skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The West never offered to admit Russia into NATO. It was Russia that made the proposition, and there was no pursuit beyond years of stalling.

Russia hasn't invaded Ukraine because they consider it to be a vassal state, Russia only invaded Ukraine after the Euromaidan movement suceeded and pursued integration into the EU and NATO. What you are saying may well be the propaganda Putin and his proto-fascist cabal give, but it is not the actual reason, or they would have acted much before and wouldn't have stopped in the Donbass.
EMU2: A simple text-mode x86 and DOS emulator
The fact that the vaccines create just a single spike protein and the real virus creates much more is actually one of the issues.

First: does the rate at which the cells are made to artificially produce spike protein follow a different curve than the rate at which SARS-2 would? i.e. could mRNA vaccination cause a much more aggressive "inflammatory cliff", thus the huge percentage of "mild" adverse reactions (mild meaning, you feel like death for a day but end up fine with no detectable long-term issues)? It's possible.

And switching to efficacy, while personally I think resistance to the spike protein alone will be sufficient, because SARS-2 does not have the same ability to mutate/evolve the way Influenza does (for example, I can't imagine SARS-2 evolving away from the spike protein), it's very possible that the diverse epitopes produced by real SARS-2 infection give a much more robust and enduring immunity.
I like this, a lot. Well, I don't like that it sounds like it will prevent outsiders from participating, those who have no-one who will vouch for them, and it does sound like it would encourage a mono-culture of thought. But I like the idea of socializing the costs of bad behavior. Indeed, those socialized costs would extend to the real world. I'm intrigued and perturbed at same time.
I'm not sure that I would trust a realtor to recognize war driving (war showing?).
FaunaDB is doing more than Upstash and DynamoDB in the author's examples, as the author describes in the related blog post:

- FaunaDB is providing strong consistency and isolation; Upstash and DynamoDB are providing eventual consistency.

- FaunaDB is replicating the data worldwide and offering similar access everywhere; Upstash and DynamoDB are deliberately configured in the same AWS region as the lambda function.
Presently over two years into the T480s. I love this machine and have no intention of upgrading any time soon.
How does poverty cycle back to liberalism? Empirically and historically it does the opposite.

Institutions are much easier to destroy than to build, and some institutions can only be built on a sufficiently solid foundation. Let's hope your cycle hypothesis is wrong.

But there's a different pseudo-saying out there that works on a generation level which has been feeling more and more relevant lately. It's the one that goes:

Hard times create hard people,

hard people create good times.

Good times create weak people,

weak people create hard times.
110+ million vaccinations in the US and holy goddamn, no major issues. 31 million infections and 550,000+ dead, in a year. Millions of long haul COVID cases. Debilitating lung conditions, brain fog, lasting consequences already from the virus, and you wanna crow about long term consequences of the vaccine. What in the actual roasting hell.

I've noticed you, specifically, posting pro-virus misinformation since the very beginning. Half a million people died, man. I wish you would just spare us your trolling, damn it!
> I’m not here to weigh in on whether Peter Thiel is a goody or a baddy.

3 paragraphs later and that turned out to be a big old lie.
I wonder what solutions to scams on the App Store might be? I can think of some:

1. Do nothing more. It doesn’t seem to be going too badly for Apple

2. Have stricter review and allow sideloading. Obviously this is popular on HN but it seems to me that Apple would not do this and it doesn’t obviously help. Maybe users would just be trained to sideload (I vaguely recall that there was a time when many apps in mainland China were not in the App Store and had to be sideloaded. There would be well-written instructions for how to install them)

3. Be stricter at review. Maybe this is expensive (so Apple would have to increase fees or reduce profits). It might also not be good for Apple if fewer amateurs can release apps. But maybe that isn’t so significant and Apple make most of their money from bigger players.

4. Make it harder to profit from these scams. Maybe hold user payments in escrow for a while and look for evidence of scams—users quickly cancelling, leaving 1-star reviews, etc—and only pay later. To some extent this is “more scrutiny” so maybe this is just a way to make it targeted. Maybe this would still have the problem of hurting small players, and maybe most money lost to scams goes to small apps rather than “popular” ones like the one in the thread, so this flagging wouldn’t catch them.

5. Have a two-tier App Store with a section of “high quality” apps and a section of less-reviewed apps. Apple already does this to some extent with “editors” of the store, various articles about apps, and plenty of custom artwork too. I don’t know how they would pay for this thing or explain it to users but it seems it would still allow small players a chance while giving users better safety.

Personally I think I would like a mix of a few of these. I like the idea of a higher tier in the store and I would be ok if it was expensive to get into (e.g. dev has to pay $1000 for the first review of an app) and had various stricter requirements (e.g. a different contract with apple requiring more notification when transferring app ownership or longer settlement times for user purchases, but also things like the app having good performance). I would also like it if Apple would try to find popular apps in the lower tier and help the good ones into the higher tier (maybe for free for a good viral game or with deferred payments out of (in-) app purchase income for paid apps) while removing the bad ones. And I think they could still improve their scam detection in the lower tier.
I don’t really buy that. Humans also improve their own abilities using technology, and I don’t see any reason to expect that technological advancements made by AIs won’t be available to humans as well. Yes, an AI group that is hostile to a human group may want to develop technology and keep it to themselves, but again, that’s already the case with different human groups (and tends to apply most prominently to our most destructive technologies).
Alexander is extremely difficult to get clear quotes out of - pithy sentences that would fit in a tweet, for example.
Really, NSA is captive to the law that bureaucracies do exactly what you tell them to do. NSA is budgeted to conduct cyber offense and governmental defense, so private-sector defense is outside the mission; in fact, it conflicts with the former even as it connects with the latter. So NSA is only going to help you if the risks to its defensive mission outweigh the value to its offensive mission (not that organizations have rigorous tests for these things, but whoever yells the loudest is usually a good proxy for it).

The best approach, IMO, is to take cyberdefense out of NSA entirely and give someone like CISA an active mission to maximize whole-of-nation digital defense. While this doesn’t entirely mitigate moral hazard between the offensive/defensive mission balance, at least you’ve got competing budgets that have an incentive to work against each other.
Sounds like a network analysis problem to tackle.
And because of this you now think the ones burning the books and censoring people are the good guys?
> Translation: Running an electronic Bitcoin mining army is fine even if it provides no meaningful benefits beyond military spending.

No. I never said that. When did I say that. I never said that? I get very bored by people that try to put words in my mouth. Hackernews (this isn't my first account here) is like this. It is horrifically boring.

> Please come up with better rebuttals. Here is a freebie:

It is a perfectly fine rebuttal. At the moment the only reason anyone is buying crypto is because they think it is going to be worth more in the future. Most aren't buying it for transactions at the moment. If you can somehow so that is false, please do so otherwise don't be an asshat.

God I hate this site. It is little better than reddit these days.
Rust is more complex than Go, but when you are dealing with the inherent complexity in a problem, sometimes Rust can allow you to make the decision to take a larger chunk of that complexity and handle it at compile time (instead of at runtime with a crash->debug->fix feedback loop).

So you get sometimes stressful and frustrating writing sessions, coupled with more confidence in the runtime correctness. Also the more expressive type system can allow you to more closely match the domain, which helps when you add new features in the future as you can rule out certain invalid states or interactions.

I often feel you need to know the right conventions to write correct Go programs, where as Rust will just tell you you cannot run it.

I would get things done faster in Go for sure, but the compiled artifact would likely have more issues during runtime.
Funny, because MMT reads like "flat earth Facebook group" to plenty of mainstream economists.
It's the right tool for preventing WEBSITES from using your endpoints - they might be able to take your JS, reverse engineer and run it, but you can mitigate how useful this is by preventing calls to CORS-protected resources. This does not protect your endpoints from attackers in general though, so to your point, it depends what they're trying to accomplish.
Ok, how do I get a data stream on a marble (lasers?) and how dense can I make it - or how big can I make a marble?

Bonus points if I can simply make a glass CD, DVD, Blu-Ray, etc.
I think we spend too much time trying to ascribe an internal consistency to famous people. Finding internal consistency with somebody doesn't change the destructive trajectory of their politics.
> You have to consciously talk yourself out of that if you want to be productive.

That's 100% correct but there's one problem: how do you write down your future improvement opportunities?

Skip 2 optimizations here, 3 optimizations there and after 30 PRs you can easily have notes spanning 100 bullet points on what to optimize one day in the future Soon™.

I am still not at what I'd call an expert level in Rust -- and the skill ceiling is quite high -- so maybe with time I'd start to automatically spot these optimization opportunities?

But before I am at that level I'd prefer to either keep hugely long notes or, ideally, have a tool recommend optimizations to me.
Disabling third party cookies apparently still has the potential to break certain websites, in particular those having to do with external authentication providers and authorization flows.
Euh yeah that somewhat works for politics but it doesn't apply at all for facebook
Not really a superiority thing for me. I just think it’s funny how much perceptions change over time and how reasonable assumptions can be proven wrong
You can do 2x scaling on a 14" laptop at 4k? That's way too small for me.
This is different. You need communication back through the pipeline to inform the data producers what data you want.

Also, in your example ending in | xclip, xclip cannot know what format data it has to ask from dot until it gets pasted somewhere. Alternatively, it would either have to guess what format(s) the user would like to paste later or it would have to cover all bases and ask dot for output in every format it supports.
Peter Thiel is the most disappointing persona of the Trump era. I had respect for his out-of-the-box thoughts for the longest time. Not anymore. As far as I'm concerned, he's now part of the white supremacist, nationalist, anti globalist, anti free market movement. Completely anti-libertarian.
No. That's one potential risk, but hardly the only one.

The entire CORS dance is to work around the pre-existing browser based security model. It was specifically to create a backwards compatible model that would enable requests across origins, without compromising the existing security model.

This is a little overly simplified, but, consider how 'helpful' the browser is; when you make a request to a backend, any related cookie gets sent along with it. So, a danger realized early on was (by example), if someone was logged into their bank, and then accessed a malicious site, the malicious site could make a request to the bank to, say, transfer money. Because the bank used cookies for authentication, the transfer would be authorized and go through.

VPN is a similar risk, but even authenticated resources might be available, depending on the type of authentication (and, certainly, unauthenticated ones are exposed).

To prevent that, early on, they decided to block cross origin requests entirely. Well, almost; due to the nature of the web, GET requests had to be able to be made cross origin (it's why you can link to other websites/content), so they just prevented scripts from having access to the data. This was fine from a security standpoint, but it had a major usability issue. A lot of terrible workarounds were implemented (I'm looking at you, JSONP), with CORS being the official "this is how we'll allow you to, intentionally, relax this requirement, while still keeping the security decisions in place, and allow everything to be backwards compatible".
But extensions bring their own security concerns too.

You can use auto type. But you need to make each entry identifiable and sometimes it doesn’t work because page and login titles change.
There is tilix, not sure how close it comes though.
https://gnunn1.github.io/tilix-web/
Everybody wants what they want and that's fine, but this comment shows why it's so hard for a small manufacturer to cater to developers.
Peter Thiel was born in Germany, acquiring American citizenship only later, and is presumably not eligible to be president of the US on that basis.
Should HN automatically post the suicide prevention lines on posts that mention suicide and have a certain number of votes? I feel like it should.
You have no idea, those people received this treatment 2 months ago. You absolutely have no clue what long term effects are one year out, five years out, 10 years out.

Stop violating people's human rights to make their own individual medical choices. Their body, their choice, none of your business.
More like Chaos Gorilla. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_engineering#Chaos_Gorill...
You can't invest a family farm, or a painting. I will repeat myself a 3rd time - if the goal is to slow the growth of wealth, the right course of action is to raise the tax rate on the returns to that wealth. If you tax wealth itself, you're needlessly relying on the investability of said wealth, as well as on market returns.
Mainstream economics reads like a flat earth Facebook group when you see how many times it's failed to predict booms and busts despite being considered acceptable as such.
This showed up on the front page because it's a novelty that even people who have been using the language for over a decade would never encounter.

You're taking my statement way too personally and out of context. You and everyone else can express your opinions all you want.

As a topic in the list of "flaws with Python," I don't think it's a very important or insightful topic because it's not something people really run into. This just doesn't fit there.

This is a novelty, pure and simple. Filed under "weird programming hacks you won't expect" This would be fine. It's like, `([]+![])[+!+[]+!+[]+!+[]][([]+{})]` in javascript. Weird, kind of interesting, but it's not really a "flaw," at least not the sense of something that will burn you unexpectedly.
I think I see your point but the probabilities are an important factor, as well as the freedom to choose based on being well informed. Unfortunately at this stage we don’t have sufficient information to provide solid information to make an informed choice.

If there’s (hypothetical overly high numbers here) a 10% chance of dying from a disease or a 1% chance of dying from the vaccine from that disease, I want the vaccine and would like the freedom to do so. But if a new vaccine is coming out and soon after we see a 1% death rate from it, now I’m gonna want to hold off and take my chances with the disease because that 1% may turn out to be as high as or greater than 10% down the track when more is known.

The main complexity here is just like the early days of coronavirus - until things have played out for a while you can’t have confidence about the extent of the harm and that’s true for both the disease (which we now have over a year of information about) and the vaccines (which we have a month or two of in-the-wild info so far).
Sadly, many MANY people in high places still think VPNs are the best solution (and the only solution you need) to protecting resources.
> Difference is that I know person that got COVID in November and now has issues with memory.

> I don't know a single person that has that after flue and cold - and those are with us much longer.

Look into ME/CFS, whose existence is still contested (or rather I should say, whether it's a physical or psychogenic illness is disputed). I know you're just speaking anecdotally but just wanted to mention that post-viral issues (fatigue, memory, etc) absolutely does happen.

> As for viruses mutations etc. do we for sure know that this one is not man made?

At most SARS-2 is the result of extensive gain of function research on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RaTG13. I don't know any credible individual that thinks it's fully artificial / manmade (and to be clear, my definition of "credible" is not the "anyone who agrees with the WHO/CDC and nobody else" definition that the establishment relies on).

Personally I think it's more likely that SARS-2 was GoF'd into existence rather than was a purely natural zoonotic leap, whereas I think the probability that it was fully artificial is almost zero.
Unless you need multiple concurrent writers or some kind of RBAC it's going to be really hard for anything to beat the KP database just because it already takes into things like that into account, along with optional entry history, arbitrary associated values, etc.

Been using it both with computers/phones and via programmatic access on cloud storage for years.
There are through-hole ARM ICs, e.g. see https://hackaday.com/2013/05/29/programming-a-through-hole-a....

For example: https://www.digikey.com/en/products/detail/nxp-usa-inc/LPC81....
Generally people use a USB-C "dock" which has networking, display, and extra USB ports.
Confirmation would be if they found that those who were less competent tended to overestimate their abilities when compared to those who were more competent. They found that this was not true. Instead, they found that people tend to overestimate their abilities with the same likelihood as when underestimating.
> Microsoft made it much harder to do bad stuff, and wrote software to look for bad stuff.

Before MS there was no bad stuff on the commodore 64. It just didn't exist. Loading things from tapes, disks or the internet doesn't matter. You switch it off and on again then load the next thing. I see no reason why this cant scale. You would have problems if you allow unchecked io and remote code execution and you would have to deal with that but even then a simple reset would clean it up. There is no need to give strangers the keys to your home and offer them a place to hide where you cant find them.

> Virus scanners and content moderation are essentially the same thing - they look for people abusing the system

The problem is that it is not your page. This forces you to live up to someone else's standards (if not forein laws) It is like the PC architecture where the computer is not yours.

Facebook is really what web standards should have offered. I would probably have been against it myself but in hindsight it is what people really wanted.

>...content moderation is a Sisyphean task, where we can certainly reduce the problem, but almost by definition cannot solve it.

I don't know, perhaps we can. Should we want to?

> I wonder how differently newsfeeds and sharing will work in 5 years

Ill still be using RSS and Atom.
MMT reads like "flat earth Facebook group" to plenty of economists outside of the establishment as well, including Bernie supporting ones.
Last I saw, Fractal did not support E2ee. Did that change?

And, are Nheko or Neochat mature enough for a daily driver? Lasy I saw they were very alpha.
Facebook let fake engagement distort global politics: a whistleblower's account
Related: This is an interview with David Dunning of Dunning-Kruger Effect. I find it highly entertaining and would recommend listening just for a few minutes in case it tickles your interest too. I've listed a couple of sources of the same podcast, just in case.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/david-dunning-on-the-d...

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cDovL2ZlZWRzLmJsb29tYmV...
Not sure crypto is quite ready for this, but how can one justify these integrations with these purpose built "coins", when stable coins pegged to fiat exist? I would much rather send stuff over a medium that is digital and fixed in value.

I know a lot of folks are big crypto naysayers, but there is a certain magic to being able to remit funds with ease to people and places where the process is not friendly. Chat app based money transactions is a thing and probably not going away anytime soon.
What It Takes to Fly a Drone on Mount Everest
Quite cheeky to have their video featuring a laptop that looks like an alternate-reality version of the MacBook end with the tagline “Original by Design”.

Brushed aluminium unibody, polished company logo in the middle, “MagSafe”. You should think there were other possible ways to design a laptop.

But other than that, looks like a pretty great machine. Lets hope it runs Linux.
> Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, Donald Trump, all have ridiculous broken understandings of economics

No, they don’t. They all have a sufficient grasp of economics to understand what serves their narrow preferences for relative power.

They promote ridiculous, broken understandings of economics, because it's the only way to get masses of people not in a position to be served by advancing the narrow interests of a small elite to get behind doing the things necessary to advance those interests.
I'm so impressed by the consistent quality of 3b1b, the imagination that goes into presenting simply what are ideas that I previously thought complex.

Previous generations have grown up used to 2D, and maybe some 3D graphs, but visualisation tech didn't change much for the average school kid until relatively recently. Can't wait to see what they create.
The latter is preferrable because it uses a widely adopted and time-tested standard, which means another user can use their own special purpose app.
IMHO this argument is potentially interesting philosophically, if someone has something new to say. It's an appeal to the logical extreme of post-modern relativism (and when we see logical extremes, I believe it's a good question to ask - is this a real problem or just philosophical). It also is misleading, IMHO, because it conflates morality, offensiveness, and power. Regardless, these kinds of philosophical arguments can be continued indefinitely, but so is the one that says the Internet is a figment of my imagination. I'm talking about reality.

In reality, the human mind doesn't need and very rarely uses the extreme of hard and fast algorithms; we are not computers. I can judge good from bad, constructive from destructive, etc. and it is easy to identify most of the problematic comments. When it's a forum with rules, it's easy to identify (again, a wild guess) 95% of them.