skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
And I liked the complementarity at the end, were they used deeplearning to virtually remove the cellophane so BakeryScan could continue to identify the pastries.
(also just me talking -- here are some potential counterpoints)

The choice of language often matters a lot less than how familiar you are with it (and its ecosystem(s)). I think it's totally reasonable to want to use JS for a compiler in, e.g., a Node project if for no other reason than to not have to learn too many extra things at once to be productive with the new tool.

I also don't think it's fair to assume everything will be parsed, tokenized, etc server-side. Even assuming that data originates server-side (since if it didn't you very well might have a compelling case for handling it client-side if for no other reason than latency), it's moderately popular nowadays to serve a basically static site describing a bunch of dynamic things for the frontend to do. Doing so can make it easier/cheaper to hit any given SLA at the cost of making your site unusable for underpowered clients and pushing those costs to your users, and that tradeoff isn't suitable everywhere, but it does exist.

It's interesting that you seem to implicitly assume the only reason somebody would choose JS is that they're writing frontend code. It's personally not my first choice for most things, but it's not too hard to imagine that some aspect of JS (e.g., npm) might make it a top contender for a particular project despite its other flaws and tradeoffs.
Why do you think the genetic mutation for lactose tolerance is so geographically specific to Northern Europe? It is obviously an adaptation for when milk was the only available source of nutrition to those populations during times of famine. And the selection pressure for this is not ancient history - my grandparents experienced exactly that scenario due to food shortages during WWII. I don't know why you would advocate de-lactosed milk, lactase supplements, or "sneaking a little bit in" for the vast majority of people who are lactose intolerant, unless you had some agenda of pushing dairy on people who do not particularly want it and have no cultural traditions of consuming it. There is no reason for lactose tolerant people to eat dairy on a regular basis because it contributes to heart disease. Advocating it for those who are lactose intolerant is just insane.
I think of my grandfathers, one who was in world war 1 and 2, and the other in world war 2, and their whole generation marching off to war to put their lives on the line to stand up for what is right, and I can't imagine anybody I know doing that unless they joined the military out of high school because they didn't have any better options.

edit: I can't reply for some reason. (oh it's because parent is flagged). If there was resistance in Canada to going to war in world war 1 and 2 it isn't part of the history that is taught to us. I imagine since there was no draft in Canada only the willing went.
Correct. To be clear, I don't support genocide (as if that needs to be said) but the US media demonization of China is obviously geopolitical motivated and if its as successful at convincing the American public as Iraq's "WMDs" were, it could eventually be used as a causus beli.
> The salient point, in either case, is that a lot of people believe Richard Stallman's behavior is problematic

I agree with this sentence of yours. The problem is precisely that many people believe that thing. It is thus a problem of misunderstanding, libel and harassment perpetrated by RMS attackers; not a problem of his behavior. You are correct in that.
"Que el mundo fue y sera una porqueria..."
Yup. This myth is particularly pervasive. Less effort was put into thorium because it was inherently more expensive to get going and didn't offer sufficient advantages to motivate the additional expense.
All true, still doesn't excuse the Uyghur stuff.
Seconding this book. I jumped back to the beginning of his recreational logic books and have been reading through them this year. Lots of fun, and as a programmer there’s an extra (self-induced) challenge to explore programs that can generate, solve, or interpret the systems and problems he sets up.
What you describe is what people refer to as "no-ops".

I was around, and at times very involved with, the community coming up with this stuff. The description you're quoting is pretty close to the original intent, but at this point the phrase has been basically destroyed by management fluff books and consultants. It means everything and nothing at this point and is best left on the trash heap of history.
One obvious reason to support the British is that the British don't have slavery. Sure enough, those slaves who fought for the British and were evacuated with British troops became free men.

Fighting for the colonists genuinely could mean you won, and then they said that's great, now back to the fields 'cos you won freedom for us not for you. Your great grandchildren might see freedom (after the Civil War) but you would not.
...Germany gets its natural gas from mother Russia.

Which is more dirty, has a touch of corruption and allows mother Russia to tell the Germans how to behave. But it makes some politicians and companies in two countries happy and shows that large scale energy projects can work if there is a will.

So it's a start I guess.
The danger of soul searching is that you might find none
Which government regulations are those? Could you please provide a CFR citation?
Are you sure? It may be that Wurst is besser.
These.

Furthermore:

1. Nuclear has always been the most expensive alternative, moreso now than ever before. Its advocates knew this at the time that they were calling it "too cheap to meter". Even continuing to operate an existing plant costs more than building out renewables and switching to those.

2. Nuclear construction projects invariably turn into massive pipelines for corruption and graft, siphoning $billions or tens of $billions from public budgets into well-connected private hands before ever delivering any power. Renewable projects (with the exception of larger dams) have not typically catered to corruption. "Small nuke" has never got traction, despite apparent efficiencies, specifically because it offers so little scope for long-term corruption. (E.g., the US government just granted a measly $10 million to one company to promote it.)

3. Nuclear construction takes so long that any supposed benefit comes far too late to do much good. The same money spent on renewables always starts delivering immediately, in much larger amounts, when it is most needed. The money saved on the much cheaper power can be spent immediately building out more, for even more benefit, compounding.

As an aside, Tokamak fusion will never, ever produce so much as one solitary erg of commercially competitive energy. The current ITER project is not projected to do anything until 2050 (although it will take hundreds of megawatts to fire up, for experiments), and then is not so much as planned to deliver practical power, ever, despite costing tens of $billions. The "practical" plant they imagine building, to turn on at end-of-century (after all of us reading this are dead!), would need to be an order of magnitude larger, and cost $trillions and decades without producing, all the while stealing capital from actually viable projects.

The only rational conclusion is that Tokamak fusion research is and was never intended to produce practical power. The whole program is, rather, purely a jobs program for hot-neutron physicists and contractors, to maintain a population to draw on for weapons work. Every cent spent on Tokamak fusion is stolen from research on alternatives that could, in principle, be practical.

(The one valuable output of Tokamak research is a generation of physicists now comfortable with plasma fluid-dynamics mathematics.)
Most important part first:

> Person who went so far as resort to destruction and deceit in the physical world, could easily cut corner in the code review process:

This is a very dangerous delusion. It implies that producing flawed code requires some kind of moral blemish, a flawed character, a bad person. Truly upstanding citizen and high moral character would never submit a buggy code, but one can't expect otherwise from a criminal.

Nothing could be further from the truth. In my decades-long experience reviewing what must be by now megabytes of code, the code quality has absolutely no relationship to the moral character. Best people can produce - and regularly do produce - very flawed code (very much including myself, of course), and even excellent coders can be busy, tired, have temporary slip of attention, be wrong about particular API or language construct, mistaken, suffer from a burnout or a work-life issue... Even at their best, people produce flawed code all the time - that's why we have code reviews in the first place! It's not to weed out "that kind of people" who try to sneak into our pristine cohorts - it's because producing good code is hard, and producing flawless code all the time is nigh impossible to do by a single person. A concerted effort of multiple smart people over time is required to achieve even imperfect, but acceptable quality - and perfection is still an unattainable goal. It's a hard work, and it can't be done alone - nothing to do with character flaws.

And yes, left to their own devices, even the best people are subject to cognitive biases and fallacies - that's why it's impossible to effectively review one's own code and you need peer review. Not because you're suspected in being a criminal or at least a sloppy coder - but because you're human and as such, your best effort will never be perfect, especially not at scales modern code is produced.

> It was already out there in the public. Skipping it completely would be unprofessional.

Nonsense. Nobody expects every article about a person to include their complete biography. People expect including relevant stuff and throwing out irrelevant one. What is unprofessional is brining in irrelevant details to smear the character of a person to prejudice the reader against him from the start (that's why this BS goes first and the substantial part goes later). Instead of trusting the reader to judge on substance, the hack first creates an emotional prejudice which would cloud the mind of the reader and make a pre-formed opinion before the substantial part ever begun.
> I don't want to subsidize other people's suburban and rural decadence.

You don't get to decide what counts as "decadence". Nor are cities subsidizing suburban and rural areas; in most cases it's the other way around, it's the cities that continually get themselves into financial trouble and have to be bailed out, and the suburban and rural areas that are fiscally responsible.

> It's not a personal choice that doesn't effect others

Neither is your personal choice to live in densely populated cities.

> Development is a collective choice

And when there are significant sub-populations with widely different preferences, the right collective choice is to separate the sub-populations so each can have their own areas where they can implement their preferences, not for one sub-population to force its preferences on everyone else.
clams are invertebrates
I know you mean well, but i've tried so very very hard to work with Linux Foundation-driven projects like this. The lesson I learned was that as an independent developer, you simply have no place in an organization like this.
Pressure in fluids is a funny thing. Put your thumb at the open end of a hose with water flowing through it: you'll feel high pressure. But along the sides of the hose the pressure from the flowing water will be a lot lower, and if you poke a hole into the side while leaving the open end open, then you might even observe that hole sucking air in!
I am so going to use rubber gloves to receive my parcels from now on :)
Legal where? Legal in the USA? Or legal in Venezuela and Saudi Arabia?
It also doesn’t make a meaningful distinction from non-mental illness though, like chronic pain or even poverty.
Even better, there's dev and SRE, and within SRE there's SRE-SWEs and SRE-SEs. Truly management word salad.
> 1. Nuclear has much worse failure modes.

Do you have a source? There's plenty of larger fossil fuel catastrophes that just aren't well known because they are in third world countries, so who gives a fuck, right? [0] (note that this is 1700 square miles) I'm not sure this point if about environmental damage or human not being able to live there damage. If the former, I think climate change is a pretty apparent counter point. If the latter, well the size of that is largely political but you can think of it as an unexpected opening of a national forest. Sure, sucks for humans, but all the trees are great for climate (hell, killing humans is great for climate, but that's not popular).

> 2. Advocate like to talk about reprocessing as a solution to the waste problem.

Reprocessing isn't necessary. There's little reason to with our current industry, and even France's. Storage is easy. You place it on site. We have a few hundred years to figure out deep geological repositories (which I also advocate for plastics, heavy metals, and other non-degradable toxic substances). We just don't have enough and it isn't dangerous enough for this to be a problem. Nuclear waste is hundreds of thousands of times smaller than other energy sources (500,000x less than coal). You all act like this is a problem that only nuclear has. It isn't even close to being the biggest perpetrator. It is a good criticism, but if you are only applying this criticism to one product I'm not convinced it is a concern you actually have but rather you're just holding "enemies" to higher standards.

> 3. Separately to spent fuel, you also have to store enrichment byproducts (eg UF₆, UF₄) that have their own problems

This is a restatement of 2 unless you're talking about weapons, which my response would be that you clearly do not understand the difference between weapons and reactors. As a side note, understanding this difference is key to understanding the Iran Deal and why no one is concerned that they produced more enriched material than the deal allowed (i.e. it was a political gesture and could only be a political gesture).

> 4. Stored nuclear waste is a security issue

And? It is stored on site. Energy production plants of any kind are a security issue.

> 5. Transportation of fuel and spent fuel is a security issue.

See 4.

And congrats, you hit 5/10 of the common myths[1].

Now if you said that nuclear power plants were too expensive, we could have a real discussion and there would be differing opinions based on different criteria and hopeful/naive projections. But we can't even have that conversation if you aren't willing to just google the opposition's answers to your questions that have been continually asked for decades. I'm just reminded of this Futurama episode (which I just noticed makes a flat earth joke)[2]. We don't need more Dr. Banjos.

[0] https://medium.com/@renegadeinc/the-amazon-chernobyl-6309a19... or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikneKQAeUp0

[1] https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fu...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-RUHhCzgxI
Ok, I'll bite:

> Is it really so hard to cooperate with or convince the nations involved who own the biggest deserts?

In a word, yes. These are some of the most unstable countries in modern history. Then you also need to secure the cables going north from Africa. Take the Suez canal risk and multiply it with a factor of 100-1000x.

Then we also have China currently being busy colonizing Africa...
Most likely a single or small number of GS large private clients liquidated some very large positions in these stocks. These stocks had already taken a huge beating resulting from a rather aggressive push in the ongoing rotation from high growth stocks into more value plays that lagged the market in 2020. All of these stocks were already down 20% or more since Feb.

My best guess is these clients had overly leveraged positions and needed to liquidate holdings in response to margin call.
This seems a case of a high level mythomaniac. Funnily enough I've encountered some in the recent years that got me thinking if this kind of psycho disease was increasing or simply I got more knowledgeable in a way that I started spotting it. I really don't know, because we can clearly spot this kind of people today (Trump anyone?) but is it getting worse or have they always been there?

It something impressive the lenghts these kind of people go with their lies and deception, keeping a straight face even when the lie is obvious.
Oh! I might as well use it for line editing on serial line with the readline local and serial remote addresses, for example when talking AT to a modem. Great! :)

And with history and all that stuff, too! I guess it can be used to forward serial port over network too.
We don't have short term solutions for storing CO2 either.
Can you link it? Googling it results in too many threads
With federated protocols (like Mastodon) you don't need to trust a third party country. All countries can be part of the same universe, but each one controls their own data.
Nice burn.

Joking aside, I agree. There is so many things you could achieve while successfully impersonating someone. Seems like the best you can do in academia is to ruin someone's career. In this case it seemed fortunately "harmless" though.
The fact that you're being silently downvoted suggests this generation does not want to be cornered on what its moral principles are. Disappointing.
No one is testing, however. Folks commonly use verbiage derived from intellectual design, and we should be conscientious on the subject. There is a system in the randomness, but we need not attribute will to the system.
Also of note are the Landsmanschaft and Jewish mutual aid societies, especially prevalent in early 20th century NYC. Contrary to stereotype many Jewish immigrants came here poor and Talmud encourages (requires?) an observant Jew who is able to lend money interest-free to help others get on their feet.
First of all, that’s not what Elon said. He said something to the effect of “why do you want to join a union and lose stock options?” Just like someone who approaches you on a dark street and says “nice car, wouldn’t want anything to happen to it.” Of course, when you call the police, he’s going to explain that he genuinely appreciates a fine automobile and was expressing his concern given the troubles in the neighborhood.

Musk has a significant say in whether employees continue to receive options, and I can’t see why the union would ask to take that away, given that options are presumably very popular with their members.

Saying that life will get worse with a union is one thing. Saying that it will get worse because I will make it worse is another.
It would be...unfortunate, for Intel to do something with such little volume as that again after Xeon Phi.
Windows Defender tries it best to prevent you from installing the version found on the frontpage due to the adware.

...as if Windows (10) itself didn't contain any. More than 2.5MB of it, no doubt! How ironic to see the pot calling the kettle black.

Edit: if you don't believe me, search around here and elsewhere for "Windows 10 adware". I'm surprised that this is even a controversial comment.
You should look at Icon [0][1], which is a lot like... Pascal, or any Algol family language, but which has pervasive depth-first search and backtracking built-in. Icon is and feels very procedural.

Or jq, which also has pervasive depth-first search and backtracking built-in. jq is and feels very functional.

[0] https://www2.cs.arizona.edu/icon/
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icon_%28programming_language%29
When you hike? I'd have thought doing it in nature would be fine (considering all the animals doing the same). I always do so when I hike anyway (just making sure there's nobody around :P ). My female friends also do so. Not sure exactly how as I am polite enough to turn around O:-)

Indeed menstruation is a different issue altogether.
Or, we accept that people will occasionally have access to weapons-grade nuclear material and move on.

"But YellowApple!" I can already hear someone saying as I type this on a half-broken phone while sitting on a toilet, "That's a terrible idea!"

Yes, it is, but hear me out:

Let's suppose someone does skim nuclear material off the line. What's the likelihood of that nuclear material actually making it out of the facility? Geiger counters ain't a new invention; surely someone would notice if an employee is unexpectedly radioactive. If our thief opted to shield the material, we're talking a box that's probably too big to even carry, let alone sneak out in a pants pocket or something.

So by some magical miracle (or enough bribes, maybe) someone manages to snag a piece of nuclear material and escape. Now what? Nuclear weapons ain't exactly easy to build at home. Maybe sell it? Good luck advertising that: "FOR SALE: 1 gram of weapons-grade plutonium. Don't ask how I got it. NO FEDERAL AGENTS PLEASE! $42069 OBO 234-867-5309"

Aight, so let's say you somehow managed to figure out how to build a nuke (or you somehow managed to sell it to someone who does and not instead to an undercover cop). Now what?

- You could go be a terrorist, I guess. Good luck getting away with it, seeing as how that material you pilfered will almost certainly come up in a variance report and you're suddenly near the top of the suspect list.

- Strongarm some rival nation? If you're able to steal weapons-grade material, chances are they can, too. Congrats! You've rediscovered the art of mutually assured destruction!

- Let's say you don't give a damn about MAD and launch your nuke anyway. So now you're nuked back. A bunch of people die. That sucks. But! On the bright side, there's at least one less unhinged dictator in the world. Possibly two, if your rival was also a dictatorship. Do this enough times and we might end up with world peace.

All this being to say: yeah, sure, by some unlikely chain of events maybe there's a risk here, but considering the alternative right now can range from "millions of people displaced due to rising sea levels" to "billions of people dead due to global famine" to "humanity extinct because Earth is now Venus 2: Greenhouse Boogaloo", I'll take my chances, thanks.
It's ball's street journal give them a break. I hope all these publications die a slow death, Unless they smartify their schticks, manes. It's a shit publication we'll just have to live with it. I don't pay a trucker anywhere, I never pay for any of this bullshit, and they know that smart people don't pay. It's the middleclass who trucking goes broke on tons of worthless subscriptions. It's a horrivle game, but, yeah they are horrible players, or better yet, players in a horrible time. IT's their decision to try to get people to pay for things. And, it's just osmething we need to respect. They won't see a cent from me. That's a guarantee. What a shitshow.
That’s exactly the kind of thing that’s forbidden under the law. You can’t threaten to take a current benefit off the table if employees unionize.
He downloaded a bad app or gave his keys (unknowingly) to a web service. Or his other machines which he likely used to trade were compromised. Its his fault, there's no vulnerability.
What are the odds of having large chunks of learned knowledge wiped out at this point? When the Romans did it, few could read/write and few people had access to the stored information of the day. That made it very easy to sequester knowledge. At this point in time, other than ELE type of events, can knowledge be kept away from all of humanity now? Sure, dictators can make it hard for the parts they control, but the rest of the world keeps on learning.