skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Twitter used to be the free-speech wing of the free-speech party, so they were generally tolerated in most countries (China a notable exception).

They have obviously changed course, gradually and subtly, over the years. But these changes went largely unnoticed because only very fringe people were affected by this. When Trump was banned, people realized how vulnerable their dependence on Twitter was, and sought out new platforms.
Writer of linked article conveniently omits mention of the fact that the reason student debt forgiveness is getting so much attention is that it can be done unilaterally by a Democratic president without permission of Senate Republicans, who will never approve any of the alternatives the article writer suggests.
It would also be nice if people understood and really appreciated the trade-offs of doing so – i.e. hogging resources, killing batteries, potentially wrecking the end users' experience and ability to multitask efficiently, etc.
Marco Polo, a video messaging app that has taken a stance against ad-based business models and addictive design patterns, charges $60/year for subscription features (with a free version that is fully functional) and most of its subscribers are middle American, non-tech elites. I think it's wrong to say people won't pay- just that most people won't pay, but that doesn't mean you can't create a great business from those who do value your product.
It's not a particularly broad definition of "computer".

32-bit and 64-bit cellphones are made of synchronous VLSI ICs running at gigahertz clock speeds including a few gigabytes of byte-oriented DRAM and superscalar multi-core ARM CPUs with single-user GUIs displayed on an LCD running Linux and software written in C, Java, and JS, plus a GPU running OpenGL, storing their data on Flash, running on a few watts of power and globally networked over Wi-Fi and TCP/IP. They have peripherals connected over USB and the SD card bus, and also CSI.

This 64-bit laptop is made of synchronous VLSI ICs at gigahertz clock speeds including a few gigabytes of byte-oriented DRAM and a superscalar multi-core amd64 CPU with a single-user GUI displayed on an LCD running Linux and software written in C, Java, and JS, plus a GPU running OpenGL, storing its data on Flash and spinning rust, running on a few watts of power and globally networked over Wi-Fi and TCP/IP. It has peripherals connected over USB and the SD card bus, and also SATA.

These are pretty much exactly the same.

The definition of "computer" already has to be a lot broader than that to include both the 24-bit SDS 940 with 192 kibibytes of magnetic cores and 96 megabytes of spinning rust, running an instruction every 5 μs or so, with no GPU and analog video output hardware made out of vacuum tubes and TV cameras, on top of the Berkeley Timesharing System and serving six simultaneous users, on which Engelbart demonstrated The Mother of All Demos in 1968, and this laptop.

It is transparently absurd to suggest that "computer" should include both this laptop and the SDS 940 and its predecessors like the IBM 1401 (vacuum tubes, no transistors, decimal memory, punch card I/O, no operating system, no multitasking, variable-length instruction operands, millions of times slower and less memory), but not cellphones. Compared to the differences between the 1401 and my laptop, the differences between my laptop and the cellphone are totally insignificant.

It is true that the vulgar and ignorant often do not understand that their cellphones are computers. This allows them to be more easily taken advantage of by companies that want to reduce them to consumers instead of participants in creating culture. Instead of aping their errors, we should work to help them understand the true nature of things, because ignorance is not a sin—it's a punishment.

Because sunlight is the best disinfectant.
That's not going to be done in the machine shops though, to GP's point.
GP might be referring to the fact that currently, 80-90% of the miners' reward is "coinbase", ie newly minted coins (which expand the money supply and could be considered inflationary), while only 10-20% of the mining reward is from fees, ie cut on the transactions.
Perhaps , but that doesn't change that as of this moment, Wayland lacks many feature that users have come to rely on.

Certainly you can see the problem with the situation that developers of one project abandon it and start a new project that lacks many of the features of the old and claim that users should use the new one.

It's not an issue of what will win in the long run; it's an issue of a replacement product being pushed for adoption long ere it be ready.
Big difference between the general statement of "vote rigging is impossible" and "this last election wasn't rigged". The usual claim is the latter, not the former.
https://cockpit-project.org/blog/is-cockpit-secure.html

In short, most likely, unless you are reckless with it.
I imagine all commands have to get signed for the rover to accept them, but even if their keys were compromised and some vulnerability was found in the software, wouldn't you also need a network of really big dishes (see DSN) to actually send the commands to the rover?
Ehh, this blog posts focuses way too much on technical tricks that are, in reality, not really the main risks to the bitcoin network.

For example, the blog posts focuses on things like 51% attacks to either reorg the chain, or prevent transactions from being published. This is not really as big of a deal. When 51% attacks happen, it certain disrupts crypto networks in the short term. But the defenders always have the nuclear option in their back pocket, which is to change the proof of work algorithm, and force the attackers to spend a bunch of money building their attack infrastructure up again.

Threats to change the POW algorithm, were thrown around during the 2017 blocksize debate, when things got really heated, and parties involved were threatened what amounted to 51% attacks. So it is already established that this is something that devs consider doing.

The only real avenue of attack against crypto networks, is simply the social one. You simply arrest anyone who does anything at all related to crypto, and hope the threat of government violence is enough to make it so most people dont use crypto.

Those social attacks would be the most likely to succeed, IMO, but they also have the problem of being difficult to implement. You know, because we living in a society, with a court system, and elections, and people that care about not living in a totalitarian hellscape, so any attempt by the government to simply arrest everyone, will likely be punished politically.

So sure. The blog post is correct that if the government simply arrests or kills everyone who has anything to do with bitcoin, then they could stop crypto. But the counter argument to that, is such recommendations are completely out there, and extreme, and society wouldn't let that happen and would punish the people doing that.

The actual attack vectors that matter, are not some fantasy land conspiracy, of every world government becoming a dictatorship. Instead, the attack vectors that matter would instead be every day bad actors, that seek to defraud people, in secret, and are not willing or able to kill/arrest everyone in the world who opposed it.
If all nodes had a 1:1,000,000,000 chance to randomly flip every tick, then resilient structures would probably arise eventually, given a very large (or infinite) board.
Alpine, for instance is a Linux distro, but is not GNU/Linux.
Theres no need to start at a huge hash rate.
You can fork and then reset/reduce the difficulty, or adjust the difficulty in the way BCH does. You can also use POW algorithms that can be done only on commodity hardware like GPUs or CPUs so that the community can do it in a more distributed way.
The reason they ask is that companies are obligated to hire without regard for race, gender, etc - but in the past, many companies would exclude minority groups on purpose but just say "oh we just pick the best candidates, not our fault they're all of the same race."

So the way we are trying to solve this problem is by requiring all companies to collect demographic information on their candidates, and store it somewhere. No one involved with the hiring (theoretically) will see your answers, they just go into a drawer somewhere.

Down the road, the government will ask the company to pull out all the records they collected and look at them in aggregate. If the company is not hiring a diverse enough workforce, there are supposed to be some kind of consequences.

So essentially, companies are required to ask, but you are not required to answer. There will always be an option to say "I prefer not to answer" or something.
> If they have no qualms restricting the speech of the president of America, clearly they’ll have no issue manipulating other governments.

This never did make sense to me. Trump's speech was not curtailed. At any point in time he could issue a press conference and speak freely to the US, and it would be heavily attended by the press. Are we supposed to feel sorry for Trump that he decided to make twitter.com the _only_ way he communicated with the country?

There was literally nothing stopping him from speaking to the country after his account was banned; he _chose_ to stop talking.
He is not a felon convicted for illegal possession of a weapon or drug dealing, he's a warlord that killed a lot of people brutally. Presenting rehabilitation as a possible solution here is laughable and almost insulting to the memories of his numerous victims.
Looks like that issue was created Jan 10th and the fix was merged 6 hours ago. Apparently, it was a regression:

> UPDATE: cause was cname adblocking, so this is a regression, not an earlier issue.
You need a thin layer on top that coordinates your many singular domains. We use graphql to do this. API Gateway or backend for frontend are similar concepts. Having many simple domains without any dependencies is great, they just need to be combined by a simple with many dependencies - a coordination layer.

Joining on the database layer is still adding a dependency between domains. The data models still need to come out of one domain. Dependencies add complexity. So joining is just like importing a module, but worse because it's hidden from the application.

If you really need a join or transaction, you need to think as if you had microservices. You'd need to denormalize data from one domain into another. Then the receiving domain can do whatever it wants.

Of course, you can always break these boundaries and add dependencies. But you end up with the complexity that comes with in, in the long run.
How is Facebook having more of my data in this scenario?

Only if I'm talking a business on WhatsApp (which is optional and will hopefully stay that way), and only if the business I'm talking to uses Facebook as a service provider (instead of, say, Twilio or a self-hosted solution) does something change for me.

Facebook has indicated that businesses processing chats through Facebook will be clearly indicated as doing so, which hopefully puts enough pressure on businesses respecting their customers' privacy to not do so.

Businesses not respecting people's privacy can already choose to share arbitrary data with Facebook for advertisement purposes, so what changes?

Now if Facebook was to discontinue the existing E2E-encrypted business chat integration, that would be something to get upset about.

I'm really afraid that the only lesson that Facebook (and others) have learned in all of this is that TOS changes are best hidden in the fine print of opting into some user-visible new feature via some dark UX pattern, like e.g. Google commonly does.
Sure, maybe. I guess we'll see how it works out.
It depends how rationally the market responds, I guess.

A reorg attack and a DoS are equivalent in my mind - anyone who's capable of pulling off a lengthy DoS is also capable of performing a reorg attack, whether they actually do or not is kind of irrelevant.
There's no "forcing" there. You can simply ignore the error part of the tuple, or even just forget to check it.

If the function returns a (non-error) value that is directly accessible from the function call, the programmer is not forced to do anything with the error.

This is exactly the same problem with null: forget a null check, and you're hosed. Forget an error check, and you're hosed.

If you make errors a part of the actual single return type (as Rust does), then you have to explicitly deal with the possibility of an error before you are even allowed to touch the successful case.
The purpose of the project is to encourage people to be concrete in what their proposed ruleset changes are to defend the attack.
In my experience, it’s not even the ethos of the whole community, it’s the ethos of a few old guard European dudes. Ask nearly any mapper from say Southeast Asia what they think of corporate contributions and I think you get a different answer.
Indeed! The "Latency Numbers Every Programmer Should Know" page from Peter Norvig builds a helpful intuition from a performance perspective but of course there's a lot larger cost in terms of complexity as well.
If a third party can break into the satellite and communications firmware of two different spacefaring nations (you have to hijack an orbiter too) then there are bigger problems to worry about. The number of countries (counting the ESA as one big country) with objects in orbit around Mars can be counted on one hand.
Ask HN: Which smartwatch is the best in self-hacking/quantified self?
I want the smartwatch that gives the most control to the developer-end-user. It should expose all biosensor data to include EKG readouts so that a custom app can use it. In essence, I want a computer to take over part of my job to regulate myself - it should nudge me based on rules I set. E.g. if my blood oxygen saturation dips below a set amount while I've been sedentary for a certain time, I want a specific notification to breathe (as if I'm so intensely focused on a task that I forget). It's perhaps absurd, but you get the point - I should decide exactly how my watch functions in tandem with my unique physiology.
Human beings already know how our game ends (we die), and yet we do all sorts of things on this earth in the ~80 years before that, even knowing that everything we do for ourselves becomes meaningless once we're gone.

Time preferences are a thing. Lots of folks do things with a time horizon much lower than their equipment being written off. Whole companies are destroyed for quarterly earnings, relationships are destroyed for a promo that lasts only for the ~2-5 years that you've got remaining at the company, people get married even knowing that 50% of them end in divorce, parents birth children knowing that they'll leave the nest and develop their own opinions and say they don't love you and eventually die.
I am reminded of the types of OSs in Vernor Vinge's "A Deepness Upon The Sky" universe.
I don't think China being a dictatorship is much of a conspiracy. That's where a lot of ASICs are deployed, as well as the majority of the fabrication of the hardware itself.
I think you're being naive if you think they won't roll this out to Enterprise soon as well.
Ask HN: What are the most annoying parts of job hunting for you?
From applying all the way down to accepting the offer, what is the most annoying part of the job search for you? Not necessarily most difficult, but most annoying

What do you do to mitigate it?
To be fair (also), UberCheats reads like something Uber is doing ("Uber cheats" their drivers out of money, for example). "Cheats for Uber" sounds like something you're doing to deprive Uber of something ("Cheats for Overwatch" sounds like an aimbot (if it existed)). You do have a valid point about "XBrand" or "BrandX" vs "X for Brand".
That’s from 2005, desalination costs have fallen significantly in the last 15 years. It’s still generally cheaper to pipe water from somewhere else, but that assumes you can legally do so.
Yea that's what I don't understand either.

Is the plan to secure a fully-mined chain just rampant value-inflation in a way that is completely detached from supply and demand? Today my 1e-1000 bitcoin is worth 10 carrots, tomorrow it is worth 20 everything else held equal? How does that even work in practice?

Alternatively you need transactions to pay entirely for the security of the chain. This doesn't seem feasible when chain security costs rise everyday as the cost of energy deceases. And if transaction fees increase to compensate and people transact less the whole thing blows up.
It was a incredible world to discover and explore (especially custom servers with custom maps and content). There was no 'point' to the game, i.e. no final destination or quest to complete... in fact there were barely any quests at all. It was all just up to you. However you wanted to play you could. I.e. you could just have a blast logging in and hanging out in a player's house which they converted into a bar and play chess chatting about w/e. I even played some great roleplaying shards which were legit, e.g. a LOTR one and it was soo epicly awesome. Good pvp dynamics. I did love the ruthlessness of losing everything when you died. I loved how custom shards could tweak so many of the variables pretty easily. I just have so many absolutely golden memories, hilarious and absurd memories. Idk... it's just really hard to convey how the game was the best. I think a lot of is just because it let you do whatever you wanted, but also provided you with fun PvE, PvP, roleplaying, etc.

What are games today missing? They're not persistent open-world sandbox games. Sure we have open-world games, but they're not sandbox and often not persistent, and we have sandbox but they're not open-world and often not persistent too.

I can't do it. I can't adequately describe what games today are missing which UO had. It's a quality of the combination of all the features UO had that just resulted in the best memories and fun I've had when gaming. I just don't see enough support for player-generated content as UO had, which I suspect is a big part of it too.
Nationalism as in nation-state dates back to 323 BC? I would be surprised. I think historian debate if nationalism was born in the 17th or the 18th century, so maybe they are all wrong, but considering how many new, interesting debate are indroduced by Chinese historians (== academics), i doubt the debate wouldn't already have fired if this was a question.

At the time, ruling over different culture and languages was a sign of power. Chandragupta's empire included Bengali and people from Deccan, and i think it extended beyond the hindus (Sorry if it the the english term, i'm not fluent enough to read history books in english). I would be VERY surprised if any of those considered themselves as Indian before anything else.
Well that’s silly, I assume that will change.
I don't agree with your first or third paragraphs but I do kind of agree with the second, yet I think the solution to that is to provide return-value-based solutions where it makes sense, not to avoid exceptions in general.

Also, things like "user canceled this operation" are great for exceptions IMO... exactly how would you stop (say) a sort() function otherwise? You'd need to write a custom cancelable sort, which isn't a great idea? You can't reinvent the wheel for everything.
My impression is just fear mongering for political gain.

India had a power transfer from the British to the elite who used to work for the British as intermediaries.

India has mostly been and is still dominated by these elites in most sectors outside of the free markets.

They are worried about Modi taking away all these privileges that they have enjoyed for 70 years.

So all these elements are ganged up against the BJP and Modi.
What we need is a subset of HTML features that are known to work across all major browser. From Firefox, Safari /WebKit on other MacOS, and Chrome.

What, you mean like standards? Web standards?
BCH addresses this by increasing the number of transactions per block. This decreases the fee per transaction.
Again, I think that's why criteria need to be set out, rather than a strict timetable.
I would assume that the author meant to mean "growth in the supply of bitcoin." Which seems like a reasonable error to make, because printing money typically has an inflationary effect, even if it isn't technically synonymous with inflation.

Maybe dilution is a better term? If all other factors could be held equal, then the real value of the ~6BTC reward for mining a block would, in effect, come from a tiny reduction in the real value of everyone else's BTC assets that would result from the supply of BTC having increased.

It creates an interesting situation. Right now, the cost of actually operating the BTC network is largely supported by every single person who owns BTC, proportionally to how much BTC they actually have. As the mining reward continues to taper off, that is going to shift toward the cost primarily being covered by transaction processing fees. That will change something fundamental about the economics of Bitcoin, although I'm not sure exactly how.
If the installer could do this instead..

Check if the app is supported by an existing runtime, if not download it and make it available globally, otherwise use the current runtime and download only the app
Rather than continually getting their accounts banned, wouldn't it be easier for them to eventually start responding to the OSM etiquette?
Evil doesn't have to have remorselessness or have awareness of it's evil to be evil. Ongwen is clearly traumatized. But, he is also the trauma. The spread of death and despair by his hand has to be adjudicated. Life in prison is the most morally just outcome for him, regardless of whatever reformations or personal developments he might make. Some things can't be undone and the consequences have to be lived with, forever. Like, he could become an international voice for reforming child soldiers, educating policy makers, and literally every good thing he could do with his experience. Yet, he should still be in prison. Forever.
I don’t think the realistic attack vectors include nation states trying to out-compete the network on hash rate by building a competing network. If China wanted to make this a priority, for example, they’d just use military force to seize existing mining operations which are heavily centralized and easy to find.

A more realistic attack angle would be a large mining corporation recognizing a financial opportunity to undermine Bitcoin. If some organization could position themselves as a superior alternative to Bitcoin, crashing the Bitcoin network with periodic mining attacks could be worth the cost. Alternatively, if an entity could amass a large enough short position on Bitcoin, attacking the network to drive down the price might be attractive. We’d have to run the math on the scenarios, which is the point of projects like this.

> Even if they did currently, the endgame for Bitcoin as envisioned by Satoshi Nakamoto was for everyone on the planet to be mining Bitcoin at the same time.

The amount of wasted energy would be insane if everyone on the planet was mining Bitcoin.

Currently, it looks like we’re on a trajectory where large mining operations will centralize a lot of the eventually custom mining hardware. Individuals will have less and less incentive to mine Bitcoin as the reward decreases.
NFT = non-fungible token

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-fungible_token

(Today I learned.)
Would have been interesting to see data-points from before 2015...
you do need to install cockpit on [all] your server[s], right?

i am trying to figure out if there is a business case for a desktop app. there is plenty of open source and commercial systems more or less similar to cockpit, and it's hard to compete with free