skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Maybe I'm missing something about the use case, but I'm not sure I quite follow.

Sure, something needs to have permission to use the higher level of privilege. On your typical POSIX OS, your program is probably born with the ability to create arbitrary TCP/UDP sockets by default; on a capability OS, maybe you've explicitly provided it with access to your network stack. Regardless, at the entry point to your program you presumably have modules providing arbitrary network access in scope somehow.

If I'm understanding correctly, the case you described is that you have an HTTP client module that you'd like to have direct access to the network, but you'd like to restrict the consumers of the HTTP client to only querying certain hosts. From the start of your program, you'd instantiate an HTTP client (passing it a capability to use the network interface) then instantiate one of those HTTP client proxy objects that only allows communication with one host (passing it a capability to use the HTTP client). From there, you pass the capability to that proxy object to the unprivileged consumer of the module.

This seems to work without any kind of stack walking authentication logic, just normal variable scope, provided the language is capability-based. Am I missing something?
Performance car and motorcycle manufacturers _do_ have recommended oil and fuel providers

But it's more akin to car companies making both the car _and_ the engine - which wasn't the case in the stagecoach/early era
It's written as a statement, not as a figure of speech. If it's not intended to be factual, it should be annotated as such. It literally claims theft as it stands, which makes the article seem juvenile in use of language.
Why a U.S. Bitcoin ETF Could Be a Real Thing in 2021
The energy usage is for keeping transactions that have happened from being reorged out of the chain.
"I announced the (extremely) early-access edition of the book on Reddit last week and received a lot of positive feedback.

Idea validated. Funding secured. "

OP seems happy enough. I quoted the same as you and yet read it differently.

They have literally said: "Funding secured. <party>".

Sorry to be brutal but Sylvain seems quite happy about their approach to making money.

[Edit: Soz, my quote is not quite the same as yours and things may have changed between your and my quote. I await DV oblivion 8) ]
"You cannot drag fullscreen windows from one monitor to another."

Sure you can. Use whatever shortcut you'd like to get into Mission Control, drag and drop that "Space" from one monitor to the top bar on the other.
I think you're way underselling the existing methods, or maybe I'm misunderstanding your words. To me if something is terribly, atrociously, disastrously broken you must stop using it immediately, because its harmful to use it any further. Are we really at that stage? I think having an honest dialogue about hiring is also about accepting that there are things that are working about the current system - even if it needs changes.

Broadly, I feel like we need to work to get better at most processes that involve humans. Managers need to get better at setting expectations, giving feedback, appreciating people's work, etc, etc. Employees need to improve their communication skills, reliability at forecasting, etc, etc. HR needs to make sure employees feel comfortable, welcomed, valued etc. Leaders need to better convey a vision for the company, etc. Basically everyone needs to improve in whatever job function they're responsible for. Hiring is no different - its just one of the many functions of a company.

People love to base arguments in data, but in what cases will data/models lie to you? If a company has been around for a while, has no obvious problems keeping their employees, does that mean that another company can simply adopt their model and be successful? Specifically, should we expect that companies which measure identically on key metrics (employee churn/turnover rate, employee work/life balance perception, employee retention, etc) are also similarly great at hiring?
> "It's not "if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear" but "if you have nothing to suspect then you have no reason to search."

THIS.

Thank you for your eloquence.
They will not increase it. I am merely pointing out the idea "to do twice the number of transactions it would consume twice as much energy" is not correct, because raising the block size would not necessarily increase energy consumption.
Have you forgotten about the existence of China (and its enormous hydro-dams)? Nobody suggested Iceland is the sole location of Bitcoin mining.

> it would be transferred through the power grid to other locations that rely on non-renewable energy sources.

Not at all. Electricity is not easy to transport nor store.

Do you know there are many days with negative prices of electricity in many locations in EU, because the electricity can't be economically transported even across the rather small region?

> Bitcoin uses 6.5X more energy than the entire country of Iceland combined.

Given the benefit of Bitcoin, that's excellent!
You’re not factoring in the military industrial complex cost of military enforcement of fiat currencies. You have to be factoring in the cost of militaries, fossil fuel exploits, and more.

The cost of operating US dollars as a transactional concept is many, many, many orders of magnitude greater energy cost than Bitcoin.
Almost all ICs are packaged in Asia at this time anyhow. Main countries are phillipines, malaysia, and taiwan.

In the scheme of things shipping around the world doesnt take all that much time. (Lead times for ICs are 20 weeks at the bare minimum)
That assumes the general public will buy it and use it which isn't likely if the incentive to do so isn't there.
Yeah, that is basically a science themed chucky cheese token - not an independent currency.
Yep, crime is all relative. Cryptocurrencies fullfill a very important need - how else would I accept my ransomware payments?
I'm gonna guess 90% those are physics errors either in logic (bunny hopping) or issues with floating point/bad geometry/overlooked design (doors that push you out of the world) if you stand behind them as they ope
Missing the point. No matter how you spin it, Bitcoin's energy usage is additive on top of all other energy usage. If Bitcoin wasn't consuming that energy, renewable or otherwise, it would be re-routed to other endeavors.

If Bitcoin was using renewable energy, that's still renewable energy that could be used to replace older fossil fuel power stations. Instead, we're burning 121 TWh per year to perform arbitrary proof-of-work calculations. That requires us to keep 121 TWh of older generation capacity online.

There's no free lunch, especially when it comes to power generation.
It wouldn't have to be deemed a punishment, merely a procedural item as part of establishing the Republic of Britain and eradicating any trace of royal privilege.

> Technically just abolishing the monarchy / taking away their powers would suffice.

It wouldn't suffice, because they still derive a great deal of power from their inherited wealth. What's the point of abolishing the monarchy if we permit them to remain as landlords for huge swathes of the country? Then they're still lording it over people economically, even if no longer doing so constitutionally.
Your assumption is that transportation takes the majority of the mailing cost. I don't think it is self-evident. Do you have any data to back it up?
Uber’s $1.1B Drizly Deal Set to Turbocharge Online Alcohol Delivery
> even ordinary phone calls and messages are often encrypted by default now

[citation needed]
The cost of replacing them is essentially zero though:

New ones don't have to be minted because the existing ones are divisible with 8 decimal places, and that can easily be increased. Instead of minting new ones, the value of the existing ones increases, resulting in the decimal point of the value of a Bitcoin slowly shifting.

And the amount of currency which humans use typically is so small that storing the numbers to represent them is basically free, no matter if the decimal point shifts a bit. I would blind-guess that 128 bit will probably be enough until the heat death of the universe.
Why makes it not an independent currency?
Exactly this. If a huge industry miner can't afford to run a machine then the average crypto enthusiast can't either.
I tried it out at some point, and it's a nice language I guess, but man, the compile times. It's not worth it, just learn C or C++.
These solutions are terrible. For one, initial strength is a moot point. Important factors are compression or deformation under load, disintegration under different weather conditions, releasing of micro plastic particles, etc.

This is just a feel good story about alternative uses of plastic. Like the solar road thing. Sounds good, but practically useless.
The Vaccine Had to Be Used. He Used It. He Was Fired
> Once you start accumulating all the fonts you needed over projects, your Inkscape and Gimp become terribly sluggish on booting.

Isn't this an old Windows bug, where GIMP would recreate the font cache on every start? I don't think I've ever seen any noticeable delay on Linux. (I have hundreds to thousands of fonts installed.)
I resemble that. Somehow the lack of internet out where I live has ended up with me building an 85km FTTH network over the past 4 years. Hopefully it will double in size this year now that it's finally bootstrapped to profitability.
Pairing that with the use of ‘instantiateStreaming’, browsers will even start interpreting and JITing the wasm as it downloads.
I think when banks used to issue private money, that was a product. People need a money instrument. In that way, Bitcoin is a (maybe bad) product.
Iceland is not a very large or even dense country to begin with so 6x of their energy consumption does not tell you much.
Because that can't be trivially understood to be wholly unnecessary. Who is to say that it doesn't make programming a lot faster and saves a lot of development time? Conversely, Bitcoin really is unnecessary given all the alternative investment, payment, and timestamping schemes that don't use proof of work.

It's a matter of picking the easiest battles first. Bitcoin -> clearly evil -> why not move to another investment? Why not tax it for its environmental damage, like we tax other things that cause damage that the government later has to clean up?
extreme urgency.. facebook would shut down.. new ads features blocked.. urgent creation of a team to replace product.. 3 years later it was ready (!)

Best example of leading by FUD if I ever heard one.
We transport electricity all the time, and we get better at it every year.

Do you live next to a power plant? Or even in sight of a power plant? No, because we have a power grid to move this electricity around.

I can assure you that new power generation plants are built with electricity transportation in mind. Surely you don't think that power plants are being built in the middle of nowhere with absolutely no way to use the electricity until Bitcoin conveniently came along with power-intensive proof-of-work requirements?

> Have you forgot about the existence of China (and its enormous hydro-dams)?

Please don't be facetious. Obviously I have not "forgotten" about China. However, you can surely agree we'd all be better off if new hydroelectric power was used to take older fossil fuel plants offline rather than performing arbitrary proof-of-work calculations.
Considering the volatility and poor fundamentals of BTC I think your ice cube analogy might be reversed.
If I need to buy something then I need to buy something and will use whatever money I have at hand. It doesn't matter what it is called.
the tl;dr for all web scraping is to just use scrapy (and scrapyd) - otherwise you end up just writing a poorer implementation of what has already been built

My only recent change is that we no longer use Items and ItemLoaders from scrapy - we've replaced it with a custom pipeline of Pydantic schemas and objects
if this drivel is the allure i don't want it. every example here is bad. they are all applications!

the allure of the terminal is that it is an interface to the honest world of the computer, and that we have mastery within this world. a world of files and directories and character devices and pipes. where matter is all matter, real. where we can run programs and see the files change. we can redirect inputs and outputs. there is an environment, that we build, of functions and variables. the allure is existing among the anti-application.

this article reads to me as fetishistic, obsessed with some/a-questionable concept of aesthetic, not value. it's decoupled from how powerfully the terminal connects you to a truth, how flexible an environment it is, how exquisite small things combining is, in power, in expressiveness. it shows some pretty silly terminal gui apps instead. i would be turned off, as a kid, reading this article. i want to tell the impressionable off against this article: computing has real value & you can get in touch with a computer, an environment that will be malleable to your commands. a terminal is a very direct connection to a system. unmediated, uncrafted- except by us users. that's the real value pitch. come, kids, let's use some terminals.
> Do you live next to a power plant? Or even in sight of a power plant? No, because we have a power grid to move this electricity around.

Of course I do. There are solars and wind turbines all around me, not even talking about the natural gas and coal powerplants I can see right out of my window near the edge of the city. And every year there are many gigawatts of electricity from these exact powerplants right next to me that go to waste because it can't be transported nor stored economically. Thankfully now there are some Bitcoin miners paying at least something for some of that waste electricity, so my own electricity can be cheaper.

> Surely you don't think that power plants are being built in the middle of nowhere with absolutely no way to use the electricity

I don't think that's what's happening. Powerplants are built close to human settlements. Even very nasty fossil fuel powered powerplants are right there. Even the nuclear powerplants are very close to major settlements. Surely we would've built them very far away if that was a possibility. Chernobyl was the one exception, because it secretly powered a gigantic radar called Duga.

> However, you can surely agree we'd all be better off if new hydroelectric power was used to take older fossil fuel plants offline rather than performing arbitrary proof-of-work calculations.

I can assure you there isn't a single Bitcoin miner preventing that. The reasons are different - it's not easy to transport or store electricity. Any electricity used for Bitcoin mining is waste electricity - electricity that can't be put into the grid for profit and would be generated anyways, regardless of Bitcoin. It's not economical to mine Bitcoin with ordinary grid electricity.

> Please don't be facetious. Obviously I have not "forgotten" about China

Why have you tried to compare Iceland's total energy output with Bitcoin energy consumption, then? That doesn't make any sense if you had China in mind.

When I look at wholesale electricity prices, it's 3 times more than you can earn with Bitcoin mining. Please explain to me: Why would powerplants not use electricity for profit if they could? Or are you saying that Bitcoin miners are losing money to mine Bitcoin?
It's by Stephen Diehl, and as much as this community thinks it's above arguments from authority/ad hominem attacks, it will still favor reputable sources as a means of filtering. So ignoring an argument from him will hardly be sufficient.
Which particular part did I not understand?
Electricity thrown away is a very very trivial amount compared to the amount Bitcoin uses. And there are still surpluses that are thrown away. Bitcoin doesn't magically tap into the grid and run only when there is a surplus; virtually all miners run it regardless of the current energy price on wholesale markets.
You are referring to events from the 20th century, but the Zionist movement starts in the late 19th century.

By the time the first World Zionist Congress was held in Switzerland, 1897: there was no Jewish sovereign state, and neither WW1 or WW2 had happened yet, or any of the tragedies and horrors of the 20th century that affected the Jewish people (along with other minorities).

Zionists were mainly European Jewish diaspora. They were born and raised in Europe, and they had political representation through their respective governments in Europe. Zionists did not have a legitimate claim to the ancestral territory known as Eretz Yisrael, a territory that their ancestors had lost control over 1700 years prior. The modern claim to Eretz Yisrael arises from the Jewish faith.

The Jewish diaspora (and every human on Earth) have the right to be treated with dignity and respect, to have a peaceful life, free of discrimination and hate. But that freedom does not equate the freedom to take those same rights from the non-Jewish inhabitants of their ancestral land.
The Nintendo Switch turns 4 next month.
That’s not the point I’m making. The point I’m making is it takes more energy per transaction even after factoring in all specified and unspecified externalities because it’s not thermodynamically possible for visa to use as much energy per transaction. Visa would have to consume roughly 3X the entire worlds power output to match the sheer waste of Bitcoin.
Step one, don't do this:

"BOINC superblocks fetch a participant’s BOINC recent average credit, also called researcher RAC. RAC is based on a participant’s earned BOINC credits. !!!>>>*Credits and RAC are defined by BOINC*<<<!!!"
- If someone posts something in your forum. Can you legally repost in twitter saying.. so and so just posted?

- When you post in a public forum do you automatically assign the copyright as public domain by virtue of where you posted and who can see it?

What is the difference between them posting on your forum and them posting on their on blog/site? Both are visible to the public. If you have some policy written "anything posted here becomes public domain" when maybe but if you don't I suspect it's at best undecided and at worst, "no, it is not okay to repost"
As a side note. SAS recently bought 100s of acres around their property probably to expand parking.
> Your house is not necessarily heated with electricity.

But it will be anyway, that's a matter of a few decades now. If you're currently replacing your heating system, I should hope you're switching to electricity.

Though I'd say let's get a heat pump and save like 2/3rds of the energy compared to making the heat from scratch. Depending on the climate you might need some additional heating a few weeks per year, and then yeah sure let's do mining, but that's not a stable basis for a cryptocurrency's security.
You’re missing that not all plastics make into a landfill and are around us already leeching microplastics. I’d think that bricking them and covering them with other materials would lock them in better than a bottle floating in a river
2 threads can run on 1 core (without HT) sequentially and this problem can still exist. More commonly if you don't have the right locking.
Bitcoin is an interesting asset class. It has a few properties such as

1) You can buy or sell a billion dollars of it in a day without moving the price too much. (current transaction volume is 7.6B per day)

2) Given some level of physical security, it's a very difficult asset to seize or freeze. This is useful for anyone who could be affected by government/non-government asset seizure.

3) As an individual you can literally put your entire net worth into BTC wallet on your cellphone, and walk across any border in the world.

4) Overall, while BTC is volatile - it's been a ridiculously good asset to hold long returning ~2000x over the last 8 years.

Considering civil forfeiture laws in the US, politically motivated asset seizures globally, and the general risk of being de-banked and robbed of any savings - we're likely to see more use of BTC as a store of value. It's a useful exercise to understand if we've replaced gold with watts and hashing power.
I agree with pretty much everything you said about the costs and rewards of mining and where the pressure points are. What I don't agree with is the simple statement:

> if the mining reward is cut in half, the electricity consumption of the network is cut in half

This would only happen if half of the miners shut off their equipment as soon as the reward adjustment occurred, which does not happen [1]. Even then, that doesn't change the electricity consumed by a single miner producing a single block, since that is governed by the difficulty parameter, which also did not halve and took multiple weeks to bottom out before increasing again [2].

There is no simple function between block reward and network or block electricity consumption.

1. There was a drop of 120PH/s to 90PH/s within a week after the halvening. https://www.blockchain.com/charts/hash-rate

2. You can see a similar curve of difficulty _following_ the hash rate of network, albeit over multiple weeks. https://www.coinwarz.com/mining/bitcoin/difficulty-chart
For one, there's some risk in spreading your tokens across many wallets as an individual. That's more keys to keep up with that could be lost. Is it theoretically possible someone out there has spread their ETH holdings across 100 wallets and secretly hold 4% of the ETH supply? Sure, but it's unlikely given the distribution of exchange and smart contract wallet balances. If Binance, the world's largest centralized exchange for crypto has only 2.5% of supply, what are the odds there's an individual out there with more than that? They'd have had to be one of the earliest participants in ETH, but even Vitalik, the main founder only ever held about 1% at most (and from what I understand, currently holds less than 0.5%). Even the big ICO contracts that raised hundreds of millions in 2017 before the price really took off, never held that big of a supply. So either someone secretly mined 4% of ETH all these years while strategically accruing them in multiple wallets and never sold (so how did they fund their mining operations?)...or there's just not a whale out there like that.
> All the issues with JavaScript are trivial

If the problems with JavaScript are trivial, why are the solutions such as webpack, babel, and typescript so complicated. Many companies have whole teams of people dedicated to maintaining solutions these problems.

> and new features and frameworks are available to overcome most issues.

Producing JavaScript apps that are both fast to run and easy to maintain does not feel like a problem that has been solved yet.
Really Apple should never Help Intel and Intel needs to spin off their foundry division and let that Division provide its services to a larger market, provided that entity can get back into the leading edge node race.

TSMC paid for it's R&D via spreading that costs amortization around an entire industry of fabless processor designers and really that's more economical for the future.

And Samsung and TSMC are already looking to build leading edge foundries on US soil. Apple's got no logical reasons for helping Intel for Intel's lack of proper investments geared toward the future. Really Intel reaps what Intel has sewn and some of that has held back innovation to the detriment of progress on more than one occasion!
Hundreds of millions were spent on variously infra improvements, eminent-domaining people out of the way, lawyers, etc.

This is potentially wasted money, but it did not go to Foxconn, and presumably created infrastructure jobs. Not defending the deal, but it is often mischaracterized. The benefits to the companies usually are tax rebates that are only valuable if the company makes real investments that are taxable. They are not direct payments.