skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Right, and "weird" is entirely defined by how we think now, not how people will in the future.

I've thought a lot about cryonics, and about potentially having myself (or just my head) preserved when I die, hopefully to be revived someday when medical technology has advanced to the point where it's both possible to revive me, and also possible to cure whatever caused me to die in the first place. The idea of it working out as expected might seem like a bit of a long shot, but I imagine if it did work, and what that could be like.

I look at all the technological advances that have happened even just during my lifetime, and am (in optimistic moments) excited about what's going to happen in the next half of my life (as I'm nearing 40[0]), and beyond. It really saddens me that I'll miss out on so many fascinating, exciting things, especially something like more ubiquitous or even routine space flight. The thought of being able to hop on a spacecraft and fly to Mars with about as much fuss as an airline flight from home to another country just sounds amazing.

But I also wonder about "temporal culture shock" (the short story has the similar concept of "context drift"). Society even a hundred years from now will likely be very different from what we're used to, to the point where it might be unbearably uncomfortable. Consider that even a jump of a single generation can bring changes that the older generation find difficult to adapt to.

[0] Given my family history, I'd expect to live to be around 80, but perhaps not much older. The other bit is that I expect that in the next century we'll figure out how to either completely halt the aging process, or at least be able to slow it down enough so a double or even triple lifespan wouldn't be out of the question. It feels maddening to live so close to when I expect something like this to happen, but be unable to benefit from it.
A bit off-topic but I received an email from a government agency today that pretty printed my ZIP code as "12,345", I'm assuming because they store ZIP as a number. Made me wonder what would happen if I used a full 9 digit ZIP code with a minus sign.
Well, some public policy differences would be continuing to invest ever increasing amounts of money on the worst performers in schools in an attempt to get them up nearer the average.

Another might be seeing the lack of women plumbers (or whatever) and deciding that this is both bad and fixable and investing a bunch of money into advertising how awesome plumbing is to girls in school.
GDC Podcast Special: The Texas Winter Storm Episode
> Unfortunately it's one of those things where "everything you say can and will be used against you".

Indeed.

It kinda takes the fun out of programming. Sometimes you just don't bother with error-checking and with making code production-grade, because you just wanted to publish this small thing that other people might find useful. If people find it useful but find bugs, they might as well send pull-requests.

And let's be honest: error checking is important and everything but it's quite a chore.

Often in your toy project it's okay to be optimistic.

And often the purpose for writing a project is to explore a topic, not to release a production grade project.
tl;dr
because of garbage collection
I think that it is called an immediate annuity. It is a standard insurance product that offers protection against outliving your assets. You pay a lump sum in return for a guaranteed income as long as you live. Yes, if you die early, the insurance company wins, if you live longer than expected, the insurance company looses.

I think these are more common in Europe where people will often take a lump sum pension payout at retirement, and buy an immediate annuity.
Yes! I am from the Indian Subcontinent, I know people who went back to the country to get the Oxford vaccine, because the rollout is great and it is "open season" over there already. Converse is also true- rich people who were doubtful about a vaccine manufactured in India booked came to US to get both Moderna and Pfizer shots.
This is what I found bizarre about NZ's approach. Their goals was 0 _cases_ in the entire country. It's a great accomplishment but perhaps unnecessary.
"The way" is of course Notational Velocity: https://notational.net
djb would beg to differ:

https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/blurb/unbind.html

[EDIT]:
https://www.google.com/search?channel=fs&client=ubuntu&q=bin...
Also, how is this going to be cost effective? I just had an offer to include smart home capabilities in my new home. Some 16k EUR for a very basic installation, with only a tiny part of the home being fully automated. My electricity bill is less than 1k/a on a fully renewable energy contract. using AI smart home technology seems to be far from an economical solution as of today. Prices for smart homes would need to fall 1-2 orders of magnitude for his to start making sense.
AKS on HCI: Azure VM Eval
no but reinvents the opportunity to develop the userbase
OAuth2 provider config: https://docs.gitea.io/en-us/oauth2-provider/

For dex (k8s auth), specifically: https://dexidp.io/docs/connectors/gitea/

Hooking it up to do SSO for other OAuth/OIDC apps is pretty similar. For something that doesn't do OAuth you could use vouch proxy in front of it and get SSO: https://github.com/vouch/vouch-proxy/issues/203

It's really slick and fun to throw gitea on a cheap VPS, then a few apps like drone CI, a k3s kubernetes cluster, etc. and have it all just interoperate and auth together seamlessly. I won't lie though it's an enormous amount of annoying and badly documented work to get it all together.
Devs ping any problems they feel capable of solving. They can ping with 2 messages, either they KNOW they can help, or they THINK they can help.

Once you receive a ping you can vet their S/O profile and if you like what you see you can start the call.

It's not so much for contract work or to complete tasks or projects like fiverr is. It's about getting personalized help with code your struggling with.
Even if you made it up, your comment is basically describing the diminishing marginal utility of wealth.
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/12309/concepts/diminishin...

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/072815/what-margina...

The net effect is that consumption (and associated demand) is suppressed at the lower to middle end of the income scale, where individuals' income isn't enough to sustain their needs + wants. When these individuals spend, the demand for labor + raw materials per $ spent is high, because they are often buying consumables or durables (food, washing machines, etc).

At the high end of the income/wealth distribution, there are few needs that aren't met or exceeded, so their wealth ends up chasing assets and investments that induce far less demand for labor per $ invested. A the extreme end of this are private equity funds (billions managed by a small number of people).
> But 1992 was a dramatically more racist and reactionary era than 2021

No, IMO, it wasn't.

It was a dramatically less antiracist era, which isn't the same thing.

(That is, active racism wasn't much more prevalent in 1992, and maybe even less prevalent, but active antiracism—especially in the US concerning targeted groups other than blacks—was much less prevalent.)
As suicides rise amid the pandemic, Japan takes steps to tackle loneliness
> Like I said, I get defensive when people pit nuclear as a solution to the climate crisis, this is regardless of the context.

I'm sorry, I get defensive when people go against expert advice and think their own opinions supersede decades of research by those that devote their lives to the subject matter. I've worked in nuclear technologies (not reactors) and closely with energy and climate people. I trust their advice (not mine, theirs) and my work experience put me in close proximity to allow me to ask an annoying amount of questions (to refine my understanding of their advice). What I'm upset about here is this comes off as some random person on the internet being aggressive about a subject matter that is extremely complex (extremely is an understatement), where they have no expertise, and goes against the expert consensus. Such claims come off as exceedingly arrogant and I honestly don't see it as any different from the anti-vaxers who think a few youtube views and blogs makes them experts on difficult subjects. You're throwing your gut feelings against the livelihood of many researchers. This is an unacceptable thing in our society and doubly so on HN.

> GMOs

You're over simplifying (which was my original complaint). It isn't a food security problem or a distribution problem but a food security problem and a distribution problem that also got highly politicized. It is not an either or situation but an and. Besides, many GMOs are also aimed at increasing the shelf life of foods, which directly affects the distribution and logistics aspect. It was also discussed about how to make plants more resilient, provide extra vitamins, and grow in places they couldn't before. We've directly seen this increase the well being of many (and would be more if golden rice wasn't controversial simply for the fact that it is a GMO and nothing else). But this problem is itself complicated since transporting food is a traveling salesman problem. There's also a question about food security in America and The West vs elsewhere. In the former it isn't that large of an issue but in the latter it is a huge issue and we can't conflate the two. As for the politicization, you need to differentiate the scientific consensus from the media consensus. When the news starts being shitty, go to the source. If the source is wrong stop trusting the source. If the source tells a different story, stop trusting the soapbox (but not the source). If the source disagrees with you, maybe it is you that is wrong (sure, you might also be right, but chances are someone who has dedicated their life to studying a subject is more knowledgeable about said subject).

Or just stop politicizing everything and listen to the experts (news and science evangelists aren't actually experts btw). "Trust but verify" is great (and _highly_ encouraged) but "distrust and find reasons to ridicule" is not okay. We're talking science, not politics. Opinions aren't what matters, evidence is.
Yes, Louisiana and Tennessee: https://www.theadvocate.com/acadiana/news/article_3ed2a512-7... https://wreg.com/news/watch-mlgw-provides-water-update/
Current delay is ~11 minutes, but minimum is much lower (~4 minutes, per https://blogs.esa.int/mex/2012/08/05/time-delay-between-mars... ). We were last at that closest point in October, and the various voyages (this one, UAE's Hope, China's Tianwen-1) were timed so the closest pint was during the transit; we're a bit past it now.
In the short term it could do anything, in the long term you'd expect it to constantly appreciate.

It's a scarce/deflationary/limited supply asset which is compared against an endless money printer.
Immunity through vaccination + natural immunity is getting closer to 'widespread' now (in the US). We are likely near 30%, and of that 30%, a growing proportion is the most vulnerable sections of the population. A spike in cases now would be increasing less connected to a future rise in hospitalizations. I think its fair to say, that if we do not see a spike within the next 3-4 weeks, we are in the clear for future spikes. By April 1st, we should be nearing 40%, with the difference primarily being now vaccinated old and immune compromised people.
::in a drunken haze::
“Circle back to that!”
“We faced challenges!”
“Synergize our core competencies!”
::passes out::
Then why add the "in UTC" part? ISO 8601 specifies how to designate the time zone.
> Afaik, nuclear energy is more expensive only because it is regulated far beyond what any other form of energy for the same level of risk.

Nuclear's problems are neatly encapsulated by one number. It's called the learning rate. The learning rate is how the unit cost of production changes as production increases. As a general rule the more you make, the better you get at it and so the costs reduces. The fast the cost reduces the greater the learning rate.

This is a good a summary of learning rates for various ways of producing electricity as any: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014... Here are some figures from that paper:

- Coal: 2.5% ... 20%

- Gas Turbine: 10% ... 22%

- Onshore wind: –11% ... 32%

- Offshore wind: 5% ... 19%

- Solar PV: 10% ... 47%

- Nuclear: –38% ... 6%

The point the paper was making is "gosh, we are bad at measuring learning rates". Even so, you could make two predictions based on those 2015 ranges:

- Solar PV is going to crush everything else,

- Nuclear is totally screwed.

And that's now looking like how it will turn out. It's nice to see predictions come true.

Getting worse do doing something the more you do it is difficult to imagine, getting -38% worse demands an explanation. As it turns out -38% is the figure for the USA. Other countries returned +6%, so perhaps regulation is it as you suggest.

But now turn your attention to the other end of the range. Nuclear is +6%, even in the best country. Everything is better than that. Solar is +47%. No matter how you look at it, Nuclear is still screwed on cost.

It's not hard to understand guess reasons why it's a low +6% either. Gas, wind, solar - they churn out thousands to millions of units a year, so there is lot of opportunity for experimentation and learning. For nuclear it's maybe 10 units a year.
I’m not an anti-regulation guy by any means, but I do think there are cases where too much regulation is bad for customers. I don’t know enough about Texas energy markets to say if it’s the case here, but for example the deregulation of airline markets in the US was almost certainly good for customers on net.
One thing to consider is that NASA missions are basically always using older technology, because by the time the mission gets approved, designed, and built consumer/business tech has already moved past. Space worthiness ads more 'age' to the technology as well.
> I would assume that an average Series D startup has way less risk of evaporating to zero than a seed stage startup.

My estimate, admittedly not looking at data right now, would be that a Series D company is roughly 100x more likely to succeed than a seed stage company.

But then again your returns could easily be less than 100%, whereas with seed you can literally get a 100x ROI (this actually happened for Uber).
A girlfriend's mother once asked to pay me after fixing her computer.

I said a bottle of wine will be fine. (I'd just turned 18)

She said no I insist.

I said well my rate is £100 an hour and it took three hours.

She chose to give me a bottle of wine.
The current scale of video availability is very recent. Dirt cheap tiny HD cameras and storage & fast reliable networking to match, are only a few years old. Put that in context of a complex system expected to work perfectly under extreme conditions millions of miles distant, with early designs starting years ago, and that’s why you’re only seeing such now.
Librem 14: Adding Librem EC, Freed Embedded Controller Firmware
> It should be noted that WSJ’s opinion section is extremely politicized.

All opinion sections of every major news outlet is extremely politicized. In almost all cases, the non-opinion sections are edging towards being extremely politicized as well.
just stop complaining and solve the problem with LISP ;)
Even if the ID variable is an integer (and therefore you're immune to injection), it's still inefficient. If you use the command "select * from Customer where ID=@id" and you set ID as a parameter instead, then caching can happen behind the scenes ("prepared statements").

See the justifications at https://www.npgsql.org/doc/basic-usage.html#parameters, for example. My experience is only with Postgres, but I imagine they translate.
I have no idea, I’ve only heard songs, no sets.
Good to know!
> I still think this post is insightful, because it shows a subjective and presumably rather honest perspective on reviewing CVs.

I agree.

The most important phrase here is at the end:

one candidate just got bumped to the next
stage based solely on the fact that in they
had a “Making awesome pancakes” in the CV,
which made me laugh.

Which shows that your cv might pass a selection stage (or be rejected) for absolutely arbitrary reason.

And, it's fine.

Junior candidates have to be aware of this and don't get demotivated.
I know a lot of "research programmers" (meaning people who write code in research labs but are not themselves the researchers or investigators on a study), and they often have MS degrees in CS - though actually, highly quantitative masters degrees where very elaborate code is used to generate answers is a bit more common than CS per se (math, operations research, branches of engineering, bioinformatics, etc).

Here's the thing - in industry, this background (quant undergrad + MS, high programming ability, industry experience) is kind of the gold standard for data science jobs. In academic job ladders it's... hmm. Here's the thing - by the latest data, MS grads in these fields from top programs are starting at between 120k-160k in industry, and there are very good opportunities for growth.

I actually think that universities and research centers can compete with highly in demand workers in spite of lower salaries, but highly talented people in demand will not turn away an industry job with salary and advancement potential to remain in a dead end job.
> apparently no major releases

I push at least one release each month. The change log is here:

https://github.com/sandstorm-io/sandstorm/blob/master/CHANGE...

But it's certainly true that development is much slower today than it was in 2016 when there were seven people working full-time on it.
Didn't they have only 2 angle-of-attac sensors to begin with, and then decided, that only one would be fed into the software? So the software part had zero chance to even detect a problem with the sensor.
Oh man that's a looker.

*Sony desire rising*
First sentence is really the problem in the modern era.

The best most people can remember as a password, is some variations on common words and their date/place of birth.

Hence it doesn't matter what algorithms a database is using, computer will crack most passwords very effectively, provided with common words and minimal rules.

The only solution to secure against cracking is to have way more complicated passwords (very long), but people can't remember them.
> Even if it's longer than 15 minutes, you've got to call it at some point, otherwise it just gets kind of sad.

I wonder if that is part of why they called it off. Maybe they've created all of the music they could both come up with? Maybe the creativity tank ran empty?
Can you elaborate on how the research was conducted and specifically how the risk was measured by consumers?

There’s an awful lot of research that implies humans are very poor estimators of low probability / high severity events
I don't know anyone who over-estimated their chances of dying, took precautions, and then regretted over-estimating, but I bet that close to 100% of the people who under-estimated their chances of dying regretted it on their death beds.

Personally, I am not afraid to admit I am scared of a virus that can be transmitted by asymptomatic people, incubates for two weeks, then can kill you, but hey, I guess that just makes me a scaredy-cat. I'm willing to live with that label.
I learned a fair bit from ZZT, maybe more than I did from MegaZeux - even if I did find the latter more fun to build stuff in, mainly just because it was more capable overall.
The Earth does not belong to us, rather we belong to the Earth. The Earth is more important than we are, we should put the Earth's needs ahead of our own needs. We must stand up for the rights of the Earth, or else human rights will be impossible to maintain.
I don't know about all states as they have different rules, but in Washington they track:

1. Trend in 14-day rate of new COVID-19 cases per 100,000 population, shown as Trend in case rate;

2. Trend in 14-day rate of new COVID-19 hospital admissions per 100,000 population, shown as Trend in hospital admission rate;

3. Average 7-day percent occupancy of ICU staffed beds, shown as Percent ICU occupancy;

4. 7-day percent positive of COVID-19 tests, shown as Percent positivity.

And there are phased reopening plans, where restrictions are slowly lifted based on different tresholds for the above. So if the above 4 metrics meet some treshold we might go into phase 2 where now indoor dining at half capacity is permitted for example. If the numbers than stay under the treshold and eventually keep going down, we'd go to phase 3, etc. If the numbers get worse after moving to phase 2 we'd go back to phase 1 with more restrictions.

Seems pretty reasonable to me. They're always kind of revising the tresholds to some extent as well, so it's not set in stone. But it makes sense for me to take a staged approach to reopening and just make sure we're truly over Covid before going all back to normal (so it doesn't come back).
All those things could be true and perhaps banning indoor dining does slow the spread. But is it worth the cost? Why do all these discussions focus only on solving for covid and completely ignoring the costs?

If banning indoor dining across the state of California results in one fewer person getting hospitalized is it worth it? What if it keeps 10 people out of the hospital?

More generalized, how much benefit does a blanket lockdown have to provide for it to be worth the immense costs. I'm using "cost", by the way, inthe most holistic hippy way possible. Costs include:

-- destroyed mental health

-- Peoples life work getting shut down by the government

-- careers development stalled

-- childhood education

-- Cancer research getting sidelined

-- Preventative healthcare checkups being skipped

-- Lost milestones like prom, graduation, awkward teenage dating not happening

-- pets not getting routine care because vet appointments are now a pain in the ass

-- car oil changes being deferred by 3 months

-- adoptions not being performed

-- dating lives being put on hold

-- people putting off having kids

-- infants not seeing human faces can't be good news

-- physical health being put on hold (closed gyms)

-- and on and on and on. It doesn't take much imagination to see the costs are tremendous.

I assert for a lockdown to be worthwhile it has to have such a profound impact on the trajectory of the virus that it is indisputable to the common person. Not only that, but it has to be orders of magnitude better than no lockdown.

If somebody is going to argue "see, lockdowns work... this region did 5% better than that region"... I just roll me eyes. It just means we flushed 11 months of people's lives down the toilet for almost no real gain.
No specific question. My comment was more a voice on my thought process, not a critique; apologies if it came off as a critique.

Rather, i'm just saying that as a layman in the medical field i am definitely of snake oil - since there is so so much on the market. I am a pretty bad pollen allergy sufferer, fwiw.

Appreciate your work here, i hope to use this once i can feel confident in it :)
The Strokes comes to mind.

I think I read that the lead singer made the best music when on drugs but has since gotten clean. Unfortunately, the music he/they made sober wasn't as well received critically? Something like that.
Probably more of the value is just in letting someone formulate their thoughts and write something up, instead of iterating live in conversation. Most probably need both avenues of communication available.

The anonymous aspect probably makes more sense when you have more reports, but there's probably an aspect of "i can basically guess who this is, but i'm going to try to take this at face value as generic feedback to improve, instead of trying to contextualize and maybe explain it away using someone's current situation".