skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> within limits

And those limits come up to the theoretical maximum of was it 7 or so and in practice around 4

https://www.blockchain.com/charts/transactions-per-second

Also PoW is hilariously inefficient. Because the amount of energy one needs to spend is basically related to the amount of value one could grab by cheating, so if all economy would be based on Bitcoin we'd be talking about basically cooking the planet due to PoW.

When Satoshi originally devised PoW it was more about owning the hardware and using that as basis for voting. Energy costs were miniscule. He simply didn't foresee the, now obvious, result that it will became a function of burned energy rather than amount of hardware out there.
We should spend money creating public transit infrastructure to reduce the useof cars in urban areas. Not only is it more efficient in terms of transportation, it wastes much less energy and emits much less CO2. The fact that we haven't is a policy failure.

Incidentally, why would we ever let the market decide when the market consistently throws externalities under the bus?
Network Transparency with Wayland (2019)
CHERI (http://cheri-cpu.org) provides a spatially-safe C and C++, and also heap temporal safety (specifically it prevents use-after-reallocation, which is the actual vulnerability, since use-after-free doesn't matter if freed memory is never reallocated). Most code requires few, if any, changes (0.17% LoC in our fork of FreeBSD, which includes the kernel itself and all the low-level runtime libraries), with the changes tending to be due to people conflating pointers and integers (i.e. use uintptr_t not unsigned long/uint64_t for storing a union of a pointer and an integer, or a real union, and use size_t not uintptr_t when you mean a plain integer, though the latter can sometimes still work, just a little less efficiently and likely with some compiler warnings). It doesn't solve the concurrency issues, but unlike CHERI C/C++ those require invasive changes to the language and thus code.

We have a technical report that gives an overview of CHERI and describes how to write good C/C++ that doesn't use dodgy idioms that break in CHERI C/C++ if you're interested at https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/techreports/UCAM-CL-TR-947.html. Arm are also working on a prototype of Armv8-A with CHERI, dubbed Morello: https://www.morello-project.org.
this is a really dumb argument that is trotted out every 4 years. There's also already a FoldingCoin that's been around since 2014. https://bitcoinexchangeguide.com/foldingcoin/

For PoW to work it must be a costly signal. If you introduce positive externalities of mining (such as Folding @ Home) the system isn't sustainable.
This is some serious in depth writing that speaks a lot of truths that platforms do not want to talk about: how they feed you data is not anywhere close to how the data is best consumed, and how that doesn't matter to the platforms success.

The LinkedIn analysis referred to in the article was really telling as well.

I've been thinking about this in terms of credit files recently. There are services that let you check it daily, but they don't provide a daily time series of the data - that's really where the value is and it's why they don't provide a consumer api.
I agree with you regarding punishments for polluters (although I do find execution a bit on the harsh edge).

However, your idea of agencies not writing policies... is not gonna last long. Congress is already ineffective and broken and there is not much on the horizon to change the reasons behind its dysfunctionality. There's a sad reason for the steady expansion of executive rights, and as long as this isn't fixed it is foolish IMO to force the executive to rein these in.

Edit: not to mention that, unlike government agencies, Congress is extremely corrupt. What is to prevent polluters from simply buying off Congress?
All major UK ISPs abide to Ofcom's Code of Practice which means you have the right to get out of the contract with no consequences if they fail to reach their minimum advertised speed. This feels like a bit of a raw deal, since they get to keep the months payment for a service they failed to provide, but it's better than nothing.
It didn't display the time in UTC, it displayed the time in timezone LOL. It happened to be the same as UTC because no offset was specified. It knew it was timezone LOL because that's what the TZ variable was set to.

If you set your machine to something weird, then expect the utility that reports on those settings to report the weird settings you set.
It's not really working. Tried 2 English PDF invoices. Normal format. One came back empty, the other only had the amount right.

I'm assuming they only trained on some specific documents (passport of country X, etc) and all others don't work.

If someone processes the same document all the time, then my invoice2data project may work better and is open source. It's based on Regx, rather than machine learning: https://github.com/invoice-x/invoice2data
We are lazy.

The original Model T could run on ethanol (not perfect, but better than gasoline in many regards for pollution, and back then IDK if they would have noticed) and Henry Ford was fond of the idea of biofuels; at the time I think he was fond of Potatoes for the purpose.
We have solar power, hydroelectricity, nuclear power, wind turbines...if the mere fact of electricity existing has an adverse effect on the climate, I can tell you one thing:

It's not bitcoin's fault.
Ask HN: What are your tools/workflow for responding to cloud/prometheus alerts
> That said, actual hardware in the wild has a surprisingly low level of hardware parallelism in practice. https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/hardware shows that for the Firefox user base as of end of Jan 2021 54% of users had 2 cores and 34% had 4 cores.

True, but that's probably about to change soon. Look at the ARM stuff about to enter the arena.

I wouldn't bet on us using just 2-4 cores 10 years from now. And we need to plan for that.
We seem to be seeing a paradigm clash. On one side, there are people who are concerned with whether or not a feature is desirable. On the other side, there are people who are concerned with whether or not a feature is desirable and also Pythonic.
Randall Munroe published the 'Tasks' (Park or Bird) XKCD comic almost 6 years ago, talking about the task of identifying photos of birds being a 5 year research problem.

Not a terrible prediction.
Seems like there have been numerous stories about bitcoin being stolen?
As danohuiginn clarified, the reason I'm adding the checks is because assuming there's such a key as 'breed' in the json_pet dictionary can (and will!) lead to KeyError exceptions.
Do you have a source for (1)?

I'm pretty sure GPU mining btc is inefficient even with free electricity (depreciation of the PC/GPU will outweigh benefits)

edit: was curious so checked the math

Using a 3060TI GPU (one of the most cost-efficient for performance gpu's available) would generate about $0.0002/day, or take ~5000 years to pay itself off even with free electricity
A $500M plan to upgrade the technology of unemployment insurance
> if I want to donate over $25,000 to charity in the US, I have to go into the bank (in person even during the pandemic) spend half an hour while they fill out forms, pay a $12 fee (still negligible, granted), and they'll process it within 12 hours.

You can do it from home for a negligible fee ($0-$3) if you're ok with ACH instead.

(Same-day ACH has a max of $100k, though it used to be $25k. Next-day ACH is something like $100M, though your bank likely has a lower limit.)
Bitcoin's usage as a medium of exchange appears to be decreasing, not increasing.

If you look for graphs showing the growth of merchants accepting bitcoin over time, you'll notice they're all out of date. That's because at some point after 2016 it stopped growing and people lost interest in this metric. This happened when the block size limit was reached: the result was higher transaction fees and unpredictable confirmation times. In 2018 it got so bad there was basically a civil war in the community about it and bitcoin cash forked. Today the average transaction fee is $19.

So I don't think we're on the path you envision. If bitcoin continues to be successful, I expect it will be used as an international settlement system by large corporations and financial institutions only.
it doesn't have to be days, most credit card fraud is found within hours. You can also allow partial use of the application during the vetting period, just exclude the parts that are being abused. Though you should probably aim to build a product that people want to sign up for, and are willing to wait for.
Maybe you can help me out, then? How does the network increase the transaction rate to current global rates (at least 10^4 higher)? What happens when the mining phase completes, or if there is a drop in value? What is a sustainable transaction fee for miners to take absent mining incentives? What happens over long periods of time from hardware failures where wallets are lost? It's probably my problem not researching well enough, but if you know or can point me to anything I would be grateful.
I would love to see this done on a per country basis. Like x percent of y countries energy goes towards Bitcoin.
A16Z Live – One on One with A and Z ‪1‬
Resolution isn’t necessarily about having the ability to stop and see individual pixels though.

If nothing else, there is a difference in 1080p versus 4K when it comes to aliasing. The absolute best antialiasing, is to increase resolution. The effect of resolution on all edges that aren’t perfectly vertical or horizontal is noticeable.

There are also particle effect differences where your particles have a 4x boost in definition.

I’m not saying it’s a big deal, but there are factors that go beyond sitting distances. I personally think these distances calculators are made to sell bigger TVs, but won’t immediately discount 4k as just pointless.
It may be years before it happens, but I think this sort of thing will end up being the reason these global companies ultimately won't be able to compete against the more focused online stores.

There are already categories of items I don't ever try to buy on Amazon: farm equipment, fencing supplies, pet food.

And I'm currently looking into email solutions that won't leave me completely screwed when Google arbitrarily decides it's time to delete my gmail account. There's just too much associated with my email address for it to be in the hands of someone who won't answer the phone.

IMO, these companies are winning because they're better than what came before them, but they're far from the perfect solution.
Well, how much could you make selling Argentina?

Would there even be a buyer?
> a borderless natural resource.

Wow, I never knew ASICs grew on trees.
I'm not saying people are not willing to pay for it, I'm saying it's inefficient and specifically that the metric mentioned is not relevant.
Agreed. Governments and financial institutions are having to resort to "virtue" and "value" arguments against bitcoin, instead of technical arguments:

- Bitcoin consumes so much energy! Think of the planet!

- Iran, China, and Russia mine bitcoin! They are our enemies!

Indeed it does reek of hypocrisy. Oh, now you care about the environment and international competition? Please...
All of those are the same problems money has. Refunds capability is something built on top of cash. It will be built on top of cryptocurrencies. Money can be stolen and locked and hidden and whatnot.
You talk about cherry picking or ignoring data. But that happens in science as well. I can remember in graduate school there were two senior researchers with competing scientific theories. They both just made judgement calls about which data could be ignored and which was solid and could be relied upon.

So if we extend this to the EPA, it seems like we might be getting into the realm where scientific integrity means “nobody questions our view of the science”.

You see that trend already “we follow the science”. Well there is not one universal scientific truth all the time. Two people could both “follow the science” and make very different decisions.
> yes, most people are invested in crypto because they wanna get rich with that 355% increase FULL STOP.

Wanting to get rich is an excellent incentive for anyone. Most other incentives (e.g. altruism) quickly become perverse as they devolve into status-seeking or coercion through force or in subsidisation and centralised planning.

In fact, without that desire to get rich (acquire resources), it's hard to imagine businesses being incentivised to provide value to the largest number of people in the most efficient way possible. The profit motive is the best incentive humans have encountered because, in a society that respects individual freedom and property rights, the profit motive forces us to innovate to provide others with value in order to receive value from them.
Not everyone dreams of ancap utopias.

Most economists don't believe in unregulated markets anymore. Somehow this message hasn't found its way downstream.

Everybody can understand crypto's role for illegal transactions and tax evasion. Not everyone sees a value there. And really, this is not down to Bitcoin in particular.
Breaking the rules and meeting up in person.
One thing I don't understand is that the dataset already comes with a "train dataset" (120 recordings) and "test dataset" ("Recordings of 22 repetitions of 7 narrative test set videos"). Why are they not just setting aside a randomly selected subset of the training data for testing?

I'm unclear on whether the testing data contains some of the same video clips that were shown in the training data, repeated literally? It seems it would be best to test the model on a previously unseen image, to ensure that it really learnt the mapping and is not just "memorizing" the responses.
Where I lived until like a year ago, it was cheaper to heat via electric heating than the heatpump by about 3-4%, the maintenance costs of the heatpump compressor did the rest after a decade. That is in a temperate region with winter not going below -10 or so.
AP article (Feb 9), Sentropy Launches First Consumer Product To Protect Twitter Users:

https://apnews.com/press-release/business-wire/technology-bu...
Debian has apt pinning for this kind of thing.
You're welcome! Tridactyl has lots of contributors so I shouldn't take all the credit : )

I do use a notification service: https://f5bot.com/

It's _really_ useful for hearing about bugs or issues that I would otherwise miss.
Deepfake Detectors can be Defeated
ImageMagick's neat, but the steps required to warp and then tenderly shadow and sheen the output of a grab are, in my experience, much better done (initially at least) with a GUI tool. A lot quicker to intuit, test and iterate.

I hate the thing personally[1], but GIMP would likely be a better graphic manipulation suggestion, in this context.

Of course, once you've worked out what you're after, and want to manipulate tens or thousands of images, ImageMagick's your wizard.

.

[1] I'd just download a trial of AffinityPhoto and use that
I think you're making a semantic argument that redefines "human judgment" to such a broad definition that this entire discussion becomes meaningless.

To pull it back a bit, "human judgment" in my usage meant "input processed by human using a brain" and algorithm meant "input processed by machine".

Given those premises, the argument that "algorithms are human judgment" is untrue both by definition and by observation.

For example, when I ask Google/Siri/Alexa a question like, "What is the best way to set up my router?", I will get a wildly different answer than if I ask a GeekSquad employee.
from @umanwizard:

>The market could solve this problem properly if there were a global carbon tax, but unfortunately, there isn't.

"Solve it"? How so? Crypto mining is largely powered by renewables (40% according to one source in Sep 2020). It is a race to find the most energy efficient way create power to make it worthwhile to mine, which has some positive effect on society by driving innovation. No idea if that is a net positive, but this is not black and white issue at all the way many here are framing it.
Trading volume. It was taught to me so long time ago and I have thought it so obviously true that I haven't questioned it ever. If you want sources, here is one example (TBH, I only read abstract) I quickly googled. To me, number of trades does not sound a reasonable measure for analyzing markets in macro level, even if for HFT it may be interesting, I know nothing about that.

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/4837179.pdf
That happens every time this is allowed. I can't remember the last time our Parliament voted to reduce their own salaries :-))
It is good practice to question if a technology is worth the social cost of wasting so much electricity. This is literally how Bitcoin is built, as it keeps growing, it keeps consuming an insane amount of electricity, for a very little amount of transactions per day. This is call ethics, doesn't mean it should be illegal, but there is value in questioning it and investigate if perhaps there are better solutions than wasting energy.
That’s a neat slight of hand trick you’ve pulled off there, connecting Bitcoin to entertainment in order to shame those of us concerned about Bitcoin energy usage.

Everything else you’ve listed provides subjective value to the user, which makes them hard to attack. Who can say what the value of skiing is to a society in terms of kWh? There is no way to objectively compare the value of energy spent on a ski lift vs. driving to see friends; that’s all subjective value.

But the issue is that Bitcoin isn’t supposed to provide subjective value, it’s supposed to provide objective value; it’s literally supposed to be money. Once you remember that it’s supposed to literally be money, then comparisons to ski lifts become extremely disingenuous. It also becomes fair to compare Bitcoin against other competitors that provide the exact same service to society, comparisons that make Bitcoin look very wasteful indeed.
If you don't have a 240V circuit handy you can just find two 120V circuits on opposite phases and wire them together
Bitcoin calls itself money, but that doesn't make it money any more than calling my cat currency would make it money.

As far as governments have ruled in tax law, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are not treated as foreign currency.
BodyBuilding
These install hooks... Why are they needed at all and why can't package (de)installation be without side effects ?

I'm sure the hooks are needed for things NPM can't do by itself, but they shouldn't run by default. That puts pressure on developers to avoid them, and puts pressure on NPM to add whatever functionality is missing from package.json in a safe way.

(and have npmjs.com search rank packages without scripts above those that do)
Climate change. Carbon taxes don't exist right now. So you aren't paying for it.

People who use disproportionately large amounts of electricity should absolutely be judged (yes, this includes things other than btc).
I think this is a heavy-handed reply. His personal lack of an answer to the question, "what's the value," is presumably why he didn't buy in at the beginning.

Also, even if he had two or three Bitcoin it would be a nice windfall, but not an earth-shattering event that would cause eternal jealousy.
Aren’t these websites manually created though? In which case, a simple check every month for “new issues with responses, and if so, are they not abandoned” would be nice
You can call it laziness but lots of developers correctly assume they'd be out of their jobs or at best out of favor at their company if they raised a fuss about dependency management rather than use (flawed) industry standard tools and get to work on features.

No one gets fired for using npm, you might get fired for insisting you build your own dependency management system because npm is insecure rather than working on your team's domain problem.
Spending material wealth on mining is what makes it secure. We work on improving the per-hash cost because it makes it more difficult for someone with a brilliant technological innovation to compromise the security of the system.

And there is incentive to improve the total energy use. Every participant in the system pays for the electricity that secures bitcoin in the form of inflation and transaction fees. If some alternative to Bitcoin can provide all the same benefit but with less inflation and lower fees, then there is a good reason to switch to that alternative. And people are trying to innovate here continuously, the blockchain sector at this point is getting more investment than the AI sector.
Depends who you work with. Saying that when I consider co-workers my friends then such events don't feel like "work" events.
I made the change just a couple of weeks ago. Two major things:

Basically any hotkey you would use CTRL for is now the Mac "Command" button. On non-mac keyboards this will be bound to the windows key, not CTRL.

So get used to Windows-S for save, Windows-C for copy, Windows-V for paste, etc.

The other one is the behaviour of the window maximize button is different on Mac. For starters the buttons for closing a window, minimizing a window, and maximizing the window are (famously?) in the top left instead of the top right. Also the Maximize button is a "full screen" button by default. If you want it to expand to fill the screen without making it full screen, hold ALT and click. You'll see the button turn into a plus, which means it will maximize instead of full screen.

Oh also, MacOS doesn't have a title bar on every window, it just has one at the top of the OS, and it changes depending on what window you have selected. So if you're looking for File, Edit, View, Help or any of those menus, they are at the top of your screen not the top of your window.