skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's inconsistent with any sort of matter explosion. First leat's deal with "there was a bang".

Rather than an acoustic "bang" which has a moving sharp amplitude peak that decays back to the background as it radiates outwards, the acoustics of the hot big bang are comparable to Gaussian white noise with an almost everywhere-identical intensity that decays everywhere almost-identically (that is, the sound of the big bang is the background). The pressure waves weren't moving through anything like our atmosphere or oceans, it was simply too hot for there to be any molecules at all, and there were so many low-amplitude pressure-waves that one would have to think about trillions of trillions of trillions of simultaneous explosions and implosions, and not just one.

Explosions in a medium like air or water create an overdensity (compared to some global average) shockwave that has a particular focus, not random overdensities and underdensities everywhere. Additionally, an explosion's overdensity shockwave is strongly associated with an increase in temperature -- colloquially, explosions tend to create fireballs that break up structures depending on the strength of the explosion (they can break weak molecular bonds, chemical bonds, the bonds between electrons and nuclei, and the bonds within nuclei, in increasing order of power).

The hot big bang is consistent with a very hot, dense, low entropy phase suddenly expanding and cooling adiabatically everywhere, with everywhere remaining close to the average. With this expansion-driven cooling, new bonds formed, first freezing out neutrinos, quarks and gluons, baryons, hadrons, electroweak particles, weak and electromagnetic particles, and eventually less-ionized and even neutral atoms and molecular hydrogen (H2).

In other words, the hot big bang's expansion produced effects in matter almost exactly opposite what one would get in an explosion.

Finally, "big" in a spatial-extent sense isn't right either, as everything that is near us in our modern galaxy cluster was compacted in to something much smaller than the head of a pin. Indeed, everything we see in our sky (including at least billions of galaxies) was compacted into an area much smaller than our own galaxy.[1]

Perhaps you might consider that the "big bang" was a misleading choice of name put forward on a radio broadcast in 1949, and that trying to promote it from poetic licence (or even just rhetoric) into an analogue of a chemical or nuclear explosion is futile given that Hoyle knew he was mischaracterizing (not just oversimplifying) what was known of the distant universe at the time of the broadcast.

("Big bang" is certainly fancifully poetic, and short, and those two attributes tend to be found in the jargon of theoretical physics. Consider the names of the standard model quarks, or "black hole".)

- --

[1] Ethan Siegel, a theoretical astrophysicist and science writer, gives some numbers for the spatial volume of our Hubble volume as one approaches the end of the inflationary epoch (and the start of the big bang) at https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/24/how-...
Actually, I tried that the other day. It complains about having the wrong Python, but will auto-select a version compatible with your project and run fine. For me, it selected Python 3.7 because that's what the pyproject.toml specified, even though I was running it under Python 2.
What I find fascinating, is that babies are born knowing how to suck.

How? It’s not something you can teach them. They say it’s an innate thing. But what does that even mean.

I think babies are born with this programmed into them. Like a genetic type of memory.

Then over time, the neurons establish more connections, and learn more advanced things. But the spark for that was set off at birth.
The law feels backwards to me; how much traffic would these sites be getting without Google?

If anything, they should be paying Google for the free traffic.
Major Vulnerabilities Discovered and Patched in Realtek RTL8195A Wi-Fi Module
The fact that Wordpress adds it automatically is a huge win because half or more of all websites are Wordpress. So there are a lot of content creators that don't even know what RSS is and yet you are able to subscribe to them because Wordpress automatically provides a full-text RSS feed for every Wordpress blog.

I built my personal blog on a static site generator (Gridsome) and had to add RSS to my site intentionally. Luckily there is a plugin that provides this functionality easily now, but you still have to know about RSS, decide to offer it, and then install the plugin and configure it to compile your RSS feed with each site build. So it is something the developer or maintainer of the site has to think about (at least initially, now that it is configured it updates automatically).

I am not a huge fan of Wordpress, but I am grateful that they continue to offer it "automatically" for all Wordpress sites. This means that I am able to subscribe in my feed reader for small sites that might not even think about RSS.
I use RSS too, with Thunderbird. It takes a bunch of cutting and pasting to subscribe to youtube channels that have a name, but other than that the experience is so far superior to anything it feels like cheating. While I wouldn't object to going to a site like Twitter in principle, in practice the relentless onslaught of A/B testing, hatred of privacy and lowest-common-denominator means that it hostile to me.
Direnv/asdf is crazy fantastic. I was afraid asdf and direnv would fall into the venv/conda hell that is python, but it. Just. Isn't.
I was mostly looking at this: https://arrow.apache.org/docs/status.html
I'm reminded of a snarky libertarian quip:

> If a big company charges more than the competition, they say they're illegally abusing their monopoly.

> If a big company charges the same as the competition, they say it's illegal collusion.

> If a big company charges less than the competition, they say it's illegal price-dumping.
> Everyone is a lot more comfortable chatting about suit color than talking about poverty in our nation and having a complex debate over how to siphon some of the excess wealth toward addressing the issue.

I mean, about ~40% of the voter base, and about ~60-80% of the political class does not believe that we need to have any debate about siphoning excess wealth, because they do not believe it should be done.

Why would they want to debate it, when they can instead talk about literally anything else? When you are cheerleading for the status quo, ignoring the issue makes it go away - at least for another two or four years.
This Is How America Gets Its Vaccines
You do realize that "hedge funds" isn't a monolithic entity right? There are hedge funds that are long, as well as short.
This is probably more of an adgecase, but it would be nice... access to an array of the last 10 items in the history (for the same domain in the same tab).

Yes, of course you can store that data in application memory, and that's what we currently do (we send it with runtime exception errors so we can try to reproduce the problem). But, it would be nice if that function was inherent to the browser instead of everyone downloading that code in all of our applications. Then it could persist through page refreshes too.
It appears to me completely differently, which I guess is something else that feeds into the divide. I get the "they're pitting us all against each other" thing from the people I know I on both sides, and honestly I think they both have a point. The fact that I can't tell which party is which in your story makes believe this more so.
I think Dems have an uphill battle to fight - media seems strongly slanted against liberal policies as evidenced by the lack of deficit spending being anywhere in the debate when tax cuts were happening compared to deficit spending to address the viral crisis. There are entrenched interests that will put a lot of messaging toward suppressing discussions of liberal policies.
Owners.

What a concept.

The owners are the shareholders.

GameStop was started as a side gig by Riggio, who was also the founder of Barnes and Noble. He has bigger things to worry about, like his retirement. It's been run by professional executives for the most part.

DeMatteo is still around, but I think that's it for the founding team. If you can call a series of merges a founding.

Yeah, if I own a company, I'll sweat and bleed to make it successful. That's the #1 founder / startup advantage.

That's not true for publicly-traded companies. Those are an abstraction. If a CEO is making $35 mil and someone offers them $50 mil, guess where they're going?

A lot of startups don't realize that as a source of advantage, but it's a big one. It's a lot of where the agility comes from too. A professional CEO need to first worry about keeping their job, then about their next job, and finally, the organization. For a founder, for the most part, those are one and the same.

If you gave me a failing public business as an owner -- with no accountability, no board to please, no existing executive team to back stab me, and all the upside -- I'd do better than most CEOs in turning it around. That's not because I'm more qualified or competent, but because I'd have the freedom of being an owner. The original CEO, if properly incentived, would usually do a better job than I would, in turn.
I think you’re right that you’d hear a lot of trite arguments you’d heard before in that pairing. I do think it would be worthwhile for one reason: it illustrates that politics are about deciding who gets what, not about some objective “correct” solution.

You’d have the boss on one side, who would lose money and productivity with a union, and an organizer on the other, who stands to gain benefits and stability. That is an interesting pairing _because_ it is directly about what each side wants.

It’s exactly what you don’t get in traditional media, where it’s mostly disingenuous hemming and hawing by opinion columnists. I’m showing my biases here, but I think the reason you don’t hear politics talked about in “who gets what” terms is because those in power benefit from obscuring material realities.
The less successful teams in the English Premier League tend to not have many "plastic fans". Chances are if you support Sheffield United it's not because they went on a US/Asia summer tour, but rather because people in your immediate social environment (e.g. family and close friends) support them.
The regency period is interesting because it combines the influence of the French Revolution with the aristocratic society of England. Clothes, fashion and behavior no longer were supposed to match your role and status but also your personality. So you have individualism and princes and balls and at the same time it feels quite modern. So it’s not that Jane Austen wrote some books, she lived in a time where she could write books that feel quite modern to us.
Are the solid state hard drives of today, faster than the RAM memory from the 1990s?
This frustrates a LOT of people who want more political difference expressed than the two parties exhibit.
You can get SSDs without such issues. At least for the kind of long sequential writes followed by deletes where HDD are are even vaguely comparable, good SSD’s can maintain very close to their theoretical maximum speeds indefinitely.

They only really slow down in usage patterns that trash traditional HDD’s, which have much worse disk fragmentation issues.
I hadn't head that before. How very fitting.
>> We have lost a number of high-profile games, where the predictive models suggested a 99% probability of winning near the end.

If it's any consolation, I don't believe the Falcons were ever truly at 99%+ win probability, in the Super Bowl or in those blown leads this regular season. Most WP models, in my opinion, highly over/understate the true WP as they approach the extremes. Obviously ATL had a very high P(winning), but perhaps it was 96-97% rather than 99+. Seems like a minor difference, but from the NE side, if the Patriots truly had a 3.5% chance instead of a reported 0.5%, that's a 7x improvement. I've done some analysis on these models and written about it here: https://cfnine.com/blog/nfl-win-probability-part-1
Indeed, JS was off as it usually is.
Apologies, off base there. Edited with a pointer to Flight :)
So why wouldn't a central database work, with the producer entering how much they sent to the shipping company, and the shipping company entering how much they sent?

What in the world does the use of blockchain enable in this case?
Looks neat, but it would be better to progressively load the 3d model.

Eg.
1. Load the text
2. Load a placeholder image
3. 30s later, when the 3d model loaded, swap it with the image

Also it crashed my MacBook (black screen of death, short fan burst and then turned off the laptop).
Reproducible on both Mac and Windows with latest chromium on a Radeon 5300M.
It seems like it's non-trivial to calculate the trajectory of even an inactive object we built ourself, to an arbitrary precision.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
My understanding of the trade-offs have to do with primarily with devil-in-the-details stuff, i.e. how the feature actually gets implemented.

AFAIK, there are two major philosophies: implement boxed types (which Go kinda already has, via `interface {}` being implemented as tuple of (type, value), or very aggressive static analysis (like Rust).

The problem with the former is what you get in Java: can't make generics of primitives, and runtime perf issues with boxing/unboxing when you want to e.g. sort terabytes worth of ints.

Conversely, the problem w/ the Rust approach is that the cost is shifted over to the compiler, which has to figure out how to emit optimal primitive-handling code given that the entry point of a generic call tree might be very far away (or even unknown at compile time). This leads to slow compilation times.

For go specifically, I think there's some amount of worry wrt overlapping features (given how go does interfaces) and the subsequent loss of clarity, given that go falls closer to the one-way-of-doing-things side of the scale.

All of these concerns are of the death-by-thousand-paper-cuts variety: can I live with a bit slower compilation times? Yes. Until it's so slow that I can't. Will I love generic collections? Yes. Until I'm neck-deep in a J2EE-like over-architected mess. Etc. Recall that go comes from Google, where minimizing the amount of crap in a billion LOC codebase is considered very important, so concerns like trading off simplicity and compiler speed for other benefits tend to be thought in terms of how the negatives look in the absolute worst case scenario.
>https://asdf-vm.com/

I have successfully confused people who sought meaning in 'asdf' when the string is absolutely meaningless, actually being the left-hand home keys.

'asdf' could be interpreted as "totally blew off that 'naming' thing".
Thanks a lot for this link, I didn't know n-gate and the hacker news part is hilarious!
Afrofuturist on Black algorithms and her neural net portrait of Stacey Abrams
Of course, being safer (more conservative) brings lower profits. I'm for sure not suggesting to be puts-insured all the time! It is just a useful instrument when one wants to hedge.

The person on the other side is likely a market maker selling both kinds of options. The price is dictated by market.
"People should be judged by their abilities"

You state that but then exclude certain abilities from consideration which makes me think what you mean is that people should be judged based upon the abilities I have deemed important.
“Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples, while judging ourselves by our best intentions.”

https://time.com/4403510/george-w-bush-speech-dallas-shootin...
Thank you. I'd like to offer more of a content description:

Verified Twitter user￳￳ @GerronJordan uses avatar and screen name from Ch￳a￳m￳a￳￳￳t￳h￳ ￳Pa￳I￳hi￳a￳pt￳￳iya (@chamat) to post clear scam:

ATTENTION. I have decided to hold a special event and share this.
Go to chamath-sxxxxl . com
Remove extra spaces!

The x'ed out word is social if you want to investigate.

https://mobile.twitter.com/GerronJordan/status/1357085137519...
Strictly speaking, Rust doesn't have templates, or "template expansion", but there is a thing called "trait resolution" which does take effort to solve, that is related but not the same thing as what C++ calls "template expansion."

If you'd like to learn more the current way this works is described here: https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/traits/resolution.html

As it mentions, this is being re-written, and eventually, will use an SLG solver https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/traits/chalk.html
CPUs come in many flavors. One area where they differ is in the way that bytes of a word are represented in memory. Two common formats are Big Endian and Little Endian. This is an example where a "C array of doubles" would be incompatible and some form of deserilaziation would be needed.

My understanding is that an apache arrow library provides an API to manipulate the format in a platform agnostic way. But to claim that it eliminates deserialization is false.
How I Stole Your Siacoin (2017)
The gaps are usually homopolymers and such, which should get helped by R10 pores. But true, at low coverage, things can get tougher!
this is like saying gasoline is bad because napalm.
RMS's personal behavior over the past 35+ years has clearly demonstrated he does not care about other people's feelings. He is rude and insulting, and when this is pointed out to him he becomes defensive and digs himself in deeper.

Look at the whole Epstein mess he got himself into. He said something that was obviously offensive and when people criticized him for his he didn't apologize, he just insisted that he was right and what he said couldn't possibly be offensive.

This isn't anything new. Look at his response from 1993 to a colleague who announce the birth of a new baby. http://www.art.net/studios/hackers/hopkins/Don/text/rms-vs-d...

I think its fair to say his capacity for empathy is severely lacking and that has a profound impact on the ideology the FSF advocates for.
The Republicans have moved very far to the left over the past 30-40 years, from where they used to be.

Topics no longer up for serious discussion in the Republican Party that used to be very common:

Doing away with Social Security / replacing SS. Getting rid of Medicare and Medicaid, replacing them with entirely private systems. The gold standard, going back to it. Cutting spending (actually attempting to do it, not just paying rare lip service to it). Getting more aggressive with the war on drugs. Increasing punishment for crime, putting people into prison for longer sentences.

It was George W Bush's administration that implemented the successful Housing First program for homelessness assistance, which would have been considered an exceptionally bad welfare state program by the 1980s Republicans. Back then it would have been considered to encourage homelessness, they would have said it entrenches it.

Today's Republicans support rampant welfare give-aways in the form of stimulus checks. That would have been considered a crazy Socialist program universally by Republicans just as recently as the early 1990s. Giving people checks during a recession was unthinkable by Republicans as recently as 20 years ago (eg the 2001-2002 recession).

Trump - with wide Republican support - just implemented the best criminal justice reform in US history. That would have gotten near zero Republican support in the 1980s.

The Republicans in Reagan's time were very militantly against gay marriage, and any form of sexuality being shown anywhere at any time. In the early 1990s Murphy Brown - a fictional TV character - deciding to raise a child on her own was a very controversial matter among Republicans, so much so that Dan Quayle made it a prominent issue. Republicans just 30 years ago were radically more conservative than they are today and that's putting it mildly.

Those same Reagan era Republicans were almost universally - with very few exceptions - strongly in favor of the war on drugs. Every other word out of their mouths was about how to further criminalize drugs. Today the exact opposite is true, very few Republicans are in favor of the war on drugs. Trump just came and went and the Republicans barely lifted an eyebrow at trying to roll back the positive momentum of drug liberalization.

If people on the left think Republicans today are far right, well, ha. They don't remember what Republicans were like back then apparently. Today's average Republican is a centrist Democrat circa the mid 1980s and early 1990s.
Only one party has near complete control over mass media, social media, and big tech. If you want to get a first approximation of who's driving the "scandal", you should pretty obviously look at the ones who control nearly every piece of information you consume. The ones who spent every second of every minute of every day for the last five years straight finding some propaganda to use against Trump and the other half of the country. The ones who are actively censoring any opposition to their political ideology. The ones who have redefined "democracy" to mean them getting their way, and "the end of democracy" to mean any other political ideas getting heard. Maybe you should start there, with the ideology that controls every piece of information you're allowed to consume.

Bring on the downvotes, censor me, anyone with different political ideas than you deserves to be censored and removed from society. Bring on democracy! You're not the ones causing scandal, that's for sure.
Dumb question, if you change an interface{} in go do you have to change everything based on it?
A Practical Guide to Customer Interviews
Pretty sure it goes both ways ;). Which is perhaps why the parent didn’t specifically mention party names. The statement is interchangeable for both parties.

Ps- I’m not a member of any political party.
I don't disagree with this in abstract but I think the idea that both sides have extreme elements that are in any way comparable died on January 6th. There's a difference between Bernie Sanders and Marjorie Taylor Greene, but a lot of people don't see it that way because they're uncomfortable being in the same group as Marjorie Taylor Greene. I think the Republicans have a responsibility to address this and I don't think the Democrats are in a similarly dire situation.
Probably a naive question, but couldn't it do the same optimization for the code above? I believe Javascript engines like V8 do something of that sort.
I wouldn't call posting links on his shitty homepage to Guardian articles at 4am "activism"
> accounts of people “inheriting” memories after organ transplants

This is interesting.

So if you transplant a liver, you get memories of the donor’s eating habits? LOL.
I agree that there must be some genetic component to it, but if that were the case then by the law of large numbers we should have seen some counter examples by now too, i.e. babies that lack the instinct to suck or cry, etc. It'd be interesting to know if they show any obvious genetic changes that could explain that behavior. Casual googling hasn't turned up anything, but I'm sure someone has looked into it somewhere...
Admiral Jeremiah Denton Blinks T-O-R-T-U-R-E using Morse Code as POW [video]
Yep, good point. The reason is that the objective of the book is to cover as much material as possible, in the shortest time possible, and in the simplest way possible; so I had to build the shortest path between putPixel() and filtered textures, and that leaves things like antialiasing behind.

I explain a bit of this in the introduction, most of the time I present not the best/fastest algorithm, but the one that it's the simplest to understand. For example, I don't even mention Bresenham's algorithm; instead I present a super simple but inefficient one, which achieves two critical things: (1) you're drawing lines in no time, (2) it motivates the linear interpolation method that is then used for shading, z-buffering and texturing.