skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Don’t hate the player; hate the game.

Fuck that. I can hate the game, and the players who decide to play it.

There's zero chance of ending the economic incentives of cryptocurrency mining without (global) government intervention. Instead, the best effort the US government has provided is increasing SUPPORT for it.

Apple took a unique, aggressive, and still-controversial stance for privacy. This position has easily cost them a double-digit percent of their revenue; the amount of money they could generate from selling out their billion+ users, who are generally above-average income, in the same vein Google does, is unfathomable. I don't like Apple as a company, but I still feel its important to give them recognition for how industry-leading they were, and still are, in pushing for Privacy.

There are ethics which can transcend corporate interest, even when considering negative PR. There are some things companies just don't do. The excuse of "optimizing shareholder profit" and "hate the game" is bullshit; it moves the onus of responsibility off of companies who are fully capable of acting more ethically by blaming some Invisible Hand as if they had no choice in the matter.

That's bullshit. Jensen Huang had a choice. He made it. End of story. You want to shift some blame onto Ant and the miners themselves; that's all fair game for Round 2. But at this time, we're still on Round 1.

Its reasonable for Nvidia to stand by and do nothing. Graphics cards are, after all, general purpose computing hardware. Even after they've outlived a useful life in a mining farm, those miners may attempt to extract an ROI by reselling them in secondary markets. Not ideal, but certainly better than Nvidia's plan for the future.

Nvidia's plan is to, instead, support miners directly, while intentionally tiering consumer hardware, then positioning the entire move as somehow "Standing By Gamers". A dystopian science-fiction author legitimately could not write a more canonically evil storyline. I would change this position if Nvidia walks back, cancels the CMP line, and continues forward with driver limitations on the RTX 3060 with public plans to move to in-silicon ethereum mining protection on future cards; I think that's reasonable, given its fair to assume that the "ship has already sailed" on Ampere. Until then, fuck Nvidia; I'm not touching anything their hands are involved in.
It also physically moves very slowly, which gives the ancient processor time to keep up.
You're strawmanning. I didn't call anyone relentlessly evil—the whole point is that complicity is woven into our daily lives in a way that's banal and easily ignored.

You could direct more resources this way or that. Do you? What about your time? Do you invite others in your life to do so as well?
Given that money supplies contract during recessions, which drives deflation, I would argue that they did everything in their power to prevent both asset price deflation, in addition to actual, main-street deflation.
FAA - Emergency Airworthiness Directive for Boeing 777 with PW4000 engines
The author has perhaps overlooked CAP theorem. Consciousness requires both consistency and high-availability, thus it can't arise in situations of partitioned networks.

Brains (or, at least, most healthy brains) are unpartitioned. But any given community of brains is at best intermittently connected: I wave to my neighbour, then my neighbour disappears from sight. I call my parents on the phone, then the phonecall terminates. I have a tab open to a webpage, but then my attention shifts to another tab.

Perhaps consciousness could eventually arise from individual machines or the internet more broadly, but I can't see an argument for it happening in something as loose as "the United States".
I know. It was just a rhetorical question to further show the unhelpfulness of efficiency.
"Standards don't have any cosmic significance." - true but then I suspect you would get a right shitty on if your preferred IP stack didn't generally behave in the same way as mine and you lost comms with the world.

This discusses some consequences of avoiding standards: https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-thomson-postel-was-wrong-03....

Of course your DNS server can return whatever you fancy in response to a request. If you want to return an MX record that looks like an IP address then go ahead. I think the old restriction on a hostname being greater than two chars and no leading int has gone away. If a MTA is happy with the result then fine.

However, anti-spam systems will frown on things like that and will probably tut a bit. ... and drop your mail on the floor. You can do what you like - you could call these records "Liberty MX" but I will still drop your mail because I can't be arsed to analyse your intent. You don't follow email standards - DROP!
DNS records are statically typed. An “A” record can only contain an IPv4 address, just like a variable of type “int” in the C programming language only can contain an integer. An MX record, just like CNAME, SRV, and others, can only contain a domain name, not an IP address of any kind. You can input a domain name which looks like an IPv4 address, but this is simply a syntax overlap; it happens to be that the normal textual representation of IPv4 addresses are also valid syntax for an unrelated domain name. Tellingly, the syntax for IPv6 addresses does not overlap with domain names, so you cannot make this error with IPv6 addresses.
To preface, I think the 60 kWh models were unpopular, and Tesla eventually removed them from the lineup.

But your argument suggests that auto manufacturers will be penalized for making premium features easily upgradable, and lauded (or at least given a free pass) for selling premium features that are pain in the butt to get upgraded, even when it’s artificial busywork.

E.g., the navigation maps on my 2013 Lexus can only be updated by the dealer and carry a $1,500 fee. There are obviously easier ways to make the navigation upgrades easier, but I suspect if Lexus made it too easy, that would land them in hot water with the same kind of argument (and probably generate quite a bit of wrath from the dealers).
Payola laws should be extended to include Spotify pay-to-play IMO
Good luck.

My two cents: I suggest making the software work first, on existing tablet(s).

Then once you have a product people actually want/use you can add the cost and complexity of building, inventorying, and shipping a physical product. Also, far more people would use your software than buy a physical version and you would have an audience of all the people using your software to convert into physical product customers as an upgrade.

Again, good luck!
Do something 'just' for 5 minútes. This is my productivity hack for my priváte projects. I do this every Day and súdenly i am done :)
> It definitely isn’t worth also giving up control to everyone else in the world.

Lots of consumers disagree!

I find being to see the state of my car and control it remotely very useful. I’m happy to accept the downsides for the additional functionality. I think many consumers agree, given how much they’re willing to pay for it.
Integer linear programming is NP-hard, which may have caused the confusion here.
Although I imagine there’s a nonzero amount of people who have lost their keys already, and have been relying on the app rather than pay for a replacement.
Habitual good players actually have a metagame that spans across individual games. If you are too backstabby, it hurts your chances in further games, so you need to be very selective with your betrayals.
> With Xanadu, that paywall is built in at the core

HTTP also has builtin paywalls via the 402 error code. I'm not sure that there's much practical difference.
The problem is actually far worse than that. While the gp has what seems to be a reasonable solution, the issue is that you can't actually know what distribution is going to package your software, or what environment it is going to run in. There are code bases out there that still work decades later without any active maintenance, but if you need maintenance just to be able to build software in a new environment something is wrong.

The underlying issue is that there are no standards for how to package software in a multi language environment. If I want to go from a state where (require 'module-name) fails to a state where (require 'module-name) succeeds, there are a potentially infinite number of ways that that could be accomplished, a single software project cannot ever specify all the possible ways for building software. What they can try to do use uniform interfaces and standard patterns for building their software, in a way that delegates dependency management to an external system. It seems that it is hard for software developers to admit that other people know more about how and where their software will be running than they do.

Good engineering practice seems to dictate that dependency and environment management should be completely orthogonal to the development of an individual component or individual functionality. The op is 3 stories about what happens
when the two are not kept orthogonal. The fundamental problem is that it is often easier for individual projects to make decisions that conflate the individual project with its dependencies (no longer orthogonal).

To my knowledge, there is not a universal or well understood set of requirements that could be used to specify what a stable interface between an individual software project and its dependencies looks like. There are a number of candidates, such as gentoo ebuilds, rpm spec files, etc. however I have not seen one that effectively accommodates all of them. Further, there are languages where the implementation (or even design) makes it impossible to keep dependencies and individual projects orthogonal.

The end result of non-orthognal systems is more work for everyone, more wasted cpu cycles, and worse security. Distros can't stop people from using languages that conflate the two, but they can tell them that they are on their own, and that the distros can't depend on components written in such languages in the core of the OS. To everyone pushing the rewrite it in Rust meme this should be a wakeup call. The current design decisions in the language and limitations of the implementation make it less secure than C or C++ because swapping out dependencies is bottlenecked by the centralized primary development team, and maintainers and users can't take orthogonal action to fix an issue.
This requirement that planes be within a certain distance of land at all times is a myth. While some flight plans are adjusted slightly for safety, there are absolutely long haul routes that just blaze right across a wide-open ocean.
I have a feeling this would have gotten a lot more traction with the subtitle: An MIT professor found his name on two papers with which he had no connection, which is an interesting topic. As is, I suspect that the original Ars title makes people assume that the paper was co-written with AI, which doesn't seem weird in 2021. Isn't that itself weird?
I totally agree with you, and disagree with the other two commenters here. I think this is a culture and communication difference in companies. I work for a distributed company, Automattic, and we use two tools for information which needs to remembered:

- p2, which is basically a live blog for long-form communication. Each team has one, and important conversations happen there. The informal saying goes, “p2 or it didn’t happen”. Long-form async communication is crucial for distributed work, and slack (or email for that matter) is a very poor tool for the job. (https://wordpress.com/p2/)

- a large wiki built on WordPress (e.g. it’s very easy for anyone to publish changes to it)

Both tools are used extensively at the company because everyone understands that real-time communication doesn’t last. I think the wiki gets a lot of traction because:

- it is integrated into our global search tool.

- People share wiki pages when someone asks a question. (E.g, someone asks me about $topic that I know a lot about, and I share with them the wiki document I already wrote about it.)

- Plus, these are linked to from p2 or slack as needed.

When I start trying to get historical context for something, I’ll use the global search tool and find anything ever written across p2 or the wiki site. That normally gives me a great start for what I’m working on.

I would argue that it is a cultural failing when companies don’t have effective communication and documentation habits. Is it habitual to write that wiki page when finishing your project? Is it habitual to have large, technical conversations in a publicly searchable environment? Is it habitual to summarize important conversations (in slack or from video meetings) on these more accessible tools? Is it normal for everyone to be commenting, editing, and participating? These are all normal for me, and I think a big aspect of that is the existing company culture. (And obviously the tools make it very easy to do.)
Take (Jira) tickets and do them just as any other direct report. That's what I do.
One can easily hate both, no?
Well that is a quite crass and horrible fate to condemn those farmers to.

The point is why do any of this when solar and wind are cheaper and have none of these issues? It doesn’t matter what we say here, money always wins and that is why nuclear will be left behind no matter how many astorturfers always show up.
> The 100 acre solar farm you build instead of a 1 acre Nuclear plant is going to have its' own environmental and maintenance challenges

What specific environmental and maintenance challenges? Solar farms are incredibly low maintenance. The land is graded before construction if it is not flat enough and besides that the only maintenance required is:

- Cleaning the panels periodically

- Replacing broken equipment

Top tier panels can come with 25yr manufacturer warranties, and inverters can come with 12yr warranties.
You are comparing having containers versus having no containers and no kind of bundling at all, which is not a reasonable comparison. If you need an OS snapshot, the only option on other operating systems is often to use a VM. That's what containers are used as an alternative to. (The other alternative there is to never install patches or upgrades on the production machines, which probably creates as many problems as using containers)
Question for you: do you have an example of something that most people on this message board might class as moderation, but which you wouldn’t call censorship?
Gold is used to make electronics cheaper, and it's used in medicine.
I guess I’m just ok with censorship in a lot of situations. Perhaps if online discussion and therefore (by your standard) censorship were more decentralised then it would be more fair but it seems people don’t want something decentralised.
Yep. Even assuming the proof is formally valid, often, what an impossibility or no-go result means is just that one of the premises is wrong. (In this case, I think all the premises are wrong in any fixed-up formalized version of the argument from computational complexity, but it's usually not that bad.) Similarly, all of the Godelian or Penrose-style uncomputability arguments tend to rely on some premise like "humans never make mistakes" or "humans never contradict themselves" or "humans can prove any theorem" (or inverse computer versions thereof), which is the sort of premise which once you highlight it and make it explicit, you instantly lose all faith in any conclusion which supposedly follows from it.

The relevant saying there is "one man's modus ponens is another man's modus tollens". I have another page on that particular interpretation or argument pattern: https://www.gwern.net/Modus
Mistakes I've seen eng mgrs make:

- not acknowledging obvious elephants in the room

- not building enough trust early on with their reports that when a problem comes up, the information they get is biased as they are seen as part of leadership/management and not the team

- applying pressure in the wrong direction (ie; if the team is moving slow because of stress or fear, making things more stressful will not speed things up)

- trying too hard to be friends with all their reports, rather than figuring out the appropriate boundaries on a person to person basis

- relaying anonymous information around in an effort to "protect people" and thus making themselves the go-between between all members on a team rather than encouraging people to work things out themselves

- for ICs that then became mgrs, staying way too focused on the in the weeds details and not on the bigger picture or people details, up to an including still spending too much time coding or trying to do PR reviews that carry too much weight

--

I would actually go so far as to say that the best "IC turned managers" I've had have been about at par with the most mediocre "good people mgrs that didn't come through coding for that role", and the people in that role that excelled at it (a motley crew of former stage managers, teachers, guidance counselors, project managers, etc)
> All of your problems are people problems, the tech parts are much easier to manage.

That's just ... management. Management is mostly about people, it is mostly about the HOW instead of the WHAT. I'd go one step ahead and make a statement that "Management is mostly about dealing with people's observable behaviours".
Well anecdotally, my teen drivers are constantly misplacing their keys. They never seem to lose their phones. I don't remember losing my keys all that often as a teen myself, but it definitely happened a few times.
If you read the article you can tell that AI is not the goal, it is a byproduct of the goal. The goal is to have confidence in the correctness of mathematical results proved by other experts.

Also, there has _already_ been some success on using AI to find proofs in lean.
I trade small amounts of bitcoin with my friends all the time on the lightning network.
“[Place] [man|woman]” is a pretty standard, bordering on cliche, method of writing a headline.
Thank for the tips on the woodwork. I am not sure if a darker color would make the screen look brighter or darker.

I had noticed those gaps in the frame as well. I agree they look poorly made :)

I think they are mostly from the fact that this was cut with a hand saw, and the cut wasn't even throughout the Z axis. I am hoping that I will be able to fix this as I go from a prototyping process to a more refined production process.

Another commentator brought up CNC milling the wood - what do you think of that idea?
Bird strikes generally do not cause engines to explode. The 777 engines in particular were specifically designed to be survive ingestion of frozen turkeys.
Maybe the Nix package manager / NixOS is what you're looking for? I think it takes the best features from both worlds.

Every package installed with Nix is isolated into content-addressable* directories, so for example, my install of Firefox is located at /nix/store/c7pmng2x05dkigpbhnjs8fdzd8kk31np-firefox-85.0.2/bin/firefox. This is pretty inconvenient to use directly, so Nix generates a profile that symlinks all your packages into one place (eg. /run/current/system/sw, ~/.nix-profile), and then environment variables like PATH can just include <PROFILE_DIR>/bin.

With this approach, I can have multiple versions of the same package installed simultaneously, without them conflicting with each other. Like in a traditional distro, any dependencies that are shared between packages aren't duplicated, but if a package needs to explicitly depend on a different version, it can.

Also, because Nix is designed as a functional package manager for building packages from source (even though it has a binary cache), you can trace back exactly what sources were used to build your package and its dependencies, all the way back to the bootstrap binaries used to build any self-hosting compilers (gcc, rust, openjdk, ...)

* Most packages use a hash that's generated from the inputs used to build it, rather than the output that's generated.
Although continuous integration starts in proprietary software, it's been present in Free Software for at least decades. Netscape may well be the second or third medium-large software outfit to do continuous integration the way it's done today (we know Microsoft had a team doing this by hand every single day for Windows NT but that's completely insane) because some of its team had experienced this approach elsewhere and knew they needed it if they wanted to ship software that actually works. When Mozilla was created, Tinderbox (that system) along with the Mozilla browser (and so today Firefox) and Bugzilla (a bug tracker) were freed.

I know it probably seems like last week, but that was more than twenty years ago.
You can't wipe a continent out with the worst case coal plant failure. A reactor going critical and exploding, however "impossible" would do just that. Look at the Saudi plant going up. It is jokingly referred to as "a car with no seatbelts".
How do I even become an engineering manager? I’ve been coding for > 10 years...

Seems like I’m the go to guy to always fix things and I seem to be stuck as a tech lead (I spend most of my time reviewing code and doing architecture design and then code when I absolutely have to)
If a regime is cutting off internet country wide that is a problem larger than bitcoin.
It could be something you self host on your own server.
well for the record i am not saying we should have zero nuclear. i think we need nuclear waste products to power rovers, do certain medical diagnostics and we need nuclear subs to keep the chinese at bay.
Yes, exactly. I‘m very happy my Hyundai has this feature as city parking more often than not means walking a few minutes to my car. Being able to pre heat, check the battery level, etc remotely is a feature I would not want to miss.
I want a car with the least amount of electronics as possible, and certainly nothing connected to the internet. Less to go wrong, at minimum.
I like Nixpkgs and NixOS for understanding both worlds. The Nix ecosystem's best path to mainstream success is being that go-between for everyone.