skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
firefly is in the early stages, so I am not surprised there are no dates.

Brooklyn nine-nine on the other hand shows Dec 31, 2020, but imdb shows "2021". not sure what the disconnect there is.
It will only call attention if the relevant municipalities are fined for negligence and/or the responsible managers punished.
First, you're assuming those things are preferences. We don't actually have any real evidence that your statement is true for anyone, much less that it's true for everyone.

Second, people are very drawn to having excuses for things, it's much more comfortable to say there's nothing that you can do as opposed to saying there's something you can do but you just didn't. Both of those things are more comfortable than aggressively replying that you have every right to do the thing you did.

Not everyone wants to fight everything all the time.
For example we see gravitation lensing effect even though the galaxy that is causing it is in front of what is being lensed from our perspective. So there may still be reasons to see if there are any patterns even if it's just from our perspective and also because it's the only one we have access to.
Ransomware Demands Spike 320%, Payments Rise
An asset that can be:

- stored inside of your brain and walked around with

- transferred to another person with no intermediary and trust relationship

- relied upon to increase in value over time because of its issuance fundamentals

- the birth of a trillion-dollar new asset class
There’s a lot of things to debate about Bitcoin, but this makes me morally against it. People can chase a million other bubbles and it’s whatever, but this is ridiculous.
Ok, this I think finally clicks some to me.

To try and rephrase, the techniques used are similar in both. In that it is all calculus. However, with AD, the focus is reducing all calculations down to what was performed in expressions that have duals, and getting the derivative of that, as calculated, to use in making a choice.

Doing this symbolically would require the entire function space be solved for the problem in very difficult ways that are not easy to avoid.

That is, with AD, you don't get the total derivative of a problem, per se. Instead, you get the problem reduced to a a method that can evaluate at a tuple, where you also have the derivative for that tuple?

Extrapolating from this, even if a problem had piecewise spots where it will not differentiate, AD mostly works around this by focusing on the pieces?
"Usually not allowed": rather the behavior is undefined, it is not a conforming program.

(and in practice the error is "Lock on package COMMON-LISP violated when binding NOT as a local function", you can lock your own packages too if you want).

Also, you generally mind your own symbols, you don't rebind symbols from other packages (hygienic macros are more useful when you only have one namespace).
Yeah, the system is in a pretty horrific state when you have to count on prosecutors' restraint for anything. Granted, we are in such a state, but it's beneficial not to just accept that as the status quo.
From the article: "Thanks to a vigilant operator and several redundancies, the heightened level of sodium hydroxide never caused a public threat."

I have a problem with the language here. This was absolutely a public threat. The attacker demonstrated intent and capability to inflict public harm. That's the definition of a threat.

But the language downplaying the severity will mean this all blows over in a couple of months, without the actual mobilization/funds to properly secure not just this one site, but any similarly affected plants.

I've come to the conclusion that humans in general aren't very good at preventing catastrophic events we haven't seen before (see climate change). We'll need to see n=1 disasters with this first, before there's public outcry to fix it.
> each with millions of stars

Almost half a trillion in the case of Milky Way.
Personally I love Session. I agree with their logic.

As we have seen, if they have your device, it’s over even if you use ratcheting etc.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/02/08/can-t...
Why pick up a new gun you’re not used to, when you have a perfectly working footgun you know inside and out—even if it only allows you to shoot yourself in the foot?
A very apt comparison.
It's still nice to dream of all this distributed computing activity going towards tangible real world benefits.
I want to know how many people are behind me in the queue.
I assume it means they need to verify your ID and have you sign some legalese. They arent just going to mail a check to whatever address the winner DM's them.
Yes - we're hiring now to help get this built! https://apply.workable.com/clerk-dev/
Learn Integration Testing with React Hook Form
Fake Forcepoint Google Chrome Extension Hacks Windows Users
So you hack apple's private forwarding email service right, how would one get in?

I've even used G Mail's forwarding email for 6 years and I've never been hacked.

If you're concerned about this just use a fake email.
I believe I understand your argument, but my experiences lead me to allocate the balance of risks differently. I think buildpacks are net win in spite of the potential problems you are pointing out.

Agree to disagree?
I think they meant "should be used to prosecute crimes."
Hacker tries to poison water supply of Florida city
This forum is full of people who've decided that taking the piss and hating everything is a valid substitute for informed skepticism and intellectual rigor. People who think they're very clever quoting pithy one-liners from an author whose books they've never bothered to read.

edit: and yes I am aware of the irony in this comment.
Exactly. Ensuring that no party can unilaterally issue new coins is the value proposition of Bitcoin.
You're being way too literal here. He said "I know of no THOUGHT so burdensome that one cannot walk away from it." He's not promising immortality, simply that walking is a good way to deal with things, especially heavy thoughts.
Not necessarily. My twin boys who just turned 3 are identical according to a genetic test, but were in different sacs with different placenta. This is uncommon, but not THAT uncommon. I think it's not unreasonable that they would have received different amounts of chemicals. They are certainly very similar, but have many differences, and were a pound apart at birth.
grep or git-grep? (https://git-scm.com/docs/git-grep)
Make that 40 since it was considered a serious danger by scientists. The effect itself was known for more than a century. But yes, you’re obviously right and there is always a strong tendency to dismiss science to avoid cognitive dissonance.
I feel very strongly that all votes in all important elections should be counted by hand, and be open for anyone to observe the process (within reasonable limits on disruptive behavior).

Not because of the possibility of voting machines being hacked, but because it is important for the public to have trust in the system. It is difficult to trust a system you do not understand, and only a very small minority is ever going to be able to audit voting software.

(I'm not American, so this is in no way a comment on your current predicament.)
I think that's obvious: because such outrage is infectious and is liable to spread from employee to employer.
I'm not sure I understand the question. You can write CLOS code in a pure-functional manner, or you can choose not to.

Generic-functions are, in general, more useful for some types of functional programming than the typical single-dispatch style used by most other languages.

Haskell and common lisp are at nearly opposite ends of the spectrum on many design decisions (Haskell is a Lazy, curried, typed language with lots of syntax and custom infix operators; Common Lisp is a (usually) eager, mostly[1] untyped language with little syntax and only prefix operators)

1: I say mostly because CL does have type declarations, but it's not defined how (or even if) the declarations are enforced in the CL standard. SBCL is arguably a typed implementation of CL, but even then, the fact that you can't in any useful manner[2] describe a type that is "A list of items of type X" in CL puts it in strong contrast to Haskell's rich type system.

2: You can use a "satisfies" type, but satisfies type declarations are ignored at compile time, so even in SBCL they are largely just syntax-sugar for assertions.
That isn't an easy fix though, unless you can find some other way to replace the unique advantages that Bitcoin is providing to users.

This is like saying "killing combustion engines is an easy fix: Just don't drive!"
Same for the Lisp libraries which rely on CUDA, OpenBlas, etc.
If the ranking system is accurate (that's a huge "if"), then it doesn't really matter what the bottom x% look like on paper.

The question is whether it's ever possible to devise an accurate measure of value quantitatively. Even if your job is press the red button, a person with low numbers might be such an inspiration to the team that everyone else works 15% faster, more than making up for their shortcoming. And you can't possibly anticipate all such factors in advance.
The problem is that if you defend your actions (regarding all sorts of things, not just limited to where you stick your dick) with "because I f-ing feel like it and I'm an individual with free will" you will be inundated with people claiming you don't or shouldn't have free will or that it should be some entity's job to make the consequences of your preference so miserable that you choose something else. Pretending like you don't have agency is just so much more pragmatic on a day to day basis.
It has to do with how responsibility is percieved here. Different rhetoric will have different results for the same facts.
I’m not sure if this was the reason it was approved but it’s possible the developer of the app presented one set of features to the reviewers, and then once approved, turned on a different set of features for its users. This can be done by returning a server side Boolean value to indicate which feature(s) to show and can be done after the app is on the App Store.
My view is that if you're an all-Java shop and have mature infrastructure based on JARs and WARs, stick with it. That technology is time-tested and reliable.

But if you have a mixture of technologies, the equation begins to shift towards using container images for everything.
Out of curiosity, why are cookies preferred to local storage ?
That's a bad example but one thing that wouldn't happen is a government manipulating its currency to finance wars.
Explain to me this. How can proof-of-work NOT result in massively expensive energy consumption, regardless of where the energy is obtained?

Suppose I wanted to conduct a 51% attack against Bitcoin. If I succeed, I stand to benefit monetarily, for example by shorting BTC on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange -- since a successful 51% would massively damage trust in bitcoin. Alternatively I could double-spend, though reaping the rewards without getting caught might be harder. Let's put the details aside and just agree that if you had the power to 51% bitcoin, you could make a lot of money off it.

What stops me from doing this is that the energy required for 51% of the mining power would be ludicrously expensive, even for just the half-hour[1] or so it would take to execute a damaging attack.

At least, it must be more expensive than the amount of money I could gain via my short position and/or double-spends. Otherwise it would be worth doing, right?

But for that to be the true, it must mean that the whole rest of the network is currently expending at least that much energy, every half hour or so, to constantly stop somebody from doing this.

So doesn't that put a dollar-amount floor on Bitcoin energy consumption, equal to [maximum amount one could stand to gain from crashing Bitcoin] repeated every [minimum duration of 51% attack to destroy confidence in bitcoin]?

Whether the mining is occurring with cheap energy in Iceland or expensive energy in California doesn't change that enough of that energy must be used to make it too expensive for an adversary (who could also be operating in Iceland or wherever) to attack.

[1]I say half-hour because 3 confirmations are considered sufficient for Coinbase to accept a BTC deposit, so I think it would make big waves if 3 blocks got reversed by a 51% attack.
> Things that are intrinsic about a person are a good baseline, no-question quality that we should not antagonize people for.

That's false though. Being intrinsically an asshole doesn't mean we shouldn't try to prevent people from being assholes. You have no more reason to believe that some people aren't intrinsically assholes, and that leads to the next part of my argument...

> Saying we must offer respect to everyone's choices is just wrong.

You're constructing a horrendous straw-man here. The distinction you're missing is the boundary between anti-social behavior and pro-social behavior. Homophobia is inherently anti-social. Queer sexuality is not. Murder and theft are anti-social. Sex with someone who looks like you is not.

> The argument to ban gay conversion camps seems much harder to make if one believes identity is purely a choice.

No it isn't, because the argument to ban gay conversion camps is based on the fundamental principle of consent. That's why the predominant conversation is about _minors_ and _forced_ conversion therapy with additional important conversations about whether adults are able to consent to it.
This is one of those frustrating things where (assuming the queue is stable), you'd assume to wait much longer for the last 10% than the first 10% as people reneg.

I wonder what the queueing time distribution is like, parametrised by position in the queue.
Thanks to both answers here! I think this is finally clicking. Probably many more ticks before I get it, but such is progress.

Would love to see a blog or other post on solving this kind of problem. One with an inner LP would be amazing to see. I'm pretty sure some of the stuff I've looked at in the past on supply chain solutions could find relevance here.
Well you definitely didn't understand it then.

The researchers who study the fields he's referencing agree with most everything he said. Hell, a few of them even gave interviews saying he was about, "90% correct".

He was trying to help, and if Google had taken it to heart instead of getting butthurt, they could have used the useful bits and discarded the inaccuracies.
Crypto custody service, probably. At least until they can build their own management system.

https://www.gemini.com/custody
Apple's M1 isn't witchcraft, it's good chip design
Brain stimulation improves mental time travel
If you email my work address, I would be happy to introduce you to the relevant folks.
> But it doesn't make the task you refused to do meaningless

Did they say it was? I'd withdraw my application too. There's no good reason for it, just bad reasons that they think are good.
BTC transaction uses the same energy as driving 2,500 miles in Tesla S Model
>"no log" is a commonly sought after feature in VPNs, and if you're planning to do shady stuff I doubt you'll go with a logged vpn.

It's marketing puffery, they all log and they all keep it and will comply. Many VPN say no log, and then logs leak. You don't have control over that system/service, you can not fully verify and there is much mistrust around it for nefarious deeds.

>parent mentioned "owned machine" (as in, "hacked" not "ownership"), which means you might be able to find the source if you can seize the computer and analyze it in time. If the attacker wiped all traces from the computer then at best the trail ends there and at worst an innocent person gets blamed for it.

So, yes, and no. The IP address will determine location and possible people of interest. It could also lead to a chain or more documentation/possible past interest/threat.

The wiping/forensics imo are hard to ensure for chain of custody, but if an IP address is honed to residental, it's easy to grab a DNS log from that ISP and see what requests they amde and if it makes sense it was targeted, random shodan or possible hijacked/RAT machine.

More info never hurts, but "tracing" an IP address is the first step.
Indeed nature does not care. But the point of the parent comment, summarized in a single sentence as far as I understand it is "the issue of whether homosexuality is innately determined is irrelevant, policies and attitudes should be entirely unaffected by whether it is innately determined."

Taken at face value that is a far stronger statement than "nature does not care about convenience." This is saying "in this instance, we should not care about the truth of nature. There is no policy value to be attained by finding out the truth of the matter."

We certainly should not let convenience dictate our policies. That a statement happens to be convenient should not be why we accept its truth. But that's a different statement than the parent comment. All I'm trying to explain is why certain segments of the population would believe it valuable to figure out whether innateness is true or not.

EDIT:

> If this gets disproven, then what?

There are significant policy repercussions if this were to be conclusively disproven (the unlikely extreme would be if it turned out that sexual orientation was entirely mutable given the right external situation). In education alone, arguments of whether certain curricula or environments "turn people gay" or "turn people straight" would take on a far more urgent tone for large swaths of the population.

Could a local government mandate exposure to effective gay conversion therapy in a school environment (just exposure, not forcing a course of therapy)?

Culturally whether conservative parents would allow their children to play with gay children or children from gay families would likewise take on an additional urgency.

Many issues of policy have basically been decided on the assumption of "whether you like homosexuality or not, it's immutable so you may as well as treat it as if it were to stay," which is already controversial enough. If that's not true, then policy must grapple with the question of whether sexual orientation is an intrinsically valuable thing (and given that mainstream society is predominantly heterosexual, that would inevitably morph into whether homosexuality is an intrinsically valuable thing, since I suspect most people who identify as heterosexual value their own heterosexuality), which is an even more divisive topic in the U.S.
The European Space Agency is recruiting astronauts for the first time since 2008
Wait, OS/400 is going to be EOL-ed? How, why? :-/
The Reddit community's Wiki is very good.

https://www.reddit.com/r/steroids/wiki/index
The Technology of iCircuit 3D
Like a global realtime financial network that grants participants complete freedom to do as they please with their own money? Yeah.
“If the criminals know how our system works, they can work around it!” is probably what they’re thinking. i.e. security through obscurity.
Indeed. In fact, if there were a globally agreeable case for open science and open source, to which all governments could contribute, DNA analysis for criminal attribution would have to be it, no? A side benefit would be that sending evidence to numerous international labs would greatly frustrate attempts at domestic law enforcement / lab corruption.
Programming Competitions Fraud in Africa and Arab World
This is basically "some kid turned a control valve to fully open".

The question to ask is "why was the valve next to a public road with no fence and no lock?
The conversation in the linked GitHub issue seems to be going nowhere.

I see two distinct views:
- Devs are saying it’s not their job to cater to ancient systems, or to cater to every user; Rust will improve safety, which is more important than supporting <your system>.
- Users are complaining that this change is unnecessary, they weren’t informed, and this is going to reduce security for older systems that will miss out on this and future releases.

Repeat times infinity.

On the one hand, I feel like the devs jumped the gun on this change, and may not understand their users as well as they think. As someone pointed out on the issue, a great deal of Linux code would benefit from Rust, but it’s imprudent to simply rewrite it and expect people to get with the program. On the other hand, I’m sensing a lot of entitlement in the thread from people who don’t realize they’re getting cryptography for free.

This pattern of discussion (and finger pointing) is repeated again and again in the open source community, and it will be ad nauseam until we decide on a clear contract between consumers and producers of open-source software.
Looks like a cosmic ray on red exposure.
> But you’re basically using the reasoning the OP found unhelpful, just swapping immutability instead of genetics.

There are many things that are (practically) immutable that aren't rooted in genetics, so no, the distinction isn't unimportant.

> It is just as wrong when it’s done to enforce narrow moral norms and a reactionary view of sexuality. Again, who cares, as long as both parties consent and nobody gets hurts?

"As long as both parties consent" is a particular view of human sexuality that is not even fully embraced in the west, and is largely rejected everywhere else. It's perfectly legitimate for societies to enforce what libertines might regard as "narrow" and "reactionary" sexual norms--so long as they don't discriminate against protected classes. A society could decide, for example, that the destructive effect of adultery on families and children warrants its prohibition. That's a choice a society can make, or not make. We can debate the merits of it, but human rights does not require a society to accept the values of the western sexual revolution.

The story is quite different when it comes to immutable sexual characteristics. That elevates it into the realm of issues such as discrimination based on race or ethnicity--into a human rights issue. We regard those very differently.
Think of everything you do, but under one roof. I pay subscriptions, bank, get paid internationally, consume on the internet without selling my data, manage my stocks.

Theoretically, this is all possible within the polkadot ecosystem. I have complete animosity across my transactions. I can browse the different smart contracts across the various parachains. I can transact online without worrying that due to my past purchase history that it's going to charge me more such as Airbnb and other flight aggregators.

I can cancel my subscriptions by not no longer executing the contract instead of going through GUI's designed to be hard to cancel.

I can get paid internationally without extremely high fees.

I can buy synthetic stocks, other coins, use Yield farming, or just stake my polkadot to earn 14% more DOT a year. Fiat money is automatically -2% a year.

Exchange it seemlessly into bitcoin to buy a Tesla.
It's akin to the feeling I've gotten from unsettling realizations during psychedelic trips. Beautiful and humbling.
We didn't worry that tens of millions of people would read a false claim in a tabloid and storm the Capitol in an attempt to overturn an election either.
Because it's a thinly veiled desire for power and prestige?

If it weren't, you'd see women lining up to become loggers, because that field is 93% male - possibly more.
the more one sits still, the closer one comes to feeling ill
It should be audited by science.
This. Not genetic does not mean it's a choice.

The pretty abject failure of gay conversation therapy underlines this. Lots of people went into these therapies personally wanting to change, exactly because of societal pressure and expectations.