skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It might be common practice but it shouldn't be. There are lots of reasons this is a bad idea; here's just a sampling:

1. "My return type is whatever I happen to return" circumvents the ability of the type checker to ensure correctness.

2. More generally, the purpose of a specification (a function declaration in this case) is to declare what is required of a compliant implementation, and to provide a way to check the validity of that implementation. But when you make the types all become auto-deduced, you're basically reducing the specification to a ~ shoulder shrug "it does whatever it does" ~.

3. Moreover, as I alluded to in the comment, it quickly becomes near-impossible to meaningfully separate the definition from the declaration, whether that's because you want to hide it or because you want to compile it separately. Simply put, you lose modularity. It seems like a minor thing when (as in the example) the return value doesn't depend on types inferred from other callees' return values, but as soon as that ceases to be true, you suddenly tie together the implementations of multiple functions. At that point, your functions lose much of their power to abstract away anything, since as soon as you change the return expression for one function, it has the potential to break code (up to and including causing compilation errors) in the the entire chain of callers. (!)

4. Templates end up getting re-instantiated far more often than they need to be (which can slow down both the compilation and the runtime efficiency). You almost certainly don't want '0' and '(size_t)0' to result in duplicate instantiations when dealing with sizes, for instance.

5. Issue #4 can also result warnings/errors/bugs, since now you have a function that returns a different concrete type than you likely intended, which can result in everything from spurious warnings (signed/unsigned casts, for instance) to actual bugs (later truncation of other variables whose types were inferred incorrectly as a result).

6. The code becomes difficult for a human to read too. You now no longer have any idea what types some variables are supposed to be. Not only does this hamper your ability to cross-check the correctness of the implementation itself (just as with the declarations, in #1) but unless your function is trivial, this quickly makes it harder to even understand what the code is doing in the first place, never mind what it's supposed to do.

7. Proxy types become impossible to implement, since they won't undergo the intended conversions anymore.

All this just to reduce keystrokes might be a common trade-off, but a poor one.
I can come up with more reasons, but hopefully this gets the point across.
"Brave has ads" is a good thing. Please, allow me to explain :)

When you launch Firefox for the first time, you're already being setup and prepared to be served to Google. Your data and more are being primed. The address bar serves as a key-logger, and your inputs (before ever explicitly navigating anywhere) are being sent to Google.

Brave's ad notifications are opt-in; you have to turn them on. You decide their frequency. They're built on privacy. Users in a common region (e.g. United States) share a regional catalog. Your browser downloads a copy of this catalog, studies it locally, and decides when/if it should show any of the ads listed therein.

When a Brave Ad is displayed, 70% of the revenue goes into a digital wallet. When you see an ad in Firefox, there's a good chance you just lost a little bit of your data, and received nothing in return. In Brave, these rewards stack up, and can be passively or actively distributed to the sites and properties you appreciate most online.
> Then every week or two you get a patch.

Correct me if I'm wrong but other than the day-1 patch hasn't there been only a single (quite minor) patch for this game so far?
I was having a similar problem with SSB but resolved it by subscribing to an SSB Room I ran across online that was for folks generically into tech, and that bootstrapped my experience really well, as I now have lots of channels and pubs that I can access. I agree it's quite hurdle to get over compared to what most everyone is used to, though.
> Twitter literally claims that "To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.

Well, no, they didn't claim that. They claimed the two tweets, taken together, were the straw that broke the camel's back.

And, yes, I think you could reasonably make the claim that the tweets were innocuous if you throw out the context of the President inciting a violent insurrection on Congress. But, we don't have to blind ourselves to that prior context. Given it, and given the way a number of people received those comments and have been actively organizing for violence around the inauguration since then, it doesn't seem to be to be a close call.
Foreigners face ban from Amsterdam's cannabis cafes
Signal becomes the top free app on App Store in India, and more countries
Have the EU been able to impose GDPR penalties on an org with no staff or assets and no representation in the EU?
Protectli is a pretty common alternative.
...fake/inaccessible twitter cards?
As Signal has allegedly seen a huge boost in signups since Jan 6, I think this is a very pertinent and difficult question.

The way I see it, Signal will not make it any easier for outsiders to get radicalized (there's no public forum aspect), but once people are already radicalized and connected, it can be used to great mischief. That said, I tend to be liberal on this topic, and I feel the benefits of across-the-board E2E encryption to society outweigh the risks. But it seems likely to me that that principle is about to be sorely tested.
> If I'm understanding what he writes correctly, it's somewhat similar to a "1 OR 4-of-7" multisig concept.

I can’t see any difference between the 4 of 7 countersigners under “social sharing” and the 4 of 7 countersigners in an Electrum cosigner arrangement. In both cases the countersigners are user selectable and can collude to steal your funds. You must place high amounts of trust in the countersigners in both cases, which means it isn’t really going to scale without credible financial institutions becoming involved there.

At a certain point, both protocols evolve into a more egalitarian form of banking, where the “bank” itself is distributed across trusted countersigners.

There is really no practical difference between Electrum’s cosigner model and “social sharing” here. If the entire point of countersigners is to protect stored value against theft, 1 OR N-of-M is purely a liability. It is only a UX upgrade when small amounts of funds are at risk, in which case you could elect to do a 1-of-2 cosigner multisig, anyway.

> Also, I'm not sure why you're calling it the "Electrum cosigner" model. I thought multisig was a feature of the Bitcoin protocol, and not of the Electrum client?

Electrum has shipped this feature since c. 2013, and the author of Electrum deserves recognition for pioneering the field. Granted it’s not surprising to see the prior art — particularly directly competitive, free and open source prior art — going uncited in this context. This type of shameless self-promotion is rampant in the modern cryptocurrency space, and it tends to leave the general public ignorant of legitimate “off-the-shelf” alternatives. It’s analogous to scaremongering against medical cannabis while backhandedly championing an in-house synthetic THC product. Unfortunately the majority of participants in this space are far too blinded by greed to care.
What does your comment have to do with Ron Paul?
As a counterexample you claim to have joined Parlor because Twitter wouldn't let you hate transsexuals openly? This is supposed to support the premise that Parlor had a use for something other than to amplify hate speech?
If you use UniFi Protect you can't disable it without losing access to your video feeds in the app.
I love it, the only thing I feel it is missing is default support for .bit domains. With all the censoring going on of different sites at the DNS level, it is time to have a distributed alternative.
I describe those workarounds in my post as well. But that only solves the problem for me.

Making my ISP fix the underlying issue - that their TCP connection idle-timeout is too short - will make sure all their customers won't have to encounter this problem.
Thanks, I got the idea. So basically the deeper you go the more fundamental you have to go back, right?

I'm also considering a bottom up method that starts from (re)learning circuits from high school physics classes. Back then, IIRC we also used breadboard and I very much enjoyed the experiment part of the course.

Plus it might help the kid in the future.
The fact that this is where the argument has gone is revealing. The claims in 2016 was that it was for all intents and purposes stolen by a foreign adversary's interference, the investigative focus being if the candidate knowingly colluded to that end, not if it happened (many presumed it was the determining factor.) The claim in 2020 is that it was stolen by on-the-ground cheating, bending of the rules, exploitation of weaknesses in mail-in ballots, and, on the craziest track, a foreign government manipulating our election machines.

In both cases, voters on the ground lost trust in the outcome of their election and felt foul play resulted in their loss. Democrats felt that the Russian government tipped the scales. Republicans now feel that Democrat bad actors tipped the scales. The semantics you state here are far afield from the thing that matters: distrust in elections as a pure expression of the will of the people and our government and media's inability to unwind that distrust.

Where we sit now is those who feared foreign interference in 2016 are likely nowhere near they were in 2016 for two reasons. First, they had an investigation, and this probably mitigated a lot of people from believing their worst fears. Second, they've had another election which went their way and no such interference is being claimed, so at the very least one ought to conclude that this isn't enough to control an election.

Where we also sit now is the newly aggrieved parties (approximately a third of the country if you believe polling) feel the election's outcome was determined by fraud. This is a real problem that will not go away, and needs to eventually be unwound somehow unless you want a war. I don't know how it happens, just like I would have had a hard time predicting how the former one unwound. But just like we shouldn't have ignored the first one, we can't ignore this one or pretend suppressing it will solve it: it won't.
When I see someone writing a database from scratch I search for the rationale and the core problem being addressed. The HN title is misleading and needs a date context which is obviously not your fault but comments attempting to provide the missing context should not be dismissed as pedantry either.

If the context of a fun learning experiment was made clear on the landing-page and/or documentation then this thread could have been about architecture and programming which I think was what you wanted originally. I suspect the broken git repository didn't help matters. Overall a missed opportunity.
I confess I am a frustrated academic, but from time to time I read a paper like this one and and convince myself that my frustration may perhaps be unwarranted.

RECIPE TO PROVE ANYTHING IS INCOMPUTABLE (According to this paper).

Example, beauty is incomputable

Step 1. Assume there is an algorithm Beauty(R,D) that given the program R and the input D, will return True if it is beautiful and False otherwise.

Step 2. Create a high-order function that is a simple wrapper of the halting problem over the algorithm created in step 1

Theorem. Beauty is undecidable.

Proof. Assume by contradiction that the halting problem is decidable, then, feed it the function created in step 2, thus you can always have an answer for step 1, but since the halting problem is undecidable this is not possible.

For more variety please substitute beauty for "awesomeness", "arachnid power", "goodness","fear" and so on.
Intel's CEO Says Using Competing Process Tech in Intel Fabs Is an Option
Maybe NSFV would be more helpful?
Band Shares Torrents of Master Recordings and Invites Fans to Create Bootlegs
Is pythonic way the better way?
Elon Musk Told Twitter to 'Use Signal.' Investors Plowed into the Wrong One
Some notes about how all this is handled in Switzerland:

1- electronics HW (HDD, TV, microSD-card, etc..) recycling costs are already embedded in the cost of any new stuff that is sold (there is a little bit of extra price to be paid when buying new HW, that in turn will cover the costs to recycle the old HW that is probably being replaced or that will be replaced in the future). People dump their old HW to collection centers for free, which is then partially recycled (current technology cannot yet recover all metals etc.. contained in HW).

2- Some specific trash (e.g. PET, metals, etc...) can be brought to recycling collection centers and dumped there for free, which is then recycled.

3- To "motivate" people to produce as less non-recyclable trash as possible and to get rid of recyclable stuff in the right way (points #1 & #2), anything that gets into the non-recyclable trash must be paid for - e.g. we have to pay ~2 USD for a 35-liters trash bag, big objects need a special "sticker" that must be bought (don't remember how much it costs) => normal trash bags and big stuff without sticker don't get collected, so you cannot just leave them on the street.

In general, during the last years this put quite some pressure as well on the retailers (meaning the final shops from which you buy stuff): in the past they used e.g. the many small chunks of polystyrene ( https://www.vertapak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/polyst... ) to cushion what was in their packages, but now they all almost always use small inflatable bags - in both cases still plastic, but the amount of material is like 1000 times lower. They did it because many people continuously complained a bit to them that on one hand polystyrene wasn't environmental, but as well or especially because they had to use a lot of space in the "special costly trash bag" to throw that stuff away.

I admit that I'm not the best recycler (PET+HW+batteries+lightbulbs+clothes always, but rarely stuff like metal and glass and paper), but in the end I think that I'm at least "ok".

Switzerland doesn't have a nation-wide law about it, and if I want I can still throw away stuff into the non-recyclable loop, but if I do it then I have to pay for it (by buying the special trash bag or sticker) as I usually do when I throw away cans and bottles mixed with other stuff => freedom, but at a price - that sentence does sound horrible but in this context of recycling it just makes sense, and for me it works absolutely well :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_management_in_Switzerlan...
Yes I am sure.
How and where does The Factual source unbiased news?
I mean the RCP has been basically irrelevant since the 60s or early 70s, so it’s not as if they’re an active concern for anyone
They are not objective arbiters of the content on Parler, since they are competitors. They do not have the right to oust a competitor. There's similarly very nasty comments on twitter that they let stand.
> and yet, the documentation doesn't seem to describe, in friendly terms, how to do that.

I've gotten mixed signals from matrix people on this.

On one hand, they discourage people that aren't skilled in sys admin work to set up a server. On the other hand, they emphasize the simplicity of setting up a server and want as many as possible.

I tend to think that the mixed signals are due to the fact that they sell matrix in a SAAS business model[1], so they want it to be difficult in some ways, but easy in others.

[1]: https://element.io/matrix-services
Show HN: A C implementation of the series “Ray Tracing in one Weekend”
This isn't the cloud offering, but on-prem. I assume they're the same.

The about page says "Confluence 6.15.2".

When I click "Edit" to edit a page, via `/pages/editpage.action?pageId=`, and hit Ctrl-S, it takes me back to the view mode rendered via `/display/SPACE/Page+Title`.

Absolutely infuriating and wastes an incredible amount of time. I can't get over my muscle memory. The "Save" button in the bottom-right does the same and appears to be what the hotkey activates. No mention of it being a "Save and Quit Editing". Hovering over the button says "Save your page (Ctrl-S)".
On the landing page after you log in, click Users at the bottom. Then click Add User or Add Admin, and just set the Account Type to Local Access Only.
I got one of those emails, yet nowhere in my password manager nor in my memory have I ever used one of their products nor any of their various brand names.
In Germany, producers or importers of electric and electronic devices are already paying for collection and recycling or disposal. https://www.stiftung-ear.de/de/startseite

Didn't reduce the volume of the respective waste and didn't prolong lifetime of products in the slightest.
I agree with @pxtail that these companies will hopefully get what's coming to them. But on another note, their flagrant behavior only highlights the immense power that old media had before the Internet became as big as it is today. Just as in the past, media companies hold massive sway over the opinions of regular folk, and in all this time the law has not evolved to challenge that power in any way.

The thing I dislike most about Trump's presidency is that it shone a spotlight so bright on DC that lawmakers and politicians that no one would have cared for otherwise have become celebrities, which doesn't bode well for the future, as any organization that controls the mediums these celebrities use to gain followers and boost their platform holds power over them.

It is Facebook that gets to decide whether or not you will even get a chance at getting elected, it is Twitter that gets to decide if you even exist outside of your local city, it is Amazon that gets to decide if you even get a website to host your platform. Obviously these aren't the only ones but you see the point I'm trying to make, which is that politics have become a televised drama, and these tech companies are the Executive Producers.
Well said. My take is that there is almost no news anymore, only infotainment. It is more important to outrage and click bait than to pursue truth. It is all about eyeballs and ad revenue. I don't know how to pay for good news platforms because people want it for free.
Anouar Brahem Quartet - Jazz Sous Les Pommiers 2014

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYYEQL72wtg
Twitter and Facebook took how many years and millions of dollars to scale up a moderation strategy? I guarantee they weren't worrying about moderation at Parler's scale.
> And every NCPD job was identical.

I actually disagree with this pretty solidly - I've seen absolutely trash side missions like Dragon's Age 2 where a handful of dungeon templates had slices taken off of them and were repackaged endlessly. The NCPD jobs (especially the Assault ones) are cheapo quests - but they're placed interestingly in the world with custom prop work and differing tactical options. Depending on your build it may be more or less of "Just rush in with a sword" but viewing them as the random world encounters they appear to be created as makes them rather high quality in my eyes.

It's optional content for completionists or for you to trip over when wandering around and for that role I think it was well done.
As all laws there are limits to its use. Nutritional labels are comprised of factual content to the product. The government can't force political or other government opinion onto it. Or at the least politically fueled labelling should not be allowed. For example forcing a company to host images on their cigarette packs. This should be unconstitutional.

General opinion especially political is protected, or at least is meant to be. People can make political products, but they have to be factual in their contents.

This isn't very related to the issue of social media - the posts are from other people including the government. You can't compel a company to host your opinions. You could compel them to list factual information about its content/origin though.
A bombastic bipartisan, eh?
>"It turns out that Facebook also buys data about your offline purchases. The next time you pay for a burrito with your credit card, Facebook will learn about this transaction and match this credit card number with the one you added in Messenger.

Something else to keep in mind next time you hear the push for a "cashless" economy.
That might be the wrong way to go about it, but I sympathize with the sentiment. If you pretend to be a public square you must act like a public square.

As it happens the US Supreme Court is also sympathetic - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

Now many here already raised an obvious objection - someone tending to a small blog should be able to police it. That is sensible. So I suppose we need to find a good way to draw a line between a private club and a public square.
For this to work at scale and sustainably, all people would have to be fully rehabilitated. I don't think that's possible with how people are currently. Maybe in some utopia 500 years from now society can overlook a convicted but "rehabilitated" sex offender raping someone's five year old daughter, but not today.
Yea well, name a person.

This is a subject with concrete incidents and figures involved. The question is who on the left would be comparable to Bannon.

The subject is not generic nonsense. Talking about generic nonsense is only another non-answer that evades the very specific question. A question that should have names as an answer and nothing else.
any platform that allows free speech just breeds hate speech and america has to get past the first amendment ideals to fight this
“Rights” are what other human beings agree to recognize. That’s just the nature of law as a construct. What the federal courts in America have done is set themselves up as a tribunal of elites for deciding moral issues that other countries decide democratically.

This unsurprisingly causes a lot of friction. Same sex marriage actually wasn’t one of those areas—US opinion and that in other developed countries wasn’t far off, and it was legalized after it hit majority support. And Obergefell has a much stronger basis in law than other Supreme Court social decisions. There is a long line of precedent recognizing that marriage is a “fundamental right” protected by the constitution.

But abortion and religion in schools are examples of where the court is significantly out of step with both the letter of the law and public opinion. Public opinion in America supports abortion in the first trimester and or after that. That’s the same moral balance as reflected in the laws of say Denmark, France, Spain, Germany, and Italy (where abortion is generally illegal after 10-14 weeks). But under Roe abortion cannot be banned until the end of the second trimester. So our elite tribunal has imposed an abortion regime in the US that’s inconsistent with what more liberal Europeans have.

Same thing for religion in schools. 2/3 of Americans oppose the ban on school prayer. By contrast, instruction in public schools is a legal right in much of Europe, including the UK and Germany.

Being out of step with the public can be justified if that’s what the letter of the law requires. What’s most perplexing about Roe in particular is that it’s out of step with public opinion (broader than what the public wants) and also has no basis in the constitutional text. What’s the source of the court’s authority in that context?
it's not! inaccessible text preview, image should already be in your post meta if you want it to show up in a twitter card. :\