skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There is a difference between "does not have editorial oversight" - which I believe - and "has no say in what can be published" - which is trivially false since as owner he could do anything from hire only sports reporters to shut the whole thing down if he wanted.
It's 200mb now before a prompt shows warning users of the size they are about to download.
I expect Apple will take this very seriously.

The problem strikes at the core of the value of the their app store. Good, real apps should have good ratings and preferred placement. Bad/fake/scammy apps should not.

But this is a tough problem to get right.

If your criteria for "bad" are too broad you will catch legitimate apps, harming legit developers and their users.

Yet, if your criteria leave even a little room scammers can find and exploit it.

The scammer's job is to find any and all loopholes to exploit. They will find a small crack and drive a tank through it. The legit app developer's job is to make good apps. They can inadvertently stumble over even simple restrictions, at times.

Take this tricky dynamic and tackle it at scale, and it becomes an order of magnitude more difficult.

I kinda wonder if they shouldn't charge, say $100 to list an app on the App Store and $50-$100 per update too. It's going to cut down on scam apps and pay for enforcement. Sadly it would cut down on legit apps too. But it might be worth it overall.
I wouldn’t say HN is particularly evidence driven, just that that’s how they want to see themselves. The hive mind here has world class knowledge on tech and math but with financial issues it’s pretty average. And some of the philosophical points made here leave you scratching your head, look at fears of AGI or people thinking we live in a simulation. Those are hip viewpoints but to the average person they look ridiculous.
This seems so inefficient: you're transferring power from the moving water to moving air, but the air can be compressed. It must be losing a lot of it's power in that transfer alone. Plus, you get all the downsides of deploying a mechanism at sea: constant salt and stress.
On the bright side, though, at least it was a zero sum game (well, it will have been by the time the stock is back to where it started). Money was transferred from the early shorts and late longs to the early longs and late shorts; with the market makers taking a bit of a cut.

Many other scams (or, for example, theft and robbery) destroy value (as, for example, a stolen wallet is a much bigger loss to the owner than it is a gain for the thief). Or, say, the 2008 GFC made a few people extremely rich (unscrupulous mortgage peddlers, investment bankers creating "complex, highly leveraged, exotic trades [...] without necessarily understanding all of the implications of those monstrosities", etc.), while wreaking havoc orders of magnitude greater on the entire world.
You had me at "rendering a Swiss landscape" 8-)
Seriously, this looks like very good material for my own learning or to bootstrap a graphathon.
> The current president often has a deep dislike of the former president and entities perceived as close to him

This is not necessarily true. The Clintons, Bushes, and Obamas are like one big happy family. Trump is the exception because he pissed off everyone, but even he used to be friendly with the Clintons.

Anyway this misses the point: in general, the system of buying political favors only works when political favors are repaid, and everyone operating in that system knows it.
Article from 2000. Still seems relevant
> None of that is collective bargaining.

Neither were your examples.

> One comment earlier: "Because collective bargaining results in a net decrease in value"

That point still stands.
Imagine the balls of the person that pitched/approved selling uncovered calls on something that can 2x per day for a few days. "Let's collect $200M in options premium, but if the trend continues we'll lose $1B or even 10x more". Madness. Congrats on the trade tho.
I believe this is one of the reasons for object libraries (or archives, the foo.a files on linux/unix), you can then link in all of the object files from one of those at link time without having to list them all at once. That won't get past the 2GB limit on executables but it will get past the command line length.
The actual report is linked to in the arstechnica article and found at https://www.welivesecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/ES...
Another option is explicit memory pools when some classes of allocation have well-defined lifetimes. Freeing an entire pool is instant compared to either free()/delete or GC and produces zero fragmentation.

For example, build parse trees in explicit pools and deallocate the whole tree and associated allocations when done with it.

Language support for this is fairly poor or tricky in OO languages AFAIK; but I'm mostly familiar with C++ where destructors and lack of allocator scoping (until C++11, but optional) make this a pain. The language needs support for formally and transitively abandoning objects (or not caring, like C) to support efficient use of memory pools.
It happened 13 years ago and it was exactly same but with different xml syntax :) It was way before microservices, etc. purely point to point.
Both you and I agree that aerospace companies should do large scale vehicle simulations, which they do.

In addition SpaceX does complex fluid dynamics simulations to design and test their engines. That's likely part of why they have successfully made the "holy grail" of Full-Flow staged combustion work in the Raptor. [0]

None of the failures so far could have been detected through simulation since they were complex integration issues. At some point the cost of simulation is vastly larger than the cost of just creating a test article.

Components like drogue chutes, explosive bolts, failsafe valves and abort systems are typically validated both analytically (by reviewing designs) and are often hard to fully validate by testing.

Since validating components is so expensive, it leads companies that rely on analyitical validation (like Boeing) to become overly attached to previously analysed and working components because analysis is so time consuming and expensive. You end up with modern rockets built with space-shuttle engines as components (SLS) and old jets with new engines tacked on (747 Max).

When you talk about explosive deconstruction of a test article after something new was learnt you fail to realise the learning (not the landing) was the goal. If SN9 had landed correctly, it is very likely they would have deconstructed it anyway. They just deconstructed SN12, 13 and 14 to make way for SN15 which has a very improved design.

0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbH1ZDImaI8 "Is SpaceX's Raptor engine the king of rocket engines?"
I haven't focused on performance yet. Thanks for the pointer! Gives me a concrete target to go after.

https://github.com/adsharma/py2many/tree/main/tests/expected

is a good place to understand what types of code this system can transpile.

Most languages are using templates/generics/auto etc. I added some type inference capabilities to common code and updated dart to take advantage of it.

Should be possible for other languages as well.

btrees python -> C++/rust seems feasible as a point of comparison.

Hard problem: translating library calls from one language to another. I'm thinking of some type of a plugin system that app developers can provide mappings.
> I absolutely do not care about how these comparisons make you feel as that is completely a product of conditioning. This is still a flawed contract, lets acknowledge that it is a flawed contract whether your line in the sand is “cant put a price on” or something else.

This goes in reverse as well. The only significant reason to get married is social conditioning/pressure. Like I implied above, you can just hire those roles out and not enter the contract. Marriage is absolutely about feelings or else no one would agree to it.

Marriage is not an employment contract, the comparison is fallacious. The conditions for breaking the contract are much more severe because you're not "supposed to" switch partners like you switch jobs.

If you don't believe in marriage more power to you, don't enter into one.
*this woman

This article does make her sound like* a jerk. I don't mean to suggest Lauren Holliday is* a jerk or an asshole; she might be a perfectible reasonable and respectful person. But her writing here takes reputable evidence and skews it with misinterpretation and appeals to emotion. For example, the NOLO link she uses to support her claim "Filtering candidates by degree is the epitome of wrong and legally, it’s actually discriminatory" merely says that whether it's discriminatory "...depends on its into and its effect." And of course, the NOLO link has nothing to say about the morality of filtering by degree. Similarly, she asserts that "A LOT of rich kids" pay people to take classes/do assignments, which I suppose is true depending on one's definition of "a lot." The implication is that rich people regularly cheat in college.

Her goal seems to be persuading employers to drop their degree requirements. Instead of writing a convincing article, she got distracted by frustration and a dislike of the rich. If she writes a follow-up, a better case would be simply support the point: "Employers are likely missing out on superior job candidates because of degree requirements." I think that, along with the bare minimum of outrage, would get closer to achieving the goal and further from encouraging the mob to grab pitchforks.
As others have said, the energy that a supercapacitor can store is practically nothing compared to lipo. And that is by weight, when supercapacitors are less dense then lipo.

If you want more power you can just put more batteries in parallel. Or use batteries with lower resistance (the flat ones).

As for gathering bursts of energy; Again the problem is energy capacity. The (potential) energy released by braking really hard is really high (per time).

You could use a flywheel battery for that. They can take it. They are even used in roller coasters just for that purpose (granted they use big flywheels).

Considering people usually break "softly", it is just not worth it.
The key issues here were hiding the existence of accounts and organizations, not the existence of them.

The British Virgin Islands company can exist and its earnings can grow tax free. The same for the Caymans one. The nature of what those organizations do determines what taxes a US citizen owner has to pay, in many cases it would still be substantially lower than “ordinary income”. The key issues would be aiming to avoid passive foreign investment company and controlled foreign company regulations.

The second issue is neglecting the FBAR reporting. Which is another way of telling the US government about bank accounts and companies. Neglecting FBAR alone has criminal penalties.

Merely telling them does not create a tax liability.

But perhaps telling them would reveal other non-compliance or undermine other asset protection plans by the mere nature of someone knowing. Could trigger pursuits by creditors or prior relationships. Not everyone has these problems and as you see they are not necessarily tax problems.

The third issue was using the funds domestically. They bought a house on US soil, strike one, and lived in it, strike two, and not paying taxes on the amount repatriated, strike three. They could have posted collateral with a third party lender and borrowed against it, to get liquid. Paper borrowing without a third party lender (ie. Just writing a contract on behalf of the offshore company you own, and saying you are borrowing) would not be compliant. Collateralized third party lending has stood the test of time. If your collateral gets liquidated you have to pay taxes then, so overcollateralize and pay your interest.

A year in the US Virgin Islands or Peurto Rico could have been used to convert those taxable earnings into post-tax at 0-4% tax rate.

They just didn't and stuck with non-compliant avenues.

They are using non-profits onshore, they could have done a lot more with that to reduce their taxable earnings while retaining control of the funds for the most part.

There are so many ways.
I haven't watched the HBO Max version yet, just seen some comparison vids and shots, but the DVD conversion handled the special effects shots very poorly. The original show was broadcast in SD 4:3 which is what the effects were rendered at. The DVD conversion went to 16:9 widescreen, since that's what the film was shot at, but then decided to get 16:9 effects shots by zooming in and cropping the already-low-SD-resolution renders. So it's now basically half resolution, and then run that through an interlaced DVD and put it on a big HDTV, and it looks awful. The effects shots also include a lot of conversations and other shots with people, since they used quite a few virtual sets.

From the comparison shots I've seen of the new version, they kept everything 4:3, and instead of cropping the effects shots, did a pretty decent job upscaling them instead. So it's not HD quality like if they were rendered in HD, but at least it's not sub-broadcast-quality anymore.
I don't see any signs you shouldn't keep going.

Most pros have other programmers (usually coworkers) they can ask questions. If you could afford to pay a pro to answer your questions when you've been stuck for hours -- paying for less than 1 hour of the pros time for every 10 or more hours you spend working alone -- you could probably implement your ideas much faster than if you work entirely alone.
A ton of people still use RSS, they just don't know it. For example, podcasts.
Wow. I had never considered that. I always wondered why some companies don't let me SSO into different parts of their apps.
Well inherently cameras have much better angular resolution. So for current level of tech you get more pixels per object for any given distance.

Lidar's big advantage was a distance for each "pixel", but that advantage seems to mostly disappear for pairs of cameras, at least for common objects like pedestrians, bicycles, most vehicles, etc. However that does depend on edge detection or enough visual detail to be able to match an object through two different perspectives. A featureless white wall that consumes the entire camera view would result in no distance for a stereo camera, but would still work with lidar. Not sure if that's enough of a limitation to break things with say a large white 18-wheeler crossing the road.

I've heard new interest in mm wave (60 GHz or so) radar, but no idea where it falls compared to lidar and stereo cameras as far as distance and angular resolution and sample rate.
Proof of stake doesn't prevent 51% attacks. It eliminates the incentive. If an attacker controls 51% of coins, why would they attack the network? That would be attacking their own wealth.
I am using inoreader.com and never looked back. Even the free version is great. I use the paid version and it gives me all what I need. I can only recommend it.
> There's a simple lesson. Buy and hold a low-fee index fund. Stop trying to pick stocks. And for God's sake stop trying to day trade stocks.

It's a tough lesson to learn. When I realized, I think last Wednesday evening, that intelligent people honestly believed Ken Griffin was ordering Robinhood to block traders from buying GameStop stock so a short of his could make money, I started pricing out puts. (Didn't do anything.)

I burned my hands with thankfully little money in the '08 crisis. It chastened me, and I've been more disciplined since. And I was a professional options market maker. (It's a bit of a running joke: sell-side traders running godawful personal accounts with a handful of hero trades and boatloads of losers.)

I'm not sure I would have been more disciplined had I entered the markets at the tail of a 10-year bull market. Certainly not if the most-accessible trading app encouraged me to day trade. And if my financial identity was largely based on a subreddit that egged me on. It's a difficult problem, and I don't think there are easy answers.

(Counterfactual: individual investing is not hopeless. There is ample evidence that individual investors can and do generate abnormal returns. But it's seldom the people day trading, and when it is, it's not them holding concentrated positions over multiple days.)
Make forces you to choose between being able to do full parallel builds or using recursive make, you can’t do both.
I can't downvote (I think?) and I don't miss it. I use an android client (Materialistic) that doesn't even provide me with an option to do so, and I haven't looked for a way to do so. If I disagree with a post or comment and don't want to add a response, I just move on. If I'm in the browser, I'm probably not even signed in unless I want to upvote or save something.
How do you keep a day job and also moderate?
Not sure what you're suggesting, but I'll try to give benefit of the doubt & guess you advocate for giving users randomly generated 64 character hex strings & password resets only give them a newly generated password

At that point it may be suitable to store the password as plaintext, though a layer of hashing could be suitable to slow down an attack from authenticating in case they get read access to the database
Public health is a drastically different battlefield then public equity. It’s closer to seatbelt laws and geopolitics then it is to day trading. Of course there are going to be different arguments, different misinformation, etc. But you don’t hyper rationalize a public health crisis with arguments like:

“I personally am low risk so...”

“Actually I don’t need to wear a mask when I do this in public because...”

“My political leader disagrees with public health officials so...”
I think when people thinking blockchain they are thinking in line of bitcoin, so it is confusing.

Better to think as "signing messages". also better to think as offline on some steps.
> If we are investigating the market structure

Market structure is not the subject of the investigation. Market volatility is. In this case microstructure has absolutely zero to do with the volatility. It was caused by 7 million retail traders simultaneously joining a poorly thought out pump and dump. That would create volatility regardless of the mechanics of how orders are crossed.

> Not saying that did happen, not saying it didn't, but Citadel is central

Spoiler: It didn't happen. Robinhood already publicly confirmed that the issue was them running out of collateral at the clearinghouse. Citadel confirmed that it never stopped accepting orders. The DTC confirmed that it raised the margin on GME, causing Robinhood to near its margin calls. JP Morgan and Goldman confirmed that Robinhood drew down its credit lines. Dozens of other brokers, most without ties to Citadel, restricted trading at the same time citing the same clearinghouse issues. The SEC could easily verify all of this. It would necessitate a giant conspiracy involving hundreds of potential whistle-blowers across a dozen companies all risking jail time. And somehow there's zero evidence of any of it.

This has become the stock market equivalent of QAnon at this point.
I suspect the biggest (build time) benefit to most c++ workflows and toolchains was the move to ubiquitous SSD. Prior to that in my experience excepting expensive RAID array dedicated build machines, it was really easy to build a system that would always be IO bound on builds. There of course were tricks to improve things but you still tended to hit that wall unless your CPUs were really under spec.

edit: to be clearer, I'm not thinking of dedicated build machines here (hence RAID comment) but over all impact on dev time by getting local builds a lot faster.
Exploring Algol 68 in the 21st century (2020)
It doesn't stop them from (knowingly or unknowingly) forwarding the link to someone else.
I was going to suggest that, but he's running on Windows and I don't know if they are supported there. I guess they probably are since they're a compiler feature.
I generally agree, but there's another element to this - charging station viability. Only the special charging stations will be able to do the fast charging. How available will those be? It seems to me that it might not be financially viable to have fast charging stations widely available if for the other 95% of times people are charging at home, especially if they need buffers from the grid to handle the capacity.

Over all, I think supercapacitors will be a good option in the future, but not at the current energy density. Especially if they're relying on graphene and the fast charging will essentially require a second one to act as a buffer for the grid.
> Companies end up piecing something together that kind of works but creates technical debt or support burden, or they spend thousands of dollars on Auth0 or AWS Cognito

I built something out with Cognito for my current team. I don't like it much, but we're definitely not spending thousands of dollars on it. Have you heard horror stories about its pricing?

From the AWS pricing page (https://aws.amazon.com/cognito/pricing/), you get 50 MAUs with SAML free and then it's $0.015 per user. We haven't had any issues with this - yet.

I do think your solution sounds nicer, but I'm really not sure looking at your pricing that it's cheaper.
They say otherwise on their blog[1]:

"Clearinghouses are SEC-registered organizations that act as the central depository for securities. They keep a record of the stocks owned through a brokerage. Clearing brokerages, like Robinhood Securities, are members of clearinghouses."

"The amount required by clearinghouses to cover the settlement period of some securities rose tremendously this week. How much? To put it in perspective, this week alone, our clearinghouse-mandated deposit requirements related to equities increased ten-fold."

https://blog.robinhood.com/news/2021/1/29/what-happened-this...
A long time ago, due to an improbable sequence of events, I found myself teaching Computer Graphics at my alma mater, a year after I took the class myself. Over the following five years or so, my approach to the subject evolved, and I really got the hang of it.
After I stopped teaching, I took my notes, handouts and slides, and made them into a series of articles that I put on my website, where they remained in relative obscurity. Hacker News managed to find it every once in a while, and it was generally well received, but nothing came out of this. Until April 2019. It made the HN front page again [0], except this time it caught the attention of an editor in No Starch Press [1].

Long story short, today I’m incredibly grateful and excited to tell you that CGFS is coming out as a real book, with pages and all [2]. The folks at NSP graciously agreed to let me publish the updated contents, the product of almost two years of hard editing and proofreading work, for free on my website [3]. But if you’d like to preorder the printed or ebook version, you can use the coupon code MAKE3DMAGIC to get a 35% discount at https://nostarch.com/computer-graphics-scratch.

I’m still somewhat in disbelief that my work is getting published as a book, and this genuinely wouldn’t have happened without your support. So once again, THANK YOU :)

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19584921

[1] http://nostarch.com

[2] https://nostarch.com/computer-graphics-scratch

[3] http://gabrielgambetta.com/computer-graphics-from-scratch