skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm pretty sure 'dark matter' candidates do include cold baryonic matter, it's just that in large part it's been ruled out due to a lack of observations exactly like the one reported here. The fact that we had not seen it, until now, did not definitely exclude it from the definition of dark matter; it just made it rather unlikely. In the absence of observational evidence, alternative, more exotic theories were developed.

The interesting question is how did this cloud form? One of the reasons, for example, that 'dark matter' can't be cold dead stars is that even if the stars were formed at the dawn of the universe, their remnants would still be warmer than the background temperature of the universe and thus we should be able to see them. Many other 'regular' baryonic sources were ruled out for similar arguments, eg, any process that could have created them would have imparted sufficient energy that we should be able to see it, or it would have been swept up into a star or formed a new star. The article did propose a mechanism, but I wish it went into it in more depth. Figuring out ways to explain the observation could lead to insights we had previously overlooked.
Intel did this for American Football but it looks like it needed some serious processing so maybe not possible LIVE yet.

Would probably also need some kind of remote GPU too like Google Stadia if you’re going to get any kind of real-life picture quality.

https://www.intel.co.uk/content/www/uk/en/sports/technology/...
Qt Designer and Python: Build Your GUI Applications Faster
Yep. Steve Jobs did have a computer crash after that on a keynote and mentioned that's why they had two on stage. Macworld 2005 had the line "Well, that's why we have backup systems here."

Actually, there are compilations of all the bloopers made during Apple keynotes. They weren't all perfect.
Ha it's bothering me the way you worded that since you can't get those chips without the attached hardware and software! But it does get me thinking. Obviously we think of Apple systems as premium, and so we can expect premium computer chips to get prioritized - Apple likely paid TSMC handsomely to get (most/all?) of the 5nm allocation for the A14 Bionic and M1 chips. But are other high-end chips "premium"? Because the AMD Ryzen 5, 7 and 9 (5600X, 5800X, 5900X, 5950X) are all in very short supply (at least on my U.S. online stores).

BUT... those are just for enthusiast builders. You can find OEM systems with those chips.

So I guess the only lesson is that being a computer manufacturer will give you priority on high-end chips, and in times of short supply, that's where they'll go first, drying up the supply for small buyers.
Emojiconomics
You could make a long list of 'behaviors that undermine the legitimacy of government, media, etc.'

Some of those are external attacks, others are generic own goals such as: "CEO and Chairman of the Board are the same person", "Official got 5 figures in speaking fees" as well as specifics, such as the suppression of dissent in the media about the second Gulf War. Anti-war protestors faced only mild repression (the lady who ran our soup kitchen got arrested and spent time in federal prison) but the public never got the facts about the war that pointed to it working out the way it did.

That is different from the dumbasses who want to say "black people are stupid" and such.
Why India Should Buy Bitcoin
I am pretty sure this letter/meme has been around for years and this twitter account isn’t the original author, but it’s a good explanation of why cans are like they are, maybe, if anybody involved in this story exists.
This appears to be an "open source science" project.

https://radvac.org/a-homepage-section/

What you can do is conduct experiments, and report back what you find. If enough people do that, then together one can get usable n.
I'm particularly dismayed at the absence of a viable path forward. How can the public learn to perceive truth from disinformation from misinformation when the impetus for such widespread change can only come from the implicated institutions themselves? It appears to me that our school curriculums and the mass media and the major social platforms are involved. Where else can the general population find truth and begin to recognize the difference?
Performance is perfectly fine as long as you pick an image with your computer's native instruction set and have hardware acceleration. Performance through QEMU (ARM on x64, x64 on M1) is terrible, of course, but that's to be expected with software instruction translation. With proper acceleration (which may be unavailable on Windows without some tweaking, even after installing HAXM!), Android will run similar to a standard Linux VM, at near native speeds.

One problem I've run into has been that Android relies heavily on GPU acceleration. If that's unavailable on your platform (because, for example, your driver is considered buggy by the emulator devs (common on Linux with proprietary drivers) or if all you've got is an integrated Intel GPU that already has its hands full rendering to your 4k screen), your experience will be terrible with any Android emulator. Android with software rendering won't be a bit slower and choppier like you see in desktop VMs; it will be absolutely unusable for anything but a cursory check to see if the software even runs at all.

There's also the addendum that many Apple products sporting an Intel CPU have had their power/performance curve and fan curves tweaked to be silent and super performant in short loads (compiling a single file, opening a browser, loading a page, etc.) but clocking down hard and long if you run a sustained load on them, especially with a multi core load. This can make a system that normally feels snappy and fast run terrible slow with an emulator. Similar problems also exist with cheap netbooks that just have insufficient cooling on the processor. I do believe the M1 designs are better suited for sustained loads, so with the new Apple stuff this problem should be gone.

When I was still running the emulator off of a hard drive, performance was severely lacking because Android is not built with HDD seek times in mind, but after switching to an SSD that quickly became irrelevant.

In my experience, running Android on a 12 core i7 with an NVMe SSD is actually running the entire system way too fast for a realistic development experience. Your average dev machine is much faster than whatever your customers will most likely be running your code on, so you still absolutely need to test on real devices.

Emulators are great for debugging because you get to test in an environment with close-to-stock Android (so you don't accidentally write code that only works on Samsung or on Pixel), but for performance and usability testing you need a physical device.

That said, I don't think running the Android dev emulator to play games is very efficient. It'll work and perform absolutely fine, but there's been no effort put into making controllers work or into optimizing controls for desktop.
Iamlive sounds useful for someone who has something running with wide open permissions and wants to get started with narrowing down the permissions. It wastes a lot of time to discover necessary permissions one-by-one through permission-denied errors.

Tag-based policies (attribute based access control) really simplifies IAM policy management. These are more reusable, so there is permission discovery isn’t needed as often.
The Life and Death of Modern Homosexuality
I didn’t read the article to the end but enjoyed the first half. If he were my friend, I would have a serious talk about using a tablet when walking outside. I live in the mountains and spend a huge amount of time walking around my neighborhood and also wilderness hiking. Some of that time my mind is absorbed in nature, gratitude for what I am experiencing. But I also use some hiking time, when I am not with friends, for listening to a wide range of podcasts and enjoying fine literature on audiobooks.

My new years resolution for 2021 is listening to more great music and reading even more than I typically do.

I very much liked Wolfram’s organization and productivity hacks. My system is much simpler but I also like his.

I have twice tried to integrate Wolfram language and notebooks into my technical life, but it didn’t work out. Last time I read that they were baking RDF, SPARQL, and other linked data/Knowledge Graph tech into their platform, but it was not fully baked when I tried it and I walked away in frustration. Maybe I will give their knowledge platform another try sometime.
Awareness, definitely. I'm using consciousness in the same sense Julian Jaynes used it (he used to call the other form "reactivity", a term that never quite caught on).
Facebook created a machine that could directly influence public opinion, and then sold that ability to the highest bidder.

If we’re going to war with disinformation, we should attack the source.

#CancelFacebook
Or proper training.
Interesting idea! I suspect I'd need to use shell far more often than I do currently to get anything conclusive though.

But I guess it's possible to infer error rate even from past data by looking at closely spaced commands wish short Levenshtein distance.
For that matter, there are people who append laundry lists of professional certs to their name in work emails.

I guess it really depends.Things like PE, CPA, CFA, assuming they're relevant to your current position, make a lot of sense in a professional context. Appending MBA, ME, much less SB/BS, would just seem weird. (Unless it's specifically in an alumni context.)
I don’t have good answers to your questions, but you can still order European baby foods like the Dutch version of HiPP at some smaller vendors like littlebundle.com. We have been feeding this to my infant son for over a month now and he has been doing great.
I don’t see what he did as wrong. He seems to be caught in a technicality in that he has a broker license (though was not, in his day job, in a role advising on investments), but never used his role (or even identified his role - or even his name for someone else to identify him and his brokerage license and consequently rely on his licensing in making their own decisions) to cause others to make investment decisions. He simply presented his own due diligence on the stock, which is only “wrong” in this cause because unbeknownst to viewers he has his brokerage license.

I think it is ludicrous that they are going after him.
Again, the title literality states an equivalence: "The War on Disinformation Is a War on Dissent".

If you want to level some relevant criticism of the OP then you are better off with the "read the actual article and not just the title" line.
> The cease and desist tells recipients to not use Facebook's or Instagram's services "for any reason whatsoever,"

Let's ignore for the moment all the businesses and services where the only way to contact them is through Facebook. This cease and desist, taken literally, also forbids them from reading anything posted on Facebook and Instagram.

Imagine if half the TV stations, newspapers, magazines, and radio stations, told you that they'll keep talking to everyone else, but you are forbidden from checking yourself what they are saying.
Even if one agrees with your comment for the most part, the question becomes, "What qualifies as a categorically stupid idea if society can't agree on the facts, or how to apply the facts?". The examples you give are low-hanging fruit. In my own experience, I have seen this sort of argument used to wrongly shutdown debates about reasonable topics.
He didn’t “make” anyone do anything.
I might be wrong, but I'm fairly certain I've seen Uncle Bob make statements along the lines of "there are vanishingly small scenarios in which 100% code coverage is not applicable" (heavy paraphrasing). Not arguing for or against, just making that observation. I could be misremembering.
How could they stop?

If a civilization is spread out in a 10000 light year area and encounters another in one place it seems impossible they could make a collective decision given the amount of communication that it would take.
The system under test could be considered as an input to the specification / test suite. Mutation testing could then be viewed as fuzzing of the test suite, with every pass result after a mutation being considered a failure of the test suite.
You should be impressed by it.

The true nature of type checking is basically a method of hindering you. The set of all correct programs is much smaller then the set of all programs that exist so anything that hinders a programmer from operating in the bigger parent set outside the set of correct programs is a good and impressive thing.

What’s going on here is a type checking issue. JavaScript and typescript is a little too loose. The map method takes a function of <Arity 3, 2, or 1> So if a library changes a function from <arity 1> to <arity 2 or 1> you should get a type error, but the type checker is too loose. It’s subtle.

Basically a type of <arity 3, 2, or 1> should only type check with <arity 3> or <arity 2> or <arity 1> it should not allow <arity 2 or 1>. You see what’s going on here? Subtle.

This is indeed as much of a type checker problem as it is defining what type correctness is. The definition above is simply a way of defining type correctness that fits with our intuition of what is correct for this given situation, so take what I wrote with a grain of salt. There could be situations where the current definition of type correctness in typescript is more correct then the definition I provided.

Our intuition is complex and if you think long and hard enough you may be able to come up with a formal definition of type correctness that perfectly fits our intuition and therefore elegantly unionized typescripts looser definition of correctness and my own stricter definition.

Beware though, often human intuition can be contradictory. This means that a formalization of our intuitive notions of type correctness will also be contradictory and therefore unusable. In other words there may not be a way to type check for this issue while maintaining the convenience of the status quo.

Intuitively I think it’s possible, you just need special syntax to tell the type checker whether to use my stricter definition or the original looser definition that’s in use now.

Also I’m not sure if there’s any type checker in existence that handles that case (don’t know). So I believe this is more than just a JavaScript issue.
SOA: Service-Oriented Architecture
While it is true that we should be having a discussion about what really constitutes disinformation in a way that treats the concept as more than just a political tactic, this article reads as though it is doing almost the same thing. The bit about disinformation functions like a subterfuge to really assert what seem like the author's political views: covid skepticism, russiagate, ... If there is anything worse than throwing around the term disinformation to summarily dismiss ideas one disagrees with, it is having a discussion about this practice to underhandedly characterize ones own ideas as being "actually" true; as though these ideas are merely examples of real "fact-based" discourse. It is frustrating to see someone broach an important topic, then author between the lines of the discussion more of the very same problem.
Ehh.. some people who wanna make it their edge in the swe community.
Can machine learning help build a better climate model?
Yep, to me the concern is less about precision and more about recall - I have no doubt that a lot of high-profile disinformation actions do in fact pertain to disinformation. But I have a lot of doubt about the willingness of those who are taking actions on disinformation to do so impartially and be equally aggressive with disinformation of all partisan/tribal bents. I also think there's a lot of unwillingness to even come up with a transparent and operationalizable standard of what it would mean to be partial or impartial in this regard.

eg. I have no doubt that "the 2020 election was stolen" narratives are largely based on disinformation, but it seems to me that the "Trump was a Russian asset" narratives are largely based on disinformation as well. Yet the former are subjected to widespread moderation actions and the latter are not. Maybe the latter narrative is slightly less fantastical, but that doesn't seem obviously true and it's very easy for me to see why ideological bias could explain this outcome.
Hey FYI looks like you got an auto ban, I've emailed the mods to get them to review in case it's a false positive.

This was an interesting comment. I don't think it is particularly likely that Neanderthal DNA is associated with more stuffy noses, but who knows! An interesting hypothesis for sure.
Has anybody worked for Wolfram? What's he like as a boss? What's the company like?
Sadly enough, I'm more likely to believe basically anything posted to the web over a story run by any of the major media outlets.
That is specious. People remember during the opening days of the Covid fiasco, when "disinformation" encompassed interpretations of publicly available data that were forbidden exactly until the moment they were mandatory (airborne transmission, fecal transmission, immunological vectors, potential treatments, and so on). In fact it still does!
I think the current epidemic of misinformation is the direct result of news networks choosing/creating the most inflammatory content possible in order to attract the most viewers. It created a culture where we expect the news to outrage us and stroke our ego at all times. It's not that big a jump from believing Fox News when they say Obama is a Kenyan Muslim who hates democracy to believing Q Anon.
Starship Python
He is married, works with his son, and does what he loves for his work. I would bet a lot of money that he is happy and lives a fulfilled life.
A PhD student, working with other researchers on the cutting edge of their field.
Nice article's I come across
Teach logic in school so people can recognize fallacious arguments, it will also help combat the barrage of nonsense spread by China & Russia as most of it rests upon logical fallacies(Whataboutism is a prime example).
The entire video is BS coated in buzzwords
He says he has lab experience. He followed the protocol set out in the paper. Sure he might have made a mistake - but it’s not magic.

If you think there’s something off about his protocol, then say what it is. But your criticism is just “this guy is reaching above his station”.

Sasha Shulgin synthesised plenty of compounds at home and tested them on himself. Did none of them work because he wasn’t working in a commercial lab?
The EU should sell a food and baby product certification to companies in other countries for products that meet their health and safety standards. I live in the US and I would pay a significant premium products with an official EU health and safety certification.
It isn't, it states that THE war on disinformation, not any war on disinformation. You can see a similar headline here:

> The War on Drugs Is a War on Racial Justice

This article isn't saying that Drugs is Racial Justice.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40971924?seq=1
Along these same lines, debate isn't about winning against someone else. It should be an exploration of facts and logic to seek "truth" or common ground. Even debating against a bot can be beneficial to better understanding or questioning both sides of the argument.
I've always found videos like these to be the most direct (and beautiful) examples of this principle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCiIUjPF060
Thanks for reporting this. It's the first evidence I've heard of someone (Google?) abusing their power with LLVM in order to protect Google's products.

Mind sharing a link to your submission's discussion thread(s)?
So first we have to fix education...
While this thing is ancient (it's dated 1987 after all), it's funny that the Twitter caption gets it so wrong.

The Twitter caption is supposedly about making short cans taller, while the letter is clearly a response to making tall cans shorter (points 2, 4, 5).

If you're going to make a repost at least get it right ;)
Ask HN: Do you work in an area of sustainable development?
If so, what kind of work do you do and what kind of tools do use?
> your argument hinges on the assumption that you can tell the difference between disinformation ane dissent.

You often can. Let's try some exercises:

1) Bill Gates wants to inject poison/5G chips into your body to bring about the 'new world order'

2) COVID-19 is a hoax

3) There is a pedophile ring run by democratic operatives who shield each other

4) 9/11 never happened

5) Asbestos causes cancer

6) All forms of Asbestos cause cancer to the same degree

7) Disinformation is harmful

And so on. For each of these you can figure out for yourself if they are simply positions or disinformation based on the content presented and the lack of or presence of supporting facts.

Also: by stating that something is 100% false you are engaging in the exact fallacy that the article suffers from: you exhibit a degree of certainty that does not leave any room for dissent, making a fruitful discussion impossible because up front you have already indicated your unwillingness to shift your position. A more reasonable line of arguing would have started with 'I disagree, because:'. By declaring your apparent opponents view to be '100% false' up front you actually disqualify yourself.

Disinformation isn't hard to spot. What is hard is to get people to stop spreading it once it is in circulation, and the fact that there are people who get paid to do this - and to do it on both sides of an argument at the same time - shows that there is something a bit more nasty going on than mere disagreement about some details. That you are so ready to pull that cart a little further should worry you.

Censorship is bad, but spreading disinformation under the guise of 'free speech' is also bad. Now you need to figure out a way to stop the second without falling into the first. This is a hard problem, and one that you will not solve by parrotting absolutist positions.
I dealt with this a bunch. I think it’s a natural tendency of humans to hear a new idea and consider a simpler less nuanced version of it before they fully grasp it.

As an example. I was taught about object-calisthenics[1] in school. The lecturer treated a straw man version of it, and I thought about this like that for a while. What’s worse, when I later thought it was a good exercise and explained it to others I noticed I always have to reiterate multiple times that this set of rules is meant as an exercise of exploration, not a set of hard rules for whatever piece of code you are going to write next.

TDD is just so easy to turn into a straw man, and I think it has so many hardcore fans that makes it even worse to present the nuanced form of it.

[1] https://williamdurand.fr/2013/06/03/object-calisthenics/
> _in conjunction_

Given the decades of research into an electronic sense of smell and the billions of $ it will be worth if we can get a electronic nose, why are we jumping the gun to the other things?

> a sensor to detect molecules for which the mammalian nose has evolved to detect.

This would be a modern marvel and so far impossible. It also wouldn't have to be mammalian, there's no reason to limit it.

> If we have an excitatory pattern, then most AI techniques should be able to detect it easily.

Exactly. I'm not sure why you'd need AI at all. It should just be a look up table.

An electronic nose is a big deal.

We are talking the ability to know what people or vehicles are carrying without a search, tracking people and animals over land, the ability to find every truffle in a field, it should help us create smells like 4D cinema, find pollution in water and air and land, track leaks, cooking, find animal and mineral resources, animal husbandry and medicine.
>A case for using more robots, I guess.

It turned out that the problem was a single line of code written by a junior developer who has since been fired!