skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The GitHub repo for the DRM removal tools is here:

https://github.com/apprenticeharper/DeDRM_tools

The README says this:

> Note that DRM can only be removed from KFX format files downloaded with Kindle for PC/Mac 1.26 or earlier. Amazon changes the DRM for KFX files in Kindle for PC/Mac 1.27 and later.

KFX is different from older versions in that the file is tailored to the device it is downloaded on. If you download with the Kindle for PC, the file is optimized for your big, high resolution screen and isn't going to be great on an eink device.

There are no cracks that work with the KFX files extracted from the Kindle reader.
It's a good thing as long as you aren't the government.
If a nation-state dumps crypto then they no longer have it. If crypto was overvalued to begin with they can just buy it back later, cheaper. If it was fairly valued and they crashed it unfairly, they just lost a whole lot of crypto and don't get to play in that market anymore. Same way that speculators get flushed out of the stock market: eventually you run out of money and lose the right to play unless you start making a series of good calls.

This feedback mechanism doesn't exist when money can be created out of thin air. Then, if you run out of money, you just print more.
I think you're seriously misrepresenting the questioner. People who question the point of it understand that the aim is to be currency. Calling people questioning the point idiots who don't understand technology doesn't answer the question either, it just makes you look like a dick. You're on a forum where the majority of posters have at least a higher-than average understanding of current technologies, so I'm skeptical that you have a much deeper understanding than most of them. And even if that is the case, what you're saying is just rude. There are negative stereotypes surrounding bitcoin enthusiasts that you are playing into very successfully here.
> Can't this be said about literally anything?

Not at all. Lots of businesses make money by turning materials and/or labor into products. Other businesses make money solving problems for people or other businesses. However, crypto (and most of the rest of the financial sector) burn shit tons of energy, materials, time, and human effort generating wealth; wealth expressed in either bitcoin that doesn't really exist, or money that also doesn't really exist. The only real product they consistently produce is said wealth, yes, and also huge amounts of human suffering when their given business goes sideways and tanks the economy. With that in mind, maybe we ought to add said carbon taxes. I'm extremely pro killing off businesses that do nothing but generate profit on a spreadsheet for some overpaid stuffed suit and contribute nothing to humanity, nothing to the economy, solve no problems, and in general just cause the economic equivalent of "wind drag."

Mind you, my definition of "contributing" here is purposely overbroad. Coca-cola, despite producing literal sugar water, is contributing, even if that contribution is literally just sugar water that slowly kills you. It made something you can hold in your hands that people want, even if it's horrible. Hell even tobacco companies fit this definition. In my mind, financial corps and bitcoin companies are below those: using the finite entropy of the universe and the limited resources of our world to do exactly nothing.
I would also like to take this opportunity to remind people of the traumatizing videos that algorithms allowed in YouTube Kids.

They may be great for 80% or even 99.9%, but they cannot be 100%.
The world is irrational in doing 0.x% improvements on something with a small footprint.

I'm waiting for a time where programmers will find it completely rational to optimize the fastest functions in their code.

This whole environmental footprint of Bitcoin is absolutely meaningless. It's the most efficient and least destructive waste of energy imagined.
No, there are lots of people who make more than that. I offered more and was turned down by them mid 2017.
> Even worse, the Bitcoin hashrate goes up as energy costs come down. The amount of energy burned is an equilibrium.

Sort of. What you say is true because the energy spent on mining is in equilibrium with the value of the Bitcoin produced by the miners (both the block reward and transaction fees). As the value of Bitcoin goes up, so does the energy they're prepared to buy to mine it.

As the block reward halves, the profitability of mining declines, and so does the energy miners are prepared to buy to mine it (otherwise they make losses).

The final equilibrium will be reached when the block reward goes to zero. At that point it'll be down to transaction fees only, which is proportional to transaction demand. If there's pressure there, then people will be incentivized to transact off-chain and use the chain for clearance only.

In the meantime, the energy spent (in fiat currency) is primarily a function of 1) block reward size; and 2) BTC value.

What's interesting about this is that the block reward schedule is fixed, but BTC value isn't. The energy "burned" is a consequence of Bitcoin's success - it's the area between the two curves. But had the block reward schedule tapered off faster, then Bitcoin might not have successfully bootstrapped at all.

The other interesting aspect is that the block reward, being inflationary, produces downward pressure on Bitcoin's value. It's the upward pressure (whatever its source) that is exceeding this that is creating the energy consumption (since energy consumption is proportional to BTC value, as above).
None of that is about actually blocking the transaction, it's just about possible consequences of making the transaction.

By that logic anyone in the world can "block" whatever they want by threatening consequences.
Of course if you are designing an EV from scratch you want to put the weight of the battery low and in the center for best stability, but with a conversion you gotta find space wherever. Gas tanks are already pretty low and central for the same reason, but clearly an EV battery pack is a lot denser than a full tank of gasoline.

Swappable battery packs clearly wouldn't be a single piece, as there are going to be a variety of different bays and sizes. They'd need to be smaller, portable, and stackable, like rectangles or hexagons. It's not really that hard to do if you design for it. If the batteries are under the car then a lift or underground bay you drive onto is fairly easy to do. Or you could just have a kind of dolly that slides under the car and can detach/reattach them.

The fact that we never really thought in this direction seems like a blind spot. I mean, look at how pit crews for racing work. The whole car is designed to be swappable in seconds flat, and also for minimum weight and maximum speed. It's just engineering and design investment.
I wish I had 15,000Mbit/s internet.
Sorry for laughing and shaking my head, but the bitcoiners really do not seem to grasp how minuscule (if important core, I agree!) part of the financial system the settlement of the payments is. And that is the only part bitcoin does. Bitcoin does not do mortgages. Bitcoin does not do corporate finance. Swapping central bank money to bitcoin would not change that much (except make monetary supply and inflation uncontrollable, which, of course, is really much in the end. But that is not what bitcoiners get.)

And the US Army is used not only to protetct USD payment settlements but the whole society around it. Visa and BTC are really apples to apples in this sense.
That's https://www.reddit.com/r/HomeImprovement/
(you misspelled it)
I never suggested this was tulip mania. Nice strawman there.
Too late to edit my comment, but on 2nd thought I'd prefer to pivot from the violent connotations of swinging a sword to something more peaceful. Armor might be a closer metaphor... but that implies a closing-off from the world which is the opposite of what mindfulness brings. So I'll give up on the tortured metaphors here for now. :)
> You can do the same thing in your scraper

Rendering the page in Puppeteer / Selenium and then scraping it from there sounds like a lot easier than somehow trying to replicate that in your scraper?
I've been involved in many web scraper jobs over the past 25 years or so. The most recent one, which was a long time ago at this point, was using scrapy. I went with XML tools for controlling the DOM.

It's worked unbelievably well. It's been running for roughly 5 years at this point. I send a command at a random time between 11pm and 4am to wake up an ec2 instance. It checks its tags to see if it should execute the script. If so, it does so. When it's done with its scraping for the day, it turns itself off.

This is a tiny snapshot of why it's been so difficult for me to go from python2 to python3. I'm strongly in the camp of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
So, I think I explained myself badly. I fully agree on the problems of AI you point out. I agree with you on the reduction of freedom AI will bring. But then again, every relevant piece of technology took away such a piece of freedom.

I think one might underestimate the freedom that have been let go when other technologies came in, even though those technologies feel established already. You can choose not to pick up on the unknown number when the phone rings, but the moment of connection with a real human being you might have had at that point was interrupted by the phone ringing.

Society expects us to be reachable at any time, but that came with trading in the freedom to not be arbitrarily disrupted by default.

The point I am trying to make is this: all technology requires and has required humans to adapt to it, and consequently handing in a bit of freedom. I want to point out that AI is no different in the fact that it does so, even though like every other piece of technology it will do so in a unique way.

Is that dystopian? Perhaps. Many philosophers on technology have thought so, and many have disagreed.

> The other examples all include accountable humans

But when those faceless corporations were being sexist because of bureaucratic reasons in the sixties, how were they being held accountable? Did anything really change?

Widely adopted technology is something that lies outside of the humans that make it up, like an ant colony is different from the ants it is made off. You cannot hold any individual ant accountable to the way the hive is organised. Technology is an entity that lies outside of those ants, and that has its own desires and goals.
My full time job as an iOS developer is for a company that makes 100% of its income from app purchases. Mostly up front (our app is a plain old paid app), but we do have a couple in app purchases for optional extra "pro" features.

That was true of my last developer job too, where I was (primarily) a Mac developer. There, most of our sales were direct, ie. not on the Mac App Store (we did have some MAS income).

That said, it's pretty hard to become successful through app store sales alone, and you definitely can't rely solely on the app store to do your marketing, promotion, etc. The app store is a distribution channel, and if you get lucky, you can get promotional value out of it, particularly if Apple features your app, but it doesn't replace traditional marketing strategies.
> A lot of the early adopters have either permanently lost their coins or sold it

If the balance of a Bitcoin economy relies on the assumption that certain people have lost their money, something is seriously wrong.

Regardless, a hypothetical Bitcoin economy would require much further buy-in from here, making current holders the early adopters.

> It's like saying by the time a company IPOs, early VCs have benefited the most, while that is true, you could also argue they deserve it because of the risk they took.

The VC analogy isn’t good at all. VCs invest to fund the creation of something. What did early Bitcoin investors fund? More mining and more hype?

From another angle: Imagine if PayPal created a new payment system that used shares of PayPal as the currency. Anyone who wants to use the tool must buy some shares of PayPal, because that’s the currency. And oh by the way, most of those shares are owned by PayPal founders and early adopters, who will gladly sell them at a massive gain.

Is Bitcoin supposed to be a speculative investment? Or a stable currency for a new economy? We can’t just pick and choose from either definition as convenient for the argument.
Just in, gold also worthless
https://www.brilliantearth.com/gold-mining-environment/
>but the other half of the usage (on your claim) is for an array of productive things

It's far less than that. Only 7.48% is definitely useful (under "technology").
Before choosing to use pinning you should have planned for this situation. Rather than write it out here, I'll link a post I wrote in a Let's Encrypt forum in response to someone who'd just blown up their system due to a different pinning mistake.

https://community.letsencrypt.org/t/certificate-failure-due-...
I love nano (especially the latest version, not that 2.9 stuff that's default on most linux distros). I don't mind vim and I'm happy to work in it if I have to, but every now and then I redo the 'vim tutorial' to help me not forget, and for the most part, with a handful of (non-deal-breaker) exceptions, my thought is always "I can already do all this stuff in nano".

Whenever I speak to people casually about why they like vim over "e.g. nano", I find that people who think vim is far superior often fall into one of these categories:
- They like vim because it allows them to do things I think are bad software engineering practices which I would avoid anyway
- They like vim because it allows them to do things they are not aware nano can also do as easily (especially given you e.g. can run arbitrary shell commands on a selection).
- They've gone overboard and have added every single vim plugin in the book to convert it basically to an IDE or something that is no longer an editor.
- Nerd cred.

I only miss a couple of things when in nano, none of which are dealbreakers:
- "highlight all search results" (but search and replacement otherwise works extremely well, and I can always do the highlighted search in parallel in a less window)
- "shift all text to the right rather than only that line" (but again, one can simulate this in a less window trivially - it's just a bother to have to do so)
- Inability to create pre-recorded custom macros; you can only have one recorded macro live at any time.

But that's about it.

But having said that, I would not call myself a seasoned vim user. So I ask with full honesty. Persuade me to jump to vim. Can anyone argue specific points of things vim does better that nano can't do?
A better comparison with Visa is perhaps an intra-exchange transaction, such as Bakkt? Or perhaps a Bitcoin Lightning transaction?
Lateral flow tests are rapid test kits to my understanding, so they should be available on Amazon if accepted by your local medical devices authority.
But.. They end up to be same censuring machine as twitter and Facebook
This is exciting - I hope it gets momentum. I used to use BSD on my laptop and although it was a bit less convenient than Linux in terms of hardware support, etc. I really loved the philosophy. Some of the desktop-oriented distributions died out and have been replaced by others, so it's not an ecosystem I feel comfortable really investing my time in.

But my wife loves the look and feel of Mac OS, and has just grown frustrated with a few things lately that are obviously just restricting users to squeeze them to more expensive products or locking them in to Apple's ecosystem. She's rarely cared much about my FOSS hobby before but something like this would actually appeal to her, I think.
This is addressed in a sibling comment. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26089473
true I was reasoning more on the 4 hour per package, which is in line. but you're right for sure the unique dependency graph can't be averaging that high
Show HN: Every week we write about astrophysics and astronomy papers
Carbon taxes also wouldn't make Bitcoin worthless. You can easily imagine Bitcoin mines powered by solar. Many already are, in order to capitalize on the cheap energy. The article posted in the OP is specious.
>while that is true, you could also argue they deserve it because of the risk they took.

they didn't take any risk though, they just "mined bitcoins", which were more abundant then.
'People should be alarmed': air pollution in US subway systems stuns researchers
UX is not just UI.
What's your story on extensibility? My experience with such tools if that they're great while you stay within the bounds of what they support, and quickly become a nightmare when you (usually quite quickly) hit into their limitations.

As a junior dev I'd have loved this. Now, every instinct is telling me stay away.
Nouriel Roubini has a well known hate for Bitcoin, which probably originates from the fact that it escapes his alleged "expertise": he hasn't foreseen its popularity, and rise in value. Now he hates it, because this past mistake threatens his status as financial guru, "Dr Doom".

EDIT: I wouldn't take anything he says about it seriously, he's basically clueless on the topic.

EDIT2: In free markets value of something, e.g. Bitcoin is not decided by some panel of experts, like professor Roubini, but by people buying and selling it. If people want to pay $45k for a Bitcoin then that's it's true value. Roubini's claims that "fundamental value of Bitcoin is zero" is riddiculous. Bitcoins are collectibles, same as, say, baseball cards, and baseball cards can go for some insane prices despite having zero practial usefullness.
Crypto mining produces a service, which is maintaining a ledger of payments that works in a certain way.

This specific problem — settling transactions — is an industry amounting to billions. Think of BTC like a MasterCard or Visa competitor, albeit a unique one.
It's just the best way of contact, if people know anything else, they can use it, but even in one building it's impossible to know who is on vacation, who is fired, who is on lunch, who is on a smoking break, who is off on an errand, who left a little earlier, who is busy at a meeting, who is just busy.
Most of bitcoin is mined with clean energy.

Also, deflationary money is the best thing that can happen to environment. It's time to stop destroying savings in order to accelerate pointless consumption (and production).
> Of course JS isn't a great language for this. A malicious program could spider the object graph looking for something valuable.

Deno can provide extra syntax or annotations for imports to allow the dev to explicitly allow permission per-import. These can be in the source code, or in a config file.
A transaction involves exchanging something (usually a currency) for something else. What you say is that with bitcoin you have proof and irreversibility of payment but the transaction can still go wrong because payment is only one end of the deal. And when the transaction goes wrong you probably wouldn't want a form of payment that is irreversible.
Funny trend: solar and wind power are now cheaper than coal.

https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2020/11/Price-of-electric...

Here's a hot take: Bitcoin subsidizes clean energy development. Miners buy cheap energy; clean energy infrastructure gets profitable return. Cost of development and manufacturing lowers further because of scale; pollution and externalities reduced; humanity wins. Bitcoin saves humanity?
> “I asked around and realized that actually quite a few people have had collision experiences or near misses, either as bikes, as pedestrians, or as cars,”

This is an interesting product, but the issue at UW with bikes isn't low crosswalk visibility. I was almost hit by a car twice and by a bike five times while at UW. The car misses were drunk idiots on Greek Row who should have their license suspended, the bike hits were cyclists blatantly ignoring anything resembling traffic law applying to them. The absolute worst one, I was in a pedestrian crosswalk, a car was stopped waiting for me to cross: a bike came from behind the car, swerved into the oncoming lane, then swerved back to its original lane through the middle of the crosswalk while I was in it. There was another time I remember someone on a bike just went full speed into Red Square during the between classes period and nearly hit multiple people.

The ONLY solution I can see is creating more bike paths, and treating bikes equivalently to cars when they aren't on them. Bikes deserve safe bike areas free from cars, and Pedestrians deserve safe pedestrian areas safe from bikes.
When I was an English major we studied a bunch of commercial products, and we had to buy them from huge corporations. Sometimes the authors of those products were alive enough to actually receive a royalty, sometimes not.
I've recently been using Optic (https://useoptic.com/) which does some cool things in the API tools space, there's potential there to have a CLI UI and they have the history part already but similar to what people are saying here about the web UIs, I don't like theirs much.
YouTube automatically transcribes captions for its videos. So that is why they are so funny sometimes.

As a YT creator, it is possible to upload your own captions if you have any transcribed, which will then be used in place of the automatic ones. But 99.9% of YT videos are using automatic captions.

Edit: Ok, I started watching the first video in this series and these are manually uploaded captions. So Stanford got the videos transcribed and manually uploaded the captions to Youtube. I wonder if various students did the captioning. So each student described the music differently. I laughed because the first video describes the music as "Regal Music".
For all the things jQuery got wrong, it got one thing right: arguably the most intuitive way to target a set of data in a document is by having a concise DSL that works on a parsed representation of the document.

I'd love to see more innovation/developer-UX research on the interactions between regexes, document parse trees, and NLP. For instance, "match every verb phrase where the verb has similar meaning to 'call' within the context of a specific CSS selector, and be able to capture any data along that path in capturing groups, and do something with it" right now takes significant amounts of coding.

https://spacy.io/usage/rule-based-matching does a lot, but (a) it's not particularly concise, (b) there's not a standardized syntax for e.g. replacement strings once you detect something, and (c) there's no real facilities to bake in a knowledge of hierarchy within a larger markup-language document.
What is the benefit of a DSL versus a configuration file?
How do you spend cash farther than you can throw it?
If you want to experience the high level game dev fun, DON'T use Rust, I recommend look at

- love2d (https://love2d.org/)

- PICO-8 (https://www.lexaloffle.com/pico-8.php)

- Clickteam Fusion (https://www.clickteam.com/clickteam-fusion-2-5)

- Godot (https://godotengine.org/)

- Stencyl (http://www.stencyl.com/)

- pygame (https://www.pygame.org/)
Once recaptcha is in the mix it'll get tricky pretty quickly. Everything else is easy to overcome most of the time.
The cost of releasing carbon into the atmosphere is there whether or not you price it into the market by use of a tax. Value is not limited to monetary value.
Go google it.
I wish I could buy a watch that continuously monitored my hydration levels. So many health concerns are directly impacted by hydration.

Edit: My comment meant to recognize that while this tech doesn’t yet exist, it would be helpful as people end up in the hospital all the time for medical problems that are exacerbated by dehydration. Simply saying “drink water when you’re thirsty” is beside the point.
It was considered worthless at the time so many weren't careful with it. People are going to be a lot more careful when their coins are priced at 44k+.