skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Those were simple and plausible suggestions, and yet (intentionally) absurd. You invoked costs, benefits, and tradeoffs to make that fact clear. And for what it's worth, gloves still meet the criteria - simple plausible low-cost is not the same as evidence-based. Health authorities (in Canada) most certainly were suggesting we mitigate indirect-contact transmission, with regular sterilization of surfaces using bleach being widely advocated. Gloves are widely available both in their medical and reusable cloth versions, and carry even fewer risks to social disruption than do masks.

I'm totally fine with the structure of the argument with respect to mask mandates as it's typically made. Assuming no costs and at least some benefits, sure, I don't see a problem - this is within basic morality territory so far. But if the parameters are in question? My datapoint: mask mandates have effectively destroyed a familiar relationship, because it put me in the position of asking a good-faith question to a zealot. I judge the costs to me to be extremely, life-changingly high while the benefits remain uncertain.
For IF newbies, your best bet is probably to just pick great IF games and use hints as needed. (Prefer gradual hints over step-by-step walkthroughs.)

The IF community maintains IFDB, and a list of the top 100 games. https://ifdb.tads.org/viewlist?id=k7rrytlz3wihmx2o (It can take a full minute to load; be patient.)

All of the games on the list are delightful, but a newbie can't really be expected to finish any of them without hints. Luckily, almost all of them offer gradual hints, either linked from IFDB itself or in-game with a HINT command.
I have turned this comment into a blog post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25618264

It is a well written and in-depth look at the rot inside the Golang ecosystem.
Make sure to read to the end and notice that the rot started at the core
contributors level.

Golang's tagline, from their [repository][0], is "Go is an open source
programming language that makes it easy to build simple, reliable, and efficient
software."

Reading this post by Amos should make it clear to you that Golang has succeeded
ONLY in the "simple" part of the claim; unless written with extreme care,
programs written in Golang are neither reliable, nor efficient.

Amos presents some examples of why I have disliked Golang since the beginning.
After having used Golang for a few years seriously, I disliked it enough to
start a fork of the language named [GoFY][1]. I named the language as such
because, since the beginning when I saw some of initial presentations by Rob
Pike specifically, and some others' presentations and blog posts generally, they
had an air of ego when dismissing others' opinions and concerns, and appeared to
say "these are our decisions, that is how it is, and if you don't like it, Go
F* Yourself". So the project name was a GoFY to them back, from me.

I'm sure it looks a great language from afar, and for newcomers. But as a
seasoned developer who has seen a few other languages in thier lifetime, you
will quickly begin to see the problems with the language and the ecosystem
around it. The astute among you may notice that in my [post yesterday][] I
did not claim to be an expert in Golang; it's hard to be an expert in something
that's fragile, flaky and full of special cases. For the same reason I
never took up using MySQL; I have heard enough stories of its flakiness and
special cases that it never looked like a solid technology to me. I openly and
whole-heartedly recommend learning and using [Postgres][] to anyone who would
listen.

[post yesterday]: https://gurjeet.singh.im/blog/persistence-perseverance
[Postgres]: https://www.postgresql.org

Fortunately I did not invest any more time in it other than to document a few
times in section ["GoFY Desired Differences"][differences] as to what I would
like to see different in the GoFY language, which in turn would make it better
than Golang, at least for long-time systems developers like myself. I am glad I
didn't burn any oil on it because creating a new language, even a fork, is
neither easy nor quick.

[0]: https://github.com/golang/go
[1]: https://github.com/gurjeet/gofy/tree/gofy
[differences]: https://github.com/gurjeet/gofy/tree/gofy#gofy-desired-diffe...
Lack of Vitamin D is associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection and mortality
In the United States more than 100000 less people died of COVID-19 in 2020 than of smoking. It is useful to put it all in perspective to keep from panicking.
https://imgur.com/jQG6mpg

Via https://www.reddit.com/r/AppleWatch/comments/d73r1q/the_new_...
https://oeis.org/A005150/a005150_3.pdf CONWAY’S COSMOLOGICAL THEOREM -- proof of N=24
You know the best thing about OSM? It's in the top left corner, right next to the OpenStreetMap logo. The "Edit" button.

You could literally fix this issue yourself in under 5 minutes, and that includes the time to set up an account.
How many startups are actually killed by tech debt?

I saw many successfull companies with shitty software.

I had the impression the business part of things killed much more companies if they didn't get it right.
In terms of emissions it’s far less than that as older cars are driven dramatically less on average. The average male driver in the US travels 16,550 miles a year. That hits 400k miles in just 24 years, meanwhile it’s somewhat unusual for cars to break 300k miles.

Instead, family members that drive less tend to have older cars.
The two aren't exclusive at all. It's possible that the F-35 was detected by the radar and that the radar was destroyed, if it wasn't possible at the time to guide a weapon onto target.

It's also possible that the radar wasn't actually destroyed, or that it wasn't destroyed using an F-35, or that it was destroyed using some kind of munition such as a cruise missile or loitering munition where stealth is immaterial.

Also, VHF radars aren't intended to guide missiles onto their targets, they are only detection radars for now. They would need dual tracking at the very least.

But as of now, the mission profile of these radars is to provide advance warning and tracking and sensor fusion to, for example, a wing of J-20s which would enable them to intercept and kill F-35s. For example, a group of stealth interceptors could fly towards the detected planes with their radars off and RWRs on, fire off missiles when they are close to engagement distance to the F35s datalinked to the radar to aprroach, and once they are close enough, the missiles and planes turn on their radars all together using sensor fusion, guiding the missiles already very close their targets and destroying the F35s before they have a chance to counterattack.

There are a few other ways VHF counterstealth radar can be effectively used to neutralize stealth aircraft, but none of them are within the reach of Syria, so this isn't surprising if it happened.
I prefer Pandora tab on my browser.
Found Sam Seaborn
Naughty, you've combined metric and imperial ;-)

https://youtu.be/e1hpT8MaqdM
Not claiming it's efficient, but here's a description of how the Z80 does tri-state output: https://baltazarstudios.com/anatomy-z80-gate/

I'd be curious how modern fpgas do it.
The Apple Watch sub Reddit had folks close to or in the Arctic posting their watch faces around the 21st of December. I’d imagine the same were posted for summer solstice.
Any domestic competition?
I've worked with good windows admins.

I have so much respect for them.
What you're saying is true. Having observed how the Chinese government responded to SARS, our health & national security systems should never have taken what they said at face value. That we did not respond with more intensity is on us.

However, this does not excuse the Chinese Government's active (and ongoing!) attempts to downplay what they knew about the initial severity of the outbreak. I don't think it's fair to blame the botched first two months of response on the provincial government.
Tech debt rarely kills a company, but it does kill teams, in descending hierarchical order. It usually goes like this:

Day 1
Stakeholder: "The app is down, what is happening?"
Engineering lead: "We are working on it. Do not worry".

Day 2
Stakeholder: "The app is down, what is happening?"
Engineering lead: "Do not worry, we got this".

Fast forward to Day 15:
Stakeholder: "Can you explain why the app is down again?"
Engineering lead: "We got this"
Stakeholder: "That is what you said last 2 weeks ago. We will send someone to take a look at it"
External auditor: "wtf wtf wtf. These guys do not know what they're doing."

Day 16:
Stakeholder: "Say hello to Bob, he is your replacement. Please work with him making sure he has all the context he needs during this transition".
Engineering lead: "But, but... it's just technical debt"
Stakeholder: "You may leave now"
I think there is a few factors at play here.

Firstly its a misconception that that VLS has anything to do with this. VLS has only really been mounted on ships from the 80s onwards. The first US ship with VLS was the Ticonderoga class cruiser launched first in 1980, however the VLS was only used for anti aircraft missiles and the Harpoon anti ship missiles were positioned in quad launchers at the rear of the ship. The Soviets did in fact deploy VLS earlier than NATO on the Azov class cruiser, but kept external anti ship / submarine missiles on many designs. Indeed throughout NATO it was common to mount anti ship weapons externally just as the Soviets did right up until the mid 80s. If you think about it, anti ship missiles want to go sideways rather than upwards so it makes sense to point them at where the enemy will be.

Given that the majority of anti ship missiles were external on both sides I suspect the difference in prominence and perception comes from two linked points.

1: The majority of NATO ships were not designed as surface combatants, rather as escorts for carriers

2: Soviet anti ship missiles tended to be bigger with higher speeds and larger warheads.

On the first point the main priority of the US navy is power projection. As such it is generally reliant on carriers to provide strike capability through sorties. This is suplemented by submarines for anti shipping capbilities. THe majority of NATO surface combatants are geared towards allowing those carriers to be deployed unimpeded, as such they have a lot of anti air and anti missile capbility which by nature fires upwards.

The Soviet navy was more focused on area denial as they did not develop a significant carrier force. As strike capbility was not provided by naval aircraft (at least to the same extent) a greater emphasis was put on sinking enemny combatants. As such their ships were designed for surface to surface roles to contest the baltic and black sea. This required them to be able to sink NATO carrier groups themselves which in turn required more powerful missiles with higher speeds and bigger warheads. These therefore which appear far more prominently on their ships. I'd also note that the Soviets tended to put large missiles on smaller ships such as corvettes which made them appear even more prominent.

Russian missile systems were during the cold war (and perhaps still are) superior in many ways to NATO counterparts. The USSR had no problem devloping reliable rocket motors and had some pretty fearsome weapons. I think the idea that they put their missiles on the side to prevent self damage is a little far fetched.
Ketamine treatment was the only thing the helped my severe depression. Without it It was like a flip was switched. Your dismissiveness if really inconsiderate to people that have been living through chronic depression for years.
> Regarding Sabine, it seems if one cannot win an argument then discredit those that do not agree, is that it, is that the way?

You were the one who brought up that she was a physicist, and appealed to her authority. Whether or not she is the right type of physicist for this subject matter seems quite relevant. Ultimately though, appeals to authority are always weak arguments. They are better than nothing, but fundamentally, experts are people - you can probably find at least one expert who holds whatever view you want. A single expert (even if it was in the right field) in the entire world agreeing with you doesn't exactly mean much. Its much better to concentrate on the arguments that the experts give.

> During this Covid-19 pandemic I just witnessed how much we really know, science was was changing opinions by the hour

It was a brand new virus. The media was often overstating the certainty of what scientists were saying. Most of the time scientists were saying - this is our best guess at the moment, but this is new so its just a guess, and the media reported that as - Scientists 100% sure that X is what you should do.

> Should I just mention uranium glass?

What about it. Its generally considered safe if made correctly. (That's honestly a weird example, because there is so many radiation based products in the early 1900's that were ridiculously bad ideas. Uranium glass is probably not one of them, even if I would definitely prefer not to have uranium in my kitchenware)

> What if interferes vitamin D production, and then impacts all other issues connected with lack of vitamin D

What if it causes dinosaurs to resurrect back to life, and velociraptors eat us? Without a theory as to how or why it might possibly effect that, you're basically shooting blind and you could say the same thing about anything.

> Why is so hard to accept that "we do not know"?

"We do not know" is not a single category. By some standards we do not know anything (perhaps excepting "cognito, ergo sum"). We don't know if the sun will rise tomorrow, if cause preceedes effect, whether or not we live in the matrix, etc.

But just because we don't know anything for sure, doesn't mean we don't know some things more than others.

I think fundamentally, we are talking past each other because you are arguing "we don't know", where I don't think that's the relevant question since that is always true. We obviously don't know for sure. The question is, do we know enough that use of the technology is reasonable. I think your argument would be more convincing if you set goalposts for what would be enough knowledge, in your mind, for you to consider 5g "safe" (And those goalposts be consistent, so that the other things you consider safe, already meet those standards).
It's hard to justify $47k for the Zoe when you can get a similarly sized Honda Jazz or Mazda 2 for well under $20k.
For a 2020 showreal, there sure were a lot of 2019 and earlier movies in there.

I'm pretty sure one of those shots was from Alien:Covenant (2017)
I use SelfControl on my Mac when I need a serious work session. It always surprises me, when I tab to HN or Reddit and get blocked, how automatic an action it was. I’m never inclined to fight it. It never represented an actual desire to be there. There’s no deep longing to say “no” to. After the first few times being thwarted, it stops for the next several hours.

I still feel the push “away” from what I’m trying to focus on, but it’s not “towards” anywhere in particular. So as long as I divert to something that’s itself not too interesting, I will tire of the diversion and get back to work in short order. It’s only debilitating when the diversion captures me for hours (looking at you, YouTube recommendation algorithm).
Bias in prediction, rather than parameter estimation, is a perfectly well established sense of the term. In particular, people doing language modeling are practically never concerned with identifiability, because you can't pick out one weight out of a trillion parameter model and say what it ought to be in the limit of infinite data.
Why are you thinking GI wouldn’t work? Slicing the image plane pretty much works for parallelizing GI just as well as it does for raster. It does help to use small-ish tiles, that way you get some degree of automatic load balancing.
Think the source is a better link:

https://twitter.com/x74353/status/1345421211677949957
It would shatter current illusions, too. Definitely a move for the better.
So because there are people in wheelchairs nobody can complain about a suboptimal user experience on a popular website with hundreds of engineers making copious amounts of money?
Reminds me of the old Pebble, my first and favourite smartwatch. https://www.theverge.com/2014/1/28/5354016/pebble-steel-revi...

Sadly moved to an Apple Watch, since the Pebble ecosystem started to die.
Zig in 30 Minutes
I haven't read this article yet, but my impression has been that every political official in the Trump Administration – Azar, Redfield, Hahn, Pence, Mnunchin, Pompeo, Kushner, Birx, Adams, Atlas, Barr, Kudlow, ... – has egg all over their face in this crisis. A whole crew of sycophants afraid for their jobs, falling over themselves to keep Trump happy.

Fauci and (sidelined and silenced) career officials at the CDC, FDA, and NIH are the only ones who came out looking okay.
Or stream very high resolution video which was unpractical with 4g.
ITT: people who put way too much faith in how planes fly in movies.

High-G maneuvers just are not a wildly important part of aircraft operations. Despite what you see in movies, high-G maneuvers aren’t what defeat radar-guided missiles and they’re not the bread and butter of dogfights either (which are all but a thing of the past).

They sure do look good at airshows though.

At the end of the day, if you’re a bomb or missile truck, you’re simply not going to outmaneuver a solitary missile that can perform 20G turns. You’re vastly better off minimizing your radar signature and taking out enemy radar sources using SEAD, at which point you can fly with impunity.
> it is complex but also something every driver manages every time they get behind the wheel.

It's also something that humans are still better at judging than machines, because they have general intelligence. They can tell that a speed limit sign for a service road visible from the highway is not the speed limit for the highway. They can guess what a sign covered in rust or sludge might have said based on the road conditions or the speed of other traffic or personal knowledge of the area.

And when the machine gets it wrong more often, you don't want it to be overriding the human driver by force.
If you lost by 6 seconds (our default buffer and so the most common)... yeah. Sorry about those vintage Hot Wheels
The card-side implementation of NFC payments is surprisingly resource hungry for parasitic powered NFC chip, but utterly negligible for a device with own battery, 64MHz ARM core and 4MB of storage.

On the other hand good luck with getting such a device accepted by anyone in the financial industry. (On the other hand you probably could build something that proxies to your real physical card)
I don't disagree with your take that escapism is popular, but this can partially be attributed to the capable people you reference building technology that exploits our psychology to encourage further escapism.

I don't understand the desire to bet on things that would personally enrich you and your investments/companies but decrease overall wellbeing. The capable should build that which guides society towards connection and elevates collective goals, not exploit the exploitable.
You may be able to tell from the ID #
Doesn't Oracle sue if you benchmark them and release the results publicly or is that an old wives tail?

On a YouTube lecture at CMU the Materialize guys seemed to try very hard to not even land in the same zip code as that discussion to the point it was awkward, and they seem pretty smart.

Are these large organizations really that petty? Ad absurdism, would it be legal if Ford said we couldn’t drag race their car after we bought it?
Sans Paywall:

https://archive.is/CS0yx
thanks. Out of curiosity, did the twitter OP have to originally post these 8 items in reverse order (to have them appear as intended)?
Or is this a bunch of "replies" to post one, that stay in the right order as added?
Me too. I got crypto because I believed in it. Then the gold Rush came and bitcoin turned out the same as the system it tried to replace. It's just as centralised now with the big number chicks and exchanges and just as prime to speculation if not more.

Monero, dash and zcash are closer to bitcoins original goals in their anonymity. So I don't really mind that they're not benefiting from mainstream acceptance as much.
1) Fully remote
2) Rather not say, just at home (how is it relevant?)
3) Easier to deal with other life things. Harder to learn stuff being on a new team.
4) See 3
5) Nope
6) I think it depends on the job and the person. I wouldn't make a general recommendation either way.
Recursive Iterators in Rust
My team and I created a C-corp using Stripe Atlas with the aim of being able to use the Stripe payments platform. In our country, processing mobile payments is expensive and the service fails every now and then. So far we haven't been able to open a bank account, though. All the "new" information mentioned in this article we have already provided when registering the C-corp with Atlas, so I'm not sure if we need to do something else. Has anyone experienced something similar?
Try "every compile." If you wonder why your .exe takes a couple of extra seconds to start up the first time you run it after a build, well, this is why.
It's a little bit on Disney+, one of the extras called "Soul, Improvised". It's very much not technical, more focused on the emotional impact of WFH.
It's not 50+ years out on defined routes as I suggested above. More like 5-10. Waymo is already doing this in one location legally.
A Flash Game Jam? Newgrounds Hosting Flash Forward Jam This January
A Portable Wii the Size of a Gameboy Color
some years ago i played around with something similar: https://sa.lj.am/sun/

source is linked at the bottom. much of it was written in elm and i no longer understand how any of it works.
I was upvoted for this comment at first, then harshly downvoted.

Let me expand on what I meant:

Leveraging consumer data (and marketing that process in a blog post) is an insidious affair. This article is just a rebranded, simplified version of a research paper. There are many other articles like it, and they intend to simplify and sensationalize (to the degree that they can argue plausible deniability) something outrageous.

This entire article; the webpage, the work of the author, the words the article is composed of, could easily be reduced to a simple statement: "People who are more willing to take a risk on an unusual product are more willing to take a risk in multiple categories." This such an obvious conclusion that the publisher of this article should be tried for conspiracy and fraud. A child could come to this realization.

This is clickbait, plain and simple. Furthermore, its insulting. I look forward to the day that those who publish these article lose their incentive to do so.
Created an app for myself to have a clear intention before using a phone.
https://acture.app
Works well for me.
My personal solution for this was to lock my phone in my cars glove box and never take it out except for in the case of an emergency. It was just enough work to go get it to make me not bother with it for casual use but easy enough to grab in the case that I really needed to make a call (or get directions somewhere). Worked like a charm for me and I noticed an almost immediate improvement in my mood and generally felt less distracted in life. I feel now that I have broken the habit of looking at my phone I could probably keep it closer but I just don't care enough to walk out to my car and grab it now.

I will still say I use my laptop more to do stuff I might have done on my phone but it feels like less of a problem to me since I don't carry my laptop around with me everywhere. I just do what I might have normally done then put the laptop away and don't think about it again. Having just a little division between my online life and real life is just enough to make me feel sane again.