skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>There are plenty of sites that would happily accept more nuclear being built, but all other forms of energy have undercut the cost of nuclear.

Honestly ... it isn't just about cost. Nuclear is expensive but it isn't prohibitively expensive. The big picture is we know that nuclear can power an economy, it does not emit global warming gasses, and also places a tiny footprint on the surrounding ecosystem.

Solar and wind cannot power an economy. But let's pretend they can so as to not get bogged down on this point. Let's also pretend they are non-trivially cheaper than nuclear. Even under those assumptions nuclear still wins in my eyes.

Global warming is only one environmental problem we have to solve and it may not be the most important one either. The other one is regular environmental collapse due to needing to support 7-10 billion people. In this context, solar and wind are atrocious and a total disaster because they have massive land-use requirements (land-use around mining for necessary materials, deployment and maintenance of the collectors, and finally land-fill once out of use). And they will always have those horrendous land-use requirements because solar and wind are diffuse energy sources. Worse, we're going to need to increase solar and wind collector production by several orders of magnitude (and come up with a battery technology that doesn't exist today) to fully support a fossil fuel transition. What cost do you think the environment will bear for that compared to nuclear infrastructure?
> I disagree, it's proven to be inadequate for modern software development

Well, that's exactly why the OP (and my essay) are "anti" modern software development in many ways. The view is that we're moving away from the traditional open source ecosystem and methods of software development with these new technologies, which (to be clear) are good technologies, but were created mostly to solve problems that some large corporations have, not to solve the problems that the open source ecosystem has.

> The least reliable way to package and distribute software is by relying on traditional package managers.

Not sure what you mean by this, but it's entirely untrue in my experience. Anything I install with a package manager just works, 100% of the time. Stuff I try to get any other way is a shitshow, and the lack of "quality control" provided by maintainers speaks for itself. I mean, just look at Android apps or the Chrome extension store. Heaven forbid we go back to the days of curl | bash off someone's website.

> By statically linking everything as much as possible and shipping everything else in a self contained bundle with a launcher that overrides any symbols that might inadvertently be pulled in from the system.

I know you know this, but just to be clear, that's not a solution to the problem of "making things easier for maintainers to distribute", that's cutting maintainers out of the loop. The whole point of my focus on ecosystems is that this is something that I, as a user, don't want to happen.
In my experience, employers regularly exercise their power to make their employees not care. At best this is driven by a desire to limit the organization's liability, for example disciplining non-janitorial employees from picking up litter because they are afraid of lawsuits if someone throws out their back at work.
Ohhhh boy you're in for it now. I'd suggest a quick edit on why you feel it is favoristism.
Nah, I don’t buy it. If it’s “just” bug fixes (for which I might have implemented a hack that now depends on the bug) I prefer Nightly builds with the latest (and re-pinned) dependencies available. Releases are just a re-tag after extra QA
Have you had that happen?
I added some newlines to your number because it was borking the page layout. Sorry; it's our bug.
When we get to equality in representation and pay across genders in the tech industry then maybe your argument might have some merit. Until then…
> She was on a steady track to land a senior role. Even after I decided to leave the company, I let the next manager know this person is track for a senior position in the next few months.

Its very naive to think, that the manager replacing you will see eye to eye with you. I have seen countless occasions, where the engineer in the team who is ontrack for promotion doesnt get it, because the management above has changed.

While being in IC role, I never relied on the company to promote me. Its better to jump ships than reestablish the relationship with new manager. It takes same amount of work anyway. At least jumping ship will give you much higher compensation.
What do you think they say? "You're not well-connected, so we're rejecting you"? How do you think political decisions get defended in academia? For insiders, you listen to the referees. For outsiders, you invoke some vague criterion of lack of fit or lack of interest. And people can come along and say "If this field is important, why doesn't it appear in JAMS"? It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Apparent hackers behind Kia ransomware attack demand millions in Bitcoin
>safety features and regulations are a major part of nuclear's cost.

Which regulations -that aren't there for safety- are driving up cost of nuclear power? I can't find any. Are you saying we should cut down on safety to make nuclear able to compete?
I really think we can all learn a ton by sharing our mistakes. I wanted to implement this in the office but nobody would share. I have no problem sharing now I've messed up but I'm also weird in a lot of social respects.
This watermelon image has been widely debunked.

Will find the source if necessary.
If I recall correctly (from his podcast episodes), he has said he knows what is required to get to the top of his field, but he isn’t willing to pay the price.

Perhaps he will point to that in the future to say why he hasn’t won Turing awards. Or perhaps he makes more money from his “side hustles” as an author, blogger, and podcaster.

Or it’s a good match for “finding the hard work you’re willing to do”. He is willing to do the hard work to get tenured, but not the hard work to be the absolute best in the field.
> While .foo is a real top level domain, Google doesn’t let the public register names in it.

For the record, example.com, example.net and example.org are reserved domains, that cannot be used. So you can always use those as safe examples. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example.com https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2606
I think it's more important that comments be specific, actionable, and timely than it is that they be associated with some commitment from the commenter. "Let me know how I can help" is not bad because it lacks commitment. It's bad because it's not specific. It puts the burden on the person receiving it to fill in the blanks. Similarly, "have you thought of X" is often (not always) bad because it's not actionable and/or timely. It might be literally impossible. It might be infeasible in light of available resources. It might have been a good idea before the last five choices were made, or it might just have too little effect too late to do any good. But none of this has anything to do with whether the person offering the comment has any skin in the game.

I've been helped immensely by people around me who have given me their own ideas, or others' ideas wrapped up in a paper, which I could then apply myself immediately and to good effect. I like to think I've done the same for others a time or two. That's not "making" but it's still genuinely helpful.
Show HN: I interviewed Sergio Mattei, the founder of Makerlog
I have 2 kids and I do freelancing for 13 years now. My wife goes to work and I often talk to clients while my kids are also doing online school nowadays. I don't feel trapped at all, on the contrary I have total freedom. Like I said, programming is not for everyone, who feels trapped should change fields.
> The universe I'd like to live in is where the only use case for dynamic linking are OS vendor APIs and cryptographically secure functions like TLS. My dream package manager would whitelist those system librarie and forbid distribution for any bundle that does contain the shared objects with the symbols it needs.

This idea seems to be predicated on a belief that OS vendor APIs and cryptographic libraries are the only attack surface for serious user-affecting software exploits.
Go in to team sports (ice hockey, soccer, volleyball) reguarly, this will get your mind well disconnected for sufficient amount of time to recuperate.
I Miss My Bar: a modern digital artifact to keep you company
No I don't.
The ads must be respectful and unobtrusive.

Edit: typo
The day I stop static linking is the day I can compile on one distro and ship to many without worrying about users reporting loader errors. That day is not today.

Until then, I'll keep doing it, because it saves me time and money.

I don't really buy that dynamic linking all the things is such a boon to security. But I'll link to this: https://drewdevault.com/dynlib

> Not including libc, the only libraries which had "critical" or "high" severity vulnerabilities in 2019 which affected over 100 binaries on my system were dbus, gnutls, cairo, libssh2, and curl. 265 binaries were affected by the rest.

> The total download cost to upgrade all binaries on my system which were affected by CVEs in 2019 is 3.8 GiB. This is reduced to 1.0 GiB if you eliminate glibc.

> It is also unknown if any of these vulnerabilities would have been introduced after the last build date for a given statically linked binary; if so that binary would not need to be updated. Many vulnerabilities are also limited to a specific code path or use-case, and binaries which do not invoke that code path in their dependencies will not be affected. A process to ascertain this information in the wake of a vulnerability could be automated.
LowRes NX – A new fantasy console core for Libretro/RetroArch
On the other hand if you were a person who needed to make a transaction in person because you can’t use banks for that (I.e. mafia) you would take that ride and probably spend even more energy commuting several people (arms, team of people) for a sufficiently large transaction.

In the Wild West you would need maybe several horses each in order to exchange a certain amount of gold. What does the carbon usage be here?

Bitcoin solves that problem in software, which is magnificent. For the same carbon footprint.
> They obviously need (and apparently lack) some kind of system for notifying people when prices are spiking unusually high so that exactly that can happen.

I fail to see how this classifies as a free market solution. If customers are not free to choose their supplier, and providers can whimsically just abuse their dominant position to hike prices at will, then that's not a free market at all. It just sounds like a monopolistic market dictating price hikes whenever they feel like it without fear of any consequence.
http://nil.csail.mit.edu/6.824/2016/notes/gomem.pdf

The more you downvote me the stronger I become! :D
The manufacturer can deny service to undesirables[0], by refusing to provide them with fido2s (either initial or replacement when broken). If we're willing to accept targeted denial of service we might as well have the New York Times (or whoever) publish hashes and timechain-encrypted transactions for tick N alongside decrypted transactions for tick N-1; that requires less secrity and infrastructure from the central authority.

0: I could give a long list of historical examples demonstrating that is in fact a problem, but frankly, if you (think you) are not a member of any demographic that someone considers undesirables, then I consider you a undesirable.
> The more valuable the collective Bitcoins are, the more energy you need to spend defending it against 51% attacks.

I wonder how afraid one actually needs to be of 51% attacks. How would the attacker profit from a 51% attack? They might double-spend, or rewrite known history somehow, or decide to only include certain transactions in their blocks and leave other transactions stranded. In each of these cases, it would be clear to everyone that Bitcoin has been broken, and that it has lost its usefulness and the properties it became famous for. The attacker might then control a large amount of Bitcoin, but having lost everyone's trust in it, that large amount of Bitcoin would be worthless. It's not in any attacker's interest to actually break the system, since they would need a gigantic initial investment and get no return on it. (Except if it were very cheap and the attacker's motivation would really be to destroy Bitcoin.)

I don't think we need to fool ourselves that miners are in it to "protect" the network. They're in it to make money.
>If you have Bitcoin in a scenario like that, most definitely will not be a problem.

Until the regime decides to cut off access to crypto exchanges or the whole internet country wide. Good luck cashing out your bitcoins then.
A lot of responses are going to say something like "it is mathematics without using the law of the excluded middle, or proof by contradiction" or something like that. They are not technically wrong, but I'd like to offer a different perspective.

The constructive logic used in constructive mathematics is classical logic with two new connectives added: the constructive existential, and the constructive disjunction (which could be defined in terms of the constructive existential).

The constructive disjunction and constructive existential connective has semantics given by the BKH interpretation[1].
A proof of the constructive disjunction A + B is either a proof of A or a proof of B. A proof of the constructive existential Σn:N. P(n) is a pair <n,p> where n is a natural number and p is a proof of P(n).

So constructive mathematics isn't classical mathematics hindered, but constructive mathematics is mathematics enhanced with a more expressive language. Naturally constructive mathematics tends to focus on theorems written in this more expressive language that make use of these new constructive connectives, rather than focusing on the classical fragment which is already well studied.

For the non-layman: we can see that the above interpretation is correct because the fundamental logical rules for universal quantification, implication, conjunction, false and true are all identical between classical and constructive logic. And, according to classical mathematicians at least, this set of logical combinatorics is complete. Thus the law of excluded middle holds, even in constructive logic, so long as you use the classical disjunction, which is defined in terms of conjunction, implication, and false. Similarly you can prove that proof by contraction, i.e. double negation elimination ¬ ¬A -> A is a theorem of constructive logic whenever A is a formula that does not use the constructive disjunction or constructive existential (where negation is defined in terms of implication and false).

For the all of the above, I'm particularly focused on first-order number theory, however all of the above carries over to higher-order theories, and I think it even holds for set theory (or at least some large part of set theory such as Zermelo set theory; I forget what happens with the replacement axiom). Higher-order constructive mathematics does come with the caveat that the Axiom of Choice is not a theorem of constructive mathematics even when it is phrased only using the classical existential.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brouwer%E2%80%93Heyting%E2%80%...
What's interesting is that all of the magic of crypto comes from:

- Signed transactions being broadcast onto a p2p network

- This network being visible to anyone who is interested

The much less important part of crypto is exactly how the shared ledger is assembled. So long as these transactions are put together in a relatively timely manner, and no transactions are being willfully excluded, whatever mechanism used for assembling the ledger doesn't really matter that much. Proof of work is literally just a time-gated lottery for some entity to be the one that gets to say "I am submitting the next update to the ledger." They're not providing any service to the network that a single shitty chromebook couldn't provide on its own, the time-gated proof of work is literally just to arrive at a consensus. There are so many alternatives that make more sense than this.
I'm not fully following your logic, but to resolve that problem you need another consensus algorithm over the votes of representatives. And I don't know how we can effectively use the fact, that a probability of harmful representative behavior is very small.
So an A record should also hold domain names? Or IPv6 addresses?

In DNS, there is actually a single record type that should hold a physical address, for each supported protocol address. We have A records for IPv4, and AAAA records for IPv6. Anything else should be a domain name.

Adding both IPv4 and IPv6 support to every other record type would be a waste.

Note: ignoring other protocol addresses above to keep it focused on what is currently is large scale use.
The author of the article substituted asafoetida for the laser.
It's HawaiiNewsNow and they are having a fucking interview with her. What's wrong with you people?

The title is her introduction!
That's a rather misleading way of reporting on this answer to a question of whether there will some kind of Blazor support from VB added in .NET 6.

Kathleen Dollard:
"Unfortunately, we do not have new scenarios planned for VB.NET in .NET 6.

We do have new VB.NET experience features including source generation to allow the VB.NET to benefit from improved IDE features."

Maybe the title should be "Few VB.NET improvements planned for .NET 6"?
This is mistaken. I'd suggest looking through Lazard's levelized cost of energy and cost of storage slides. A pure renewables + battery approach is becoming economically viable.

The main problem that remains is organizing the industry to do it when natural gas is dirt cheap due to fracking.

Also, wind + solar is generally a pretty stable mix. We already know how to do continent scale power grids to shift power around local weather. What recently happened in Texas was a result of their conscious decision to go it alone with their own grid, and making insufficient winterization investment in the grid they built.
Style, Class and Sophisticated Flat for Sale in Rondebosch East
2 bedroom flat for sale in Rubys Place
2 large bedrooms
Large lounge with laminated floors
Fully fitted Kitchen ( Hob and Oven)
Family bathroom and Toilet
Parking Bay
Security complex
Controlled Access
24 Hour controlled Access
Close Islamia Mosque
Close to Islamia Primary School
Close to Kenilworth Centre
Close to Access Park
Beautiful Views
R999 000
Lake Properties
info@lakeproperties.co.za
lake-propertiescape-town.business.site/?m=true
And we'll cancel and silence everyone's opinions and feelings until that happens?
There’s also the option to tell them that “you shouldn’t do it this way, but I’m going to tolerate it ... for now.”

I made up the tongue-in-cheek HTTP 397 for this case:

https://pastebin.com/TPj9RwuZ
What a great project. Love the idea.
This might be a new game gerne. Developer Board Games or so. Haha
Google's program for Black Students suffered disorganization and culture clashes
If curious, past threads:

Xanadu Basics – Visible Connection (2018) [video] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20258942 - June 2019 (25 comments)

“Xanadu Hypertext Documents” architecture and data structures, 2019 edition - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19745517 - April 2019 (1 comment)

Project Xanadu - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19710142 - April 2019 (32 comments)

Ted Nelson's Pre-Final Reply to “The Curse of Xanadu” by Gary Wolf / Gory Jackal - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19672373 - April 2019 (1 comment)

Getting to Xanadu - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18635123 - Dec 2018 (55 comments)

Xanadu - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15269827 - Sept 2017 (86 comments)

Ted Nelson presents a working prototype version of Xanadu - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12386339 - Aug 2016 (1 comment)

Roads to Xanadu - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10642143 - Nov 2015 (6 comments)

The Xanadu Parallel Universe - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10470068 - Oct 2015 (2 comments)

Xanadu: we have a working deliverable - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7849389 - June 2014 (99 comments)

The Curse of Xanadu (1995) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4160525 - June 2012 (2 comments)

The Curse of Xanadu (1995) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1583311 - Aug 2010 (6 comments)

How Xanadu Works: technical overview - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=962315 - Nov 2009 (5 comments)

The Xanadu Dream - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=876469 - Oct 2009 (15 comments)

The Curse of Xanadu - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=795155 - Aug 2009 (18 comments)

Others?
Wage gap has been proven to be a myth. What exists is a "earning gap". Men earn more because they put in longer hours, on average. The only industry that has a demonstrably huge wage gap is modeling (and porn), where female models make orders of magnitude more money than male models.

Regarding representation, no one is forcing women out of tech industry. There are fewer women in tech, because fewer women choose to study STEM in college. Also, why don't women ask for "equal representation" in other industries which are male-dominated like garbage collectors, sewage workers etc.
Automatic Pool Stick [video]
That's most likely because the plane itself was flying stable and the pilot informed the passengers well. It not having a direct impact on the perceived flight characteristics in the passenger compartment removes it from you in a way.

I've been on turbulent fligts before where people where screeming but the plane was perfectly fine.
You should setup a clubhouse with Gwern and hash it out. Would love a causal debate on this topic.
that is a neat demo with a lot of useful links! In fact, it seems that the Lean developers/community are very interested in new methods of achieving readability, and providing users with tools to build interfaces that scale up to the complexity of real workflows.

For example, Lean in vscode supports interactive html "widgets": https://youtu.be/8NUBQEZYuis?t=453

(at that timestamp, there's a quick introduction to their typical use at the moment).

lean4 is committed to all sorts of extensibility; here's a demonstration of the new macros: https://twitter.com/derKha/status/1354082976456441861. There have also been several instances of users implementing old lean3 features (for example, the `calc` tactic mode, which has unique syntax for proving (in)equalities) by simply defining new type classes and short macros.
By the definition you quoted, Mac OS is also not an open platform. This is exactly what I am saying: in some aspects, it's a walled garden. Depending on your use case, it may be essential.
For example, you could comment on someone starting a garden without having tried to start one yourself. Or you could start a garden yourself and have lots of interesting takeaways and constructive feedback to share. Lots of people make things, sure, but just because I make a boat does not make me qualified to comment on bridge building, or garden making. So I would think someone who has relevant experience in making whatever the thing is would be a "maker" and other people would not. I don't think the audience of "who you're making things for" is nearly as relevant, because sometimes you make things for yourself, or your partner, or your friends, and sometimes those things are useful and more people want them. Discovering product demand is an iterative process. On the other hand, there are people who do not make things for themselves or anyone in need, or to address any need, so although they might have a lot to say it might not be all that helpful or relevant if they have not tried to build whatever it is the maker built, or something close to that.
Must be a bad batch. Please return by post with batch number visible for a refund and let us know what you didn't like about the product