up a quick fix) - and few tests and poor testability. But those strike me as much more cases of people "holding it wrong" than rails being the problem.

Finally, I think there's still some issues in rails 6 with asset handling - but overall rails 6 seems like a comprehensive, solid and easy to use framework.
It's possible, but it would have to be a built-in feature of the DAW to be convenient, and could seriously compromise performance even if optimized.

Let's assume an ideal implementation where there is only one process per architecture. Take a 100 track project with two plug-ins per track (say, compressor and EQ). If the compressor is x86 and the EQ is ARM, that's 200 context switches per audio period. That makes it impossible to run at small buffer sizes. A very smart flowgraph implementation could attempt to batch everything into the minimum number of context switches, but that has other problems with threading. It's very hard to get this perfect.

This solution works fine for when you just have a few straggler plug-ins of the wrong architecture, but it would still require quite complex engineering by the DAW to make it work transparently to the user. Consider, for example, that the plug-in UI needs to embed in the DAW across a process boundary.
I really like the premise, and already use containers as ingredient in my isolation techniques, however, subuser development didn't seem particularly active, is it just because it's considered in a feature complete state?
I’m saying that papers should be read with a default position of skepticism and consideration of the motivations of the authors (and they all have an angle). When I read an ML paper with authors from Google, I assume they have an angle. When I read an ML Ethics paper with authors from Google, that already went double. Now it’s triple.

So look at my argument differently. Every single scientific paper you read should be read as non-objective as a starting position. If it can overcome starting from that position with data, methodology, and reasoning, it’s a solid scientific paper.
I use it to run Ghidra. I haven’t seen anything like what you’re experiencing.
> My rough map of the article: The Taino (native Caribbean tribe) was thought to have been wiped out completely. Today’s Caribbean residents were of slave decent and Spanish conquerors.

Huh? Virtually every Puerto Rican consider themselves to have Taino/Indigenous blood. There are even popular sayings like "Se me salio lo Taino" (_I left my internal Taino to come out_) which acknowledge the perpetuation in PR genetic pool of native people. BTW this is something not exclusive to PR, it happens all across latin america.

It's always "interesting" to me to hear Americans talk about this sort of stuff, because the way they are taught is that Spaniards were extremely more violent and cruel than their English counterparts, and yet, the US/Canada exterminated their native population down to 1% or so, while all the massacres and crimes in Latin-America were not enough to wipe out the native component, which can be as high as 50-65% in several countries.
Show HN: Hire a no-code engineer for flat monthly fee
Hi HN,

I’m Nik. I built a site where you can hire a no-code developer to build an MVP for your startup at 1/10th of the cost.

The idea came from my work with outsourcing companies four years ago. I’ve tried ordering a few projects but they were always taking way more time and money than I could have ever imagined. Probably because incentives were screwed up and agencies make more money for sucking up to my project for longer.

At that time, no-code tools like Airtable, Webflow, and Bubble started showing up. I’ve played around with them but couldn't build anything sufficient because both tools and the community were weak. People were just making fun of us.

But earlier this year I’ve built a few projects for a friend of mine on Bubble and learned two things. First, there’s no need to build a fully-functioning product to validate a startup idea - a simple web app, marketplace, or mobile app with Glide is often enough (obvious, I know). And second, the tools got much better and now everybody is excited about no-code.

I put two and two together and fixed up a site where you can hire a no-code engineer for a flat monthly fee. I assume this will fix the agency problem and help people not waste months building stuff nobody wants.

Would love to hear what you guys think about the site.

P.s. Merry Christmas everyone!

Nik
There is a deep part of our brain that controls eye contact. Babies know to stare at faces, even when they cannot recognize one from another. It is a common evolved trait. Dogs, lions, deer, seals, chipmunks, crows, some would say even sharks ... all sorts of animals will "look us in the eye". We expect to see a certain code of behaviour re eye contact. When a person or animal is subject to something that alters that covention we interpret that as "crazy eyes". A dog in pain will look a human in the eye. A dog on hallucinationogenic drugs will not. We must be careful whenever we are interpreting such things as our interpretation can be based more on expectations than reality. The shark is probably not meeting our gaze. Rather, we see an eyeball and expect that it is acting a certain way.

Spend time talking to someone with a false eye. You might not understand why their face seems a little odd. You probably cannot tell which eye is fake (false eyes are far more common than people realize) but you know something is not right.
> To put an example to the other comments, look up the history of the XYZ domain - in a nutshell, they had a fire sale selling domains for pennies to gain market share. Besides normal people, three groups descended upon it: spammers, squatters and hackers. (...)

I don't know which point you were trying to make, but as far as I could tell that's the business model that's being followed by all vanity gTLDs.

The only nuance I've noticed is that there are a bunch of domains being sold for peanuts with the caveat that after a year or two it's price is hiked to somewhere in the range of 30-50$.
The programming language is often only a (relatively small) part of this problem. The choice of the framework (or, I'd say, the pollution of frameworks, as well as 40 MB libraries only imported to do dependency injection), wrong abstractions, wrong data models (if I'd had a penny for every time I've seen some code do a full list scan when it could have indexed the objects into a map I'd be millionaire by now), over-engineering, frameworks that reinvent the wheel (often in a much less optimal way, all in order to provide the developer with a bit of syntactical sugar), they all play a much bigger role in performance degradation than the language itself.

On top of it, projects are often lead by managers that are mostly interested in grabbing the low hanging fruits, pack the product with poorly tested features, set unrealistic deadlines and monetize as fast as possible, and they often don't provide developers time to breathe, take a step back and do any refactoring or optimization - those are too often labelled as purely technical tasks with no business impact and pushed down the priority line.

Some of the code written two or three decades ago was much more efficient (especially given the hardware available at the time) than today's projects both because developers were aware of building software for machines with a limited amount of resources, and because the software delivery timelines were much more realistic - aggressive marketing, sales and product departments hadn't yet completely taken over the engineering departments, and while agile methodologies were supposed to mitigate these issues they've actually only shrunk even more the delivery windows and made software development more hectic and shortsighted.

30 years ago a program that would choke on a 386 would be refactored until each single but was optimized for the available resources. Today's approach is simply "just throw more RAM/CPU power" - and that's what I frankly find unacceptable.
It's the interaction of certificate expiration with no OS updates.

The lack of OS updates happen to correlate with hardware age for Android phones.

That's also the reasonable place to apply pressure, to the people marketing devices with minimal future support, which means they quickly become insecure.
I wish someone would pick it back up. It was pretty useful. It took some work to get it to run on Modern Fedora and I had a lot of stability problems with it.
Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas!
Flatpak and snapd seem to have some similar goals but aren't mentioned in the related projects section?

I would have thought it would now be more performant to do something like this using Wayland and, if the app uses X11, multiple isolated xwayland instances somehow. That way you might be able to get GPU acceleration, which I don’t think is possible through xpra?
We can run full fledged games at 240 FPS and yet,
websites and apps lag

This problem is real, but addressing it in the context of Ruby is misguided.

Slow websites?

It's the overall system design of the web. Running a bunch of untrusted sandboxed code, retrieved asynchronously from potentially dozens of sources?

Yeah, that's gonna be slow.

Replace all the Rails sites with assembly code running on bare metal if you like, it's not going to change anything.

Ruby on Rails is plenty fast. You can serve up static pages in a few milliseconds. If they take longer than that, it's because you're doing a bunch of work at the database layer or some other work outside of Ruby.
Good thing that under Jim Cook, there's nothing they can hide as no new products exists :)
I remember the TV series SeaView or such where license plate readers were on highways and other roads and would fine you for speeding, deducting it automatically from your Social Security account.

The issue of course with your suggestion is these types of fines are highly regressive as it effectively allows the well off to break the law at will.

Percentage of wealth or income type fines would never float as you would end up making a whole new process where the police would only target those who they think will have the biggest payoff. Let alone it would require way too much of an invasion in privacy

The issue of course is how does such a system know who is driving without also combining facial recognition?
Loyalty to institutions that don't care about you is the most foolish idea. I would never worry about keeping state or company secrets because they would never keep mine. It's a one-sided exercise in self-flagellation. The more we learn about our government the more we learn about it's inhumanity. Giving your life to it is akin to throwing it away. Perhaps worse than that because of the damage one can cause.
Strictly speaking, in the modern era, it is not "a government" that decides to print money, but rather the central bank, which are considered independent on government and do (should) not follow the orders of politicians.

The central bankers are hired for a fixed-term (though renewable) and are given a mandate:

> The Federal Reserve works to promote a strong U.S. economy. Specifically, the Congress has assigned the Fed to conduct the nation’s monetary policy to support the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates. When prices are stable, long-term interest rates remain at moderate levels, so the goals of price stability and moderate long-term interest rates go together. As a result, the goals of maximum employment and stable prices are often referred to as the Fed’s “dual mandate.”

* https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/what-economic-goals-does...

If 'printing money' helps to accomplish that mandate they will do so, but they will (theoretically/ideally) not print money just because it would be convenient for political purposes.

It should also be noted that in most/may modern economies, private banks actually create the money the supply through issuing loans:

* PDF: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-...

Good video by Ben Felix on the topic:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3lP3BhvnSo
"It's a bit repugnant."

Wow, really? Suggesting that a more diverse leadership team would better understand the potential downside of a police state is now distasteful?
It's not enough for the two people to trust each other because they have parents friends etc. These people, and societies norms are a huge influence on the decision to get married.

But I do think at the end it all boils down to trust. If marriege was not an external event, then why the ceremony? The rings? Etc? It's full of symbolism describing and alluding to your responsibilities and how you're going to be judged for not abiding to them.

So yes, in a world where two people have total trust, and society is more lenient in it's pressuring of norms marriege would be obsolete.
> I think that something like UBI is the only humane way to run a society, especially with the increasing automation.

Or maybe don't automate. The assembly line has given us repetitive tasks that perhaps, for humane reasons, we should automate. But where are skilled manual labor jobs? Construction is the only thing that comes to mind and there is not enough of it.

I strongly dislike UBI because it gives the economically-blessed tier a pass. "I gave at the office," they can claim while stepping over the homeless or passing the very-nearly homeless on the way to their Tesla. (Lets be clear, $1000 a month is not going to suddenly give everyone a home and 2.5 children.)
Sounds like a feature, not a bug!
The ruling was in 2005. 15 years ago. Since then, not one prisoner has voted and its made literally zero difference to anyone. So what, actually, is anyone complaining about?

Seriously?

Imagine that tomorrow parliament gives prisoners the vote, but not to implimented it for 15 years. Does this upset you so much that you will you emigrate? No?

Then why do I have to leave the EU over the exact same thing?

The most amazing thing about this to me, is that people hate the EU, really hate it, for literally no reason at all. Then they make up reasons to justify it. And they don't even seem to see what they're doing. So many people acting completely irrationally. It's actually scary. It makes me worry about the future of democracy.
>Its much more likely that our estimates are off

"Our estimate for stage N in the drake equation is way too high" == "The great filter is stage N in the drake equation."

So the interpretation chart goes:

- No errors: There are tons and tons of aliens and they're prime-directive-ing us like the Federation from Star Trek.

- One error: Oh no! Great filter! (unless it's in our past)

- Many errors: Not as interesting.

As for why it's compelling at all, the original point of the Drake equation was to make you think about it, and also realize that it's very, very tough to get exactly one. Almost every set of numbers you pick results in either less than one (which we know isn't true because we exist), or more than one. So the argument is, who knows how alone we are, but we're not alone.
To the moderator: Just check it.

Extremely frustrating and nonsense page.
Stupid joke and empty promises.

Te page states:

Wolters Kluwer

JavaScript Error
JavaScript has been disabled on your browser. You must enable it to continue. Here's how to enable JavaScript in the following browsers:
..

I did that, then reloaded..

Same page.

Dont waste your time.
A note for confused US people reading this:

MDs in the UK do not go to undergrad to get a bachelors first, they just go to med-school.
This is why I require any app to be able to use a hierarchical folder of markdown documents as its store, even if the app is single platform. Currently using Obsidian on the desktop and MWeb on my iPhone, but the docs are just such a collection of markdown so easy to share and no lock-in.
The headline and article are garbage. The paper (peer review still pending: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2012/2012.07902.pdf) does not draw any such conclusions. They identify possible explanations for the Fermi paradox, but it is the article that picked one of those and declared it "likely".

> We also concluded that at the current time of the study, most intelligent life in the Galaxy is younger than 0.5 Gyr, with values of probability parameter for self-annihilation between 0-0.01; with a relatively higher value of the annihilation parameter (≥0.1), most intelligent life is younger than 0.01 Gyr.

> As we cannot assume a low probability of annihilation, it is possible that intelligent life elsewhere in the Galaxy is still too young to be observed by us. Therefore, our findings can imply that intelligent life may be common in the Galaxy but is still young, supporting the optimistic aspect for the practice of SETI.

> Additionally, we found the potential self-annihilation to be highly influential in the quantity of galactic intelligent life, suggesting another possible answer to the Fermi Paradox; if intelligent life is likely to destroy themselves, it is not surprising that there is little or no intelligent life elsewhere.

---

Edit: Here is possibly the most immediately digestible result of their simulations. I cannot vouch for how reasonable their model assumptions are, but this is the table of maximum number of planets bearing intelligent life in the Milky Way according to three model parameters:

https://i.imgur.com/hpSfiqO.png

λA is the rate of abiogenesis (assuming a Poisson process) per Myr - the two chosen values are apparently minimum and maximum of literature estimates.

Tevo is the time from formation of life to it becoming intelligent.

Pann is the probability of self (!) annihilation per Myr. (They model annihilation due to nearby supernovae separately).

Their model also computes the spatial and temporal distribution of those planets, but for that you will have to read the paper.
They’re not. It was either a joke or he was trying to be edgy.
I'm a big fan of using containers to distribute and run tools. It's an underappreciated use case. I wrote about its benefits (and drawbacks) a few months ago: https://jonathan.bergknoff.com/journal/run-more-stuff-in-doc....

Subuser looks interesting, nice work! I love to see progress in this space.