skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> It was the time when almost everybody had a collection of MP3 files on the hard disk drive, and Winamp was one of the most downloadable Windows applications.

Objection: nobody had a collection of MP3s in 1995. The computers of 1995 didn't have the power to decompress an audio encoding like MP3 in real-time without an accelerator card. People swapped MIDI arrangements of popular songs, and some folks ripped PCM audio directly to WAV files (where it then took up half their 1GB hard disk, so this was mostly a novelty—unless you were the proud owner of a $2000 1x CD burner to burn the PCM audio back onto.)

MP3s became a big thing around 1999, with better computers and the release of Napster.

WinAmp itself was released in 1997, but wasn't immediately popular because people didn't have music on their computers to play using it. It took off around 1999 as well (which is why everyone remembers Winamp 2, rather than Winamp 1.)
I have somewhere in storage commercial print training docs which talk a lot about how to adjust print media for different forms of printing technology (flat bed, continuous feed, offset) to account for ink bleed. Where the picture is on the paper, and how much other ink is around it can play well or badly, depending.

Print was a black art and the printers unions maintained an iron grip on the mysteries. If you did one part of the chain you didn't tread on another parts prerequisites or perquisites.

I was only doing silkscreen at uni for fun, back in the 70s and 80s. We had to work quite a lot to come close to commercial quality because ink, viscose as it may seem in the tube, is remarkably mobile under pressure. It goes places you hadn't planned. If you want your agitprop to work well, you have to try hard to control this stuff.
Take a look at some Lithium mines here:

https://www.mining-technology.com/features/top-ten-biggest-l...

Lithium mining has serious environmental impact:

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environmen...
Built-In Mapping, the Intersection of Functional and Array Programming [pdf]
It's easy to forgot that the Widows 95 release was as hyped up as the iPhone release. It was a BIG event.
A friend was riding on the tube in the financial district of London and overheard one finance guy explaining to new colleague that the trick to getting good trades was to make friends at companies and learn about new things from them before everyone else knows.

Yeah - this is one stupid example, but if people are saying this kind of thing in a relatively public place as instruction it's probably happening everywhere all the time. You can usually see it in stock trends before some event happens.
why not using translate instead of changing the img position
> Unfortunately I’m not aware of any GNU distros that do

Slackware does: https://mirrors.slackware.com/slackware/slackware64-current/...
Win95 was not as pretty as modern Windows, but it was much more functional and buggy. Windows 2000 was the #1 version of Windows.

Win98 was much more stable then Win95 and as functional.
Useful points. Check out the beginning part of the literature review, which starts on page 11 of the report - the authors do a pretty good job of speaking about the three ideological groups, based on the PIRUS database.
You can set your address to not accept saturday or sunday deliveries.
The same one you'd have with any proof of ownership in a society with laws.
Those of you making defenses of Cuba here are flatly deluded if you make these claims seriously. Cuba was only able to sustain itself with enormous Soviet backing and this regardless of the economic embargo by the U.S. Once the USSR collapsed, the Cuban government made hurried attempts at introducing partial capital-friendly reforms in certain sectors (especially tourism) which still never really brought major benefit to its people because the rest of the stagnant, suffocating socialist bureaucracy remained in place for most of daily life.

I am absolutely no fan of the U.S embargo and think it was a an idiotic disaster in terms of both PR and practical terms, a useful blame point for decades of corrupt, criminally repressive Cuban government propaganda, that allowed that state to conveniently deviate attention away from its own very real failures in trying to stick to ideology in the country. None of this is to even mention the very real dictatorship of one single political party running that country for so long under conditions that simply cannot be compared to those of most democratized countries. To say otherwise of this is a blatant game of whataboutism which normally gets derided on this site but apparently, by what I see in replies to my original comment above, is supported when it comes to Cuba.

It's absurd to see so many HNrs, living under largely privileged market friendly conditions and fully enjoying the benefits of the market in their own personal and professional lives, defending the grotesque little experiment in social and economic repression that is Cuba simply because theyre either ideologically fixated on throwing (partially deserved) shit at the US or emotionally sentimental about a country that few of them would want to actually live in as the locals do, for decades on end.
The windows have edges! That tell you where to grab with your mouse to resize it!

These days, dark mode on a black desktop background means you can't find where a window's surface ends.
"There is no problem in computer science that can't be solved with an additional level of indirection" :-)
> (Boot to DOS) This feature is not available more, but in Linux, the possibility to boot in a console mode still exists.

That's not really how it works - there's no "console mode" in Linux. On Linux the Desktop environment is built on top of underlying OS interface - that's precisely why you can run it completely headless, or why you can completely switch desktop environments in a few seconds.
Had a classmate get suspended for this same exact thing. He sent a message to EVERYONE on the network, but I don't remember what it was.

They promptly removed the Novell software from the start menu, but left the app installed. Some friends and I knew how to find it still and could still message each other during class.
That's a feature not a bug IMO. I'd like individual counties and states control their fate, not federal gov since enforcement and containment is extremely localized. Federal gov can help with shortage of beds, food supplies and vaccine development which they did through Operation Warpspeed. It is befitting for Fed and illfitted to local counties.

Here in Bay Area, there was much stricter control. Counties choose their fate, their path and their citizens want to trade off lockdowns vs. COVID rates. It's their call and I respect that kind of governance.

At the extreme - I would absolutely abhor China style lockdowns in the USA.

Did the USA fared well with COVID response? Not at all. Federal gov could have done a lot better to provide guidance (not enforcement) to states and counties.
> if you "buy in" to the actual, abstract, concept of object oriented programming, then the internal structure or state of the object you're communicating with is, by definition, out of your control

That's not specific to OOP though, it's a very general concept in programming.

A program is generally decomposed into smaller units which make some promise about how they will behave, hiding their internal workings from the programmer who makes use of them. This is just as true for C/Forth/Haskell as for Python/Java/Smalltalk, depending on how a program is designed.

> you have no idea if the Integer(2) object you're talking to is logging, writing to a database, tweeting, or anything else. And in "true" OOP, you're not supposed to know- you just take your Integer(5) response message and go on your way

Right, you're meant to interact with an object in such a way that you rely only on the documented behaviour that the object promises to provide, you aren't meant to rely on knowledge of its internals. Objects are also a good way of cleanly separating concerns, and then composing the solutions.

On further thought I got it wrong earlier. You're right that internal state isn't my business, but immutability isn't about internal state.

Whether String (or some other class) is mutable or not isn't an implementation detail, it's an important property of the public interface offered by the class, and it's only a property of the public interface. I don't care whether my JVM implements String in Java or in assembly code, neither do I care if it's immutable internally, but I do care that the implementation satisfies the advertised behaviour of the class, and String promises to be (that is, to appear) immutable.

The internal implementation is required to meet the constraints imposed by the class's public interface, and in the case of String, those constraints include that the class must appear immutable to the user, even under concurrent workloads. In principle the implementation is permitted to have mutable internal state, provided the object always appears immutable to the user.

Similarly, whether a class is thread-safe, is a public-facing attribute of the class. The class can implement thread-safety any way it wants.
This is a bit like what Regent does. "Pointers" are really offsets into regions, which means that we can transparently move them around a distributed machine on the user's behalf.

http://regent-lang.org/
There was also a big technical reason for that: graphics subsystems sucked back then. Hardware acceleration ranged from non-existent to primitive and RAM was tight. If you have two objects (window, control, etc.) displayed and they're rectangular, you can update one of them without needing to involve the other one at all. Since your entire display was a single buffer in memory, each application would draw directly in its chunk of memory. When you did something which made things move you could use simple array math to move the previously-painted block of memory to the new location or, if you had a really fancy graphics card, call a BitBlt operation which would move x1,y2-x2,y2 to the new location. Then you had to tell whatever was now visible in the source location to repaint that region.

Adding things like transparency or rounded corners breaks a lot of that — you need to know what's underneath to update the display — and that wasn't fast enough to use until you had enough RAM to store each object independently so you don't need to ask each application to repaint as things move around. Compositing window managers started early — I believe the Amiga had that — but the first mainstream OS was when Mac OS X shipped Quartz and it had performance drawbacks (i.e. tolerable but not great window dragging performance) until they shipped Quartz Extreme which used OpenGL to do the hard work. Microsoft caught up about 5 years later with Windows Vista, in part because they had more users to support with inadequate hardware.
Thank you for clarifying that essentially it was Win 98 (maybe Second Edition) when those applications took off.
By availability I meant fraction of time that it is available for power generation. This is closer to technical term "capacity factor", which is higher for nuclear energy than for PV energy, so my point stands.

Modern nuclear plants can do load following and they do so in France and in Germany. So why is "nuclear too slow"?
Debian in the WSL and Docker are plenty enough for work. I spent too many years installing/testing distros, and I'm tired of having to maintain my system (I was a Gentoo user for 2 years, and I built an LFS that I used for 8 months).

Even Debian, if you're not careful, can become a mess. Windows is dumb enough that you don't need to be careful.

Chocolatey was the last thing I missed from Linux/Unix distros.

And I can still code my own card game if I really want to :)

EDIT: seeing a sibling talking about slackware, it seems I missed the joke ^^
To begin, try to get a really high level explanation for differential and integral calculus. Look at videos, illustrations, etc.

Then, once you have a mental image of what you will be doing, get into the math from the ground up.
As a former employee this is both unsurprising and hilarious (though I feel bad for the customers they stressed out)
Until they're not? Major conflicts always seem to be negative feedback loop series of escalations.
Ideas are not self governance. Governance is a relationship of power, ideas can only bring prompt changes to relationships of power.

In the Soviet Union, for example, change in systems of government by and large happened not because of ideas or dissidence but because a large part of the elite decided it would be in their interest to implement and oligarchy instead, against the overall wish of the population.

In the end, the ideas mattered a lot less than relationships of power.

Even in the American revolution the ideas of classical liberalism only struck because there was a class of rich landowners for which these ideas prompted the exercise of their power in a way that was conducive to their interest - increasing their power and reducing taxes, and enabling them to warmonger to their content.

That's not to say this necessarily only benefits and elite - many révolutions were prompted by ideas that allowed the common man to actualize their freedom and collective interest, but until now the inability to coordinate collectively always gave rise to an elite that seized effective power.

But never has any real political change been brought by anything but power and interest. Ideas serve to communicate the interests and possibilities and to coordinate groups to organize a society.
If you know single variable calculus and basic linear algebra, then you can often muddle through by just remembering that the derivative of,

(1) f: R^n -> R is a vector

(2) f: R -> R^n is a vector

(3) f: R^m -> R^n is an n x m matrix (the Jacobian)

(*) f(x)=x^tAx is f'(x)=(A + A^t)x (this is an example of (1))

(**) and that the derivative (gradient) of (1) gives you (3) with m=n, and in this case the derivative of (3) will be symmetric (the Hessian).

then just do your best to apply the single variable rules of differentiation (product rule, chain rule, etc.), and then mess around a bit with the result until all the dimensions match up and such that your result matches the appropriate case (1)-(3).

For any more complicated functions you encounter such as the determinant, you can just look up its derivative when needed.
Which non-ITER work is closer to power generation? Can you be specific?
The Entrepreneurship Boom
> In 1996 the ICQ — the first so-called “instant messenger”, was released. Now it is standard to be always online and to have different chats in Slack or WhatsApp, but in 1996 it was a sort of new idea.

What? IRC was well alive back then and you could have multiple chats in a single IRC client. This claim makes no sense. What ICQ brought was not the idea of multiple chats going on, but a single identifier to connect to people you knew (and that NOT a mobile phone number)
> My thinking here is that this does not mean LEEDS is a failure. The study shows that there was improvement in every building that underwent the certification, it is just that for some buildings energy wasn't the highest priority. In many parts of the US water use is much more important than energy efficiency.

I was going to read the paper tonight. I do appreciate your summary.

One thing I've been doing lately is to highlight the fact that nothing in life is reduced to a single variable problem. No, a cow is not a uniform sphere of milk one meter in diameter.

I've been doing this because of just how many discussions seem to take one variable and assign to that one variable the entire end result of whatever it might be that is being discussed. Frankly, it's maddening. I couldn't even name something that, in the real world, is an honest single-variable problem (I'm sure someone will find something now and point it out; OK, now go find ten!).
Huh. If I move my mouse fast enough I can escape the lock.
No zizek. No chimpsky. Not enough women, US centric.
If you play with FIRE, don’t get burned
Yeah, I'm fondly remembering spending many hours just waiting for the OS to install, with me having to check back on the computer every so often just to insert disk 7 of 13. But no question it was a historical event when Win95 launched. The right culmination of factors came together in the mid-90s where now everyone needed to own a personal computer. Ink jet printers were becoming decent. Digital cameras went mainstream. CD burning with an MP3 capable stereo receiver meant you could carry 100 songs with you on the go and kids would make bank selling custom mixes for $5-$10 a pop (not everyone had a burner yet, they were expensive at the time). And of course, that whole dot com craze that turned out to be an insignificant bubble...
When I was a kid I remember thinking that if it took 20 seconds to boot now, how fast would it be in 20 years when hardware got significantly better.

Fast forward to now and I'll hit the power button, go do some stuff for a few minutes, and then finally use the damn thing.
It seems increasing insane to have standards related to software interoperability that are not in the public domain, doesn't it?

I know (or assume) that the purchase money pays for activities that need to be done. But this doesn't seem like a good way to do it.

On the other hand, maybe nobody pays attention to software interoperability standards anymore anyway.
Indeed. But I definitely had a collection of MP3s on my Win95 machine as soon as Napster hit the scene. I was able to fit exactly one Blink 182 album on my 1GB hard drive. By the time my mom gave me her Pentium 2 Win95 machine when she upgraded Napster had already came and went. Kazaa was the next big thing for a while, but it was never as good. CD-R/W drives were a game changer for a while though. I was amazed by the ability to load multiple CDs to make a play list and then be prompted to load the each CD into the drive to burn the tracks I wanted.
Heartbleed style OpenSSL zero day protection. An open to all environment, like the public Heroku postgres environment, is a huge attack surface.

Layers of security exist for this exact reason. If one fails, hopefully something else stops it.
I jumped the Windows ship 10 years ago and every time I check back in on it I’m still glad I left.
But that's not the point. The point cbozeman made was Gates was not good 25 years ago and cbozeman does not believe that Gates has changed, but instead "he's trying to buy a legacy so he can overwrite the shit one he had when he was at the helm of Microsoft." cbozeman's point is not "it's quite a luxury when you make billions breaking laws and then use those billions to create a perception that you are now somehow this wholesome person". scrollaway's point is that people can change.

My point is, it's quite easy to make claims without proof. I know next to nothing about "new" Gates or "ruthless son of a bitch" Gates. Your claim that Gates has not changed needs some sort of evidence to be taken seriously.
The laws protecting copyright are made by Congress in the first place, that's where they come from. Of course Congress has the power to take away copyright too, so there's nothing odd about the fact that an act of Congress (the same entity that created the right) can void a copyright.

(OK, ok, some of copyright law, at least originally, is common law, but Congress always has the power to override that too).
Microsoft's legendary backwards compatibility not being extended to support win95's look and feel.

That part.
This is probably the most peaceful time in history, there is no armed conflict in the western hemishpere. https://time.com/4475617/how-peace-finally-came-to-reign-thr...

Most of the world is at peace, it's a remarkable accomplishment.
I was introduced to this in SOC101 by one of the best professors I ever had. It was given as a paper handout and we were instructed to read and discuss. A couple students caught on, but I wasn’t one of them and it made it so much better. Over a decade later when I find myself attempting to fit a new concept into my own, limited, world view, the Holy Mouth Men still come to warn me.
I was a little disappointed that the article talks about impact models but doesn't have any pictures or videos visualizing impact simulations. A quick YouTube search came up with this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxgwJ0GZlBo

Interesting.
I’ve yet to try any PC laptop that matches the Mac battery life and trackpad, or has a good fit-and-finish without copying the MacBook look anyway.
I've seen similar task management that syncs to CalDav:

https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.dmfs.tasks/

Is this something you're thinking about adding?
When I look at this code it becomes clear that after using design patterns, dependency injection and other "modern" stuff for too long I have totally lost the ability to write short, concise code :-(
> What distinguishes an intervention vs just normal observable randomness?

The difference is your knowledge that value of some variable is controlled and independent from anything else in this situation. If causal model is some kind of a puzzle, then you could see how it would work if some parts of model are made dysfunctional by your intervention.

X causes Y means that changes in X lead to changes in Y. If you changed X than Y would change also. By observation you can witness correlation, which says nothing about causes. You could add temporal element, like "X happened earlier than Y" it means that Y couldn't be the cause of X. But it doesn't answer the question about cause, it just rejects some hypothesis about cause, and is all uncertain: we could easily devise an example when such a rejection would be a mistake. For example people could act because they are able predict something will happen. So something is not happened yet, but already is the cause of some events.

But when changes to X were made by you, then you know exactly when X was changed, you know that it was no changed to changes of Y or some Z which is a confounder. Here we also could make a mistakes, for example, because we do not know exactly how we make decisions and our behavior could be a confounder or mediator or something like. So we devised randomized controlled trials, double-blind experiments to make experiment really independent.

> I guess it's kind of the debate about where determinism ends and free will begins.

No need to get to that length. If your behavior is independent from the process which you research, than you'll get a "practical free will": free from influences of studied variables. This practical and situational free will definition is enough for learning about causes.
True, but if I've got a lot of ETH, is there anything stopping me from buying/minting a cheap NFT and then wash trading it between wallets I own for seemingly large sums of money -- all of which is actually staying within my possession, minus gas fees?

Unless there is some strong KYC on opensea that prevents this (I honestly don't know, having never used the platform), it seems almost inevitable. There's not really an objective way to value most of this stuff, so buyers are going to look at the price history to guesstimate what they might be able to resell an NFT for. But how much of that price history is bogus wash trades?
When I was like 14 years old one one my math teachers explained to us what calculus was using zero equations. He made everything look really easy.

At college, it was the complete opposite. My professor started with limits and convergence, didn't even bother to explain why we were studying the subject.

Kudos for people who actually explain things.
The biggest surprise for me in reading this was the complete lack of any SSL functionality in the original version of Internet Explorer, rendering most of the modern web not merely broken, but fully inaccessible.

I wonder what the earliest version of Windows would be that can at least establish a connection to a 2020s website out of the box.
News like this loses its value unless it is published immediately, so I would think the leaker is effectively in control of when it is published.