skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I found https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ng8i_eOnuGc, but it's mostly marketing drivel.
There are a shocking number of people that think raw capitalism is just and good and anything bad can be explained by regulation. Especially in North America.

The Overton window has moved so far to the right that even criticising that is considered "left wing".
If it's FUD then it's been going on for over a decade. Back when Intel was ahead, people would say things like "Intel is first to 32 nm and has a better process than other fabs. So TSMC/GloFo/etc. won't catch up until they hit 28 nm, at which point Intel will hit 22 nm."
It takes ridiculous energy to get here.

They can do that at home with all the resources available to them. Beside, why the heck would you transform an entire planet when you can build your own custom made space habitats?

Anyway, we're looking for habitable planets not to colonize them but to find signs of life elsewhere in the universe.
there in lies the problem - the payment in lieu of rent in the proposal is not meant to be equity, but is treated like that.

I think there's some cognitive dissonance in the proposal. The idea that you can live for free is just not possible in the modern, capitalist world. Rent is something that every entity has to pay - including owners (which is the imputed rent, or the opportunity cost of the capital placed into the building/land, or the interest payment).

If the gov't fronts the capital to build, but don't receive rent, then it's the same as tax payers footing the interest cost of that capital. So those who would be in this public-ownership housing is effectively receiving an interest free loan for the house, and their payment represents equity, and that's such a good deal that there'd be unlimited demand for this sort of housing.
Yeah, I have never seen the prototype not get ported over somehow.

You need a lot discipline to throw away everything even if you knew going in that it was crap.
Housing affordability and precarity are widespread problems. $/ft^2 an $/br is high on the coasts. Rent:income and evictions/10k are high throughout much of the U.S.
I definitely did not miss that point. I understand the idea behind a barrier to entry. However I am pretty active. I read HN every day, and I've even written a few submissions, one of which made the front page. So wouldn't you say I'm invested? I just don't comment very often.
If a civilization is so advanced that it can reach us, then we have to assume that they are here to take our resources. We can take a peaceful approach but we should have our finger on a nuclear arsenal in case they decide they are bored with us and want our water and minerals. But chances are they would know everything about us already and would anticipate that as well.
Totally agree - if your hands are on the keyboard, then use the keyboard shortcuts, no movement required.

If your hand is on your mouse, though, this means you don't have to move that hand back. (I'm assuming left-hand mouse uses won't find anything involving TAB to be hand-agnostic. : )

My usage pattern tends to be keyboard - search, tune search - then mouse - open lots of new tabs, then scroll up / down with mouse, and flick between those new tabs with the mouse, perhaps select some text with the mouse.

I think everyone agrees that frequent relocation between mouse / keyboard is sub-optimal.
> If the human prevents 99% of autopilot could-have-been accidents, and as a result, 10 people die per X miles driven whereas through purely human driving 20 people die, then driving with autopilot is safer.

No, because correlation isn't causation.

In particular, it's plausible that autopilot only gets used in situations where it's easy to drive and accidents are less likely. This would erase any hope of assessing autopilot safety by looking at simple statistics like the ones you mention.
>3000 years for 100 ly,
allowing for acceleration and
deceleration. The aliens would be
fanatics to still be interested after that time.

Have you taken into account the relativity of time? If i've understood it correctly, time stops at the speed of light. For an alien travelling at that velocity, moving from one end of the universe to the other will take no time at all! No fanaticism required. How will they have time to stop? Also, does anyone know if an object with mass even move at the speed of light?
Funny, Just today I saw a parody tiktok of applicant answering this question, that is there anything you want to know, with that Would you give me contact details of your employee who left to ask him, why he left? Most of the commentators unanimously agree that this will kick one out of any consideration list.
Nah, the joke was that you ought to say your prayers before using the thing.
You could rename the functions to match their symbols, after compiling.

The output of nm for the function originally named "write" from musl libc might look like

000000000006ee20 T 000000000006ee20
The Borg are much easier to imagine today than they were in the 90s. Incredibly prescient bit of sci-fi.

How does the collective work?

They’re all jacked into the boards constantly meme-ing each other.

That’s how the whole thing got started in the first place too. You had a weird cult like Qanon get memed into existence and then they got Neuralink. Then the cult became a malignant superintelligence that set about conquering the universe to exterminate the Satanic pedophiles.

“We are Borg! Resistance is futile! Where we go one we go all!”

Something like that... very easy to imagine. We are close.
> Then, of course, they'd be weak from the journey, and we'd kill them...

Are there any examples from
human history where explorers have arrived on “new” land and have then been defeated by those already inhabiting it? It seems like those arriving tend to have more advanced technology and even when they’re starving and weak manage to conquer. For humans, at least, I suspect “victory” goes to the visitors far more often.

But if, by some miracle, the humans prevailed I think you’re unfortunately correct about us conveniently ignoring the lesson.
eye roll ugh I am SO sick of this bizarre prevailing narrative that religiousness and spirituality is like some sort of unintellectual defect present only in inferior humans. Step off your high horse for a second a realize that you have absolutely no clue about what lies beyond human cognition.

You realize that anything that a human believes to be true is rooted, fundamentally, in a faith-based assumption, right? science is faith in the human ability to percieve; religion is when this faith is based on the ineffible.

Science is good for practical matters. Religion is good for moral matters.

They are not at odds. The human connection to the logical and their connection to the spiritual have walked hand in hand throughout history. Our spirituality has guided our science, and vice versa. To lose our religiousness would be to lose a full half of our capability for reasoning.

Why is it that many highly innovative and prolific scientists throughout history have been deeply religious?

Furthermore, EVEN IF religion was complete fiction, which I believe it is not, it is so very obviously a useful and deeply insightful fiction. It allows us to interrogate the inner workings of the human psyche, the natural moral law, gives us a sense of purpose, motivates charity and kindness, creates community and social trust. Abd you cab miss me with that Sam Harris, "but we can do all that without religion, cause ultimately religion also causes problems of bigotry" - Bo, we cannot, it is precisely the illogucal nature of religion that makes it useful for moral reasoning. Logical deduction about morality leads to highly undesirable consequences. And yes, sone religions propogate bigotry : not all, though. For example, Christianity does not promote any sort of judgement of others. While there are christians who do so, they do it in spite of the word of the bible, not because of it.

Okay, hopping off my soapbox now, but really guys, you ought to be more sympathetic to the religious among us, you might learn something and become a better person in the process.
FYI, there's a bug on the home page. The "Try for Free" button takes one to the pricing page, rather than the demo or signup page.
And it's so hard to convince management, all rewarded on innovative solution like firing the data center team to replace it with an enormous Microsoft Hybrid Cloud contract, that they're only buying something way inferior for a much higher price.

I envy the geniuses at Microsoft who can convince 60k+ software companies like mine where we're all engineer or mathematicians, led by incredibly clueless IT decision makers :D I've talked face to face with people from an other continent in charge of our switch to Azure, and he was neither aware nor involved in even the decision of Azure vs AWS vs Google Cloud. But he was in charge...

I came to learn that the main reason we chose Azure (but I think the biggest problem was to choose Cloud) was because we already had teams doing Windows maintenance, server management, etc: we had way more relationship with MS already than with Amazon or Google. Now we have it, it's beautiful, nobody uses it, people grudgingly do trainings, and make big presentation about Cloud strategies, while waiting for legal and compliance to allow us to connect to it. Since we figured after the contract was signed that it would be mostly illegal for us to give Microsoft any of our client data...

Whatever, happy to see sometimes other people struggling with the bewildering fact that we somehow regressed :D
Valid stat comparison will be average accident rate of all cars with autopilot vs same of all cars without, and with $30k - $50k current market value. This will equalise many things.

I, personally, wont trust some autopilot scripts, at least in this decade.
Thanks for the sha256sum tip - I checked the man page, but it doesn't mention that it reads from standard input by default (only when passing the filename "-").

The code has only changed once in the few months I've been using it. Also, if we get a specific version we'd need an extra process to know when it's been updated. So for the current project it's pragmatic to just use the latest version.
> So they could have held the steering wheel from the passanger seat.

We don’t have the diagnostic information that indicates AP was engaged. So, which is more likely: driver error and no seatbelt, or driver sitting in the passenger seat? I contend the latter is extremely unlikely, since there would be basically no benefit to doing this given the requirements of AP currently.

It’s possible the driver was pulling a stunt. In which case, the deaths are attributable to deliberate misuse, no different than “ghost riding the whip”
Nice work, if you can get it...? This is an abuse of a legislative power. Unless state subsidised, this will mean all other subscribers will pay more for that service so that some can pay less. The alternative is for the ISP to withdraw from a market that they can not serve and remain in business.
What if they ruled that gas must be $1/gallon? They could do that as long as they could force gas refineries to sell to the gas stations for a lower price that allowed that supply chain to remain viable.
Mozilla will remove Leanplum tracking from Firefox for Android and iOS
Read the article. She wasn’t driving, she walked in and walked out
The obvious benefit to the company is to get the candidate to sign.

Companies generally have tech sourcers use software like Gem to spam thousands of candidates, link press releases about their funding rounds, then expect candidates to be excited about the company right away. Very rarely is much invested in selling the company, I think it’s actually gotten worse over the years due to platforms that automate candidate experience like Gem.

I got “bait-and-switched” on some key details of my current job, but it’s not so simple at all to just leave. Hiring managers don’t like job hoppers, they will wonder if you got fired, whatever.

The idea that candidates are swamped with multiple offers is also just a oft repeated false narrative . I’ve 10+ years experience, was SWE at Google, CS degree from good school, can do most Leetcode medium and hard with ease, but still have about a 20% on-site to offer ratio. Companies say they are desperate to hire but can still be very picky. And to extent I understand why I got so many rejections I think it ties into me struggling with the “topgrading” grillings about why I left previous jobs, which would only get worse if I stormed out of a new job over anything that wasn’t a massive issue.

There’s a few reasons why the narrative employees have so much power persists in tech - excuse to push for more government funded training and visas, awful hiring practices that emphasize “false negative > false positive”, companies that pay way below market surprised candidates dont accept, outlier stories from rare candidates who played the job search game and negotiation game extremely well. But on average employers still have way, way more power in hiring and this idea that an engineer can just quit a new job and waltz into another one is absurd and false.
The music in my head.
Sorry for the typos. On mobile and this app sucks, trying to correct the typos is a massive pain.
Of course you can mine 2 “conflicting blocks” in PoW cryptobeans, you can just tweak the clients of a fork to require negligible work for the next block and convince everyone that the most-work chain is a hostile takeover. Satoshi did not anticipate how forking clients with tweaked implementations invalidate the whole security model.

This is the same attack model that leads there being a public debate about “Segwit coin VS BCash”. It’s also what happened with the 2013 fork[0]. The system ends up needing politics and power games just like the current financial system. The technology is a distraction to fool intelligent engineers into thinking this system is different. It isn’t.

[0] https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2015/07/28/analyzing-the-2013-...
But when I'm filling up my car with a jerry can, I'm literally holding it. I know to have some sense of caution, and I can see spills.

This is true, but you can't see the static electrical charge on the can that's going to discharge with a spark when it touches the filler tube...
Mods, please don't change the title of my post.... I used the original title of the article.
its really really annoying that even smart people puppet 'self driving cars are safer than human ones'.

self driving cars are orders of magnitude more dangerous than human drivers. its absurd to say otherwise, and to do so requires a level of stupidity that can only be explained by dogma.
Autopilot has not been observed to behave like this. That's not an "axiom", it's "evidence". I'm not saying it can't happen, I'm saying that the data we have suggests alternatives as more likely.
This shouldn't be downvoted to light grey. The analogy is excellent.

I presume this comment is talking about student drivers where the teacher has an override steering wheel. So the student gets into accidents at a lower than average rate because every time they get close to doing so the teacher takes over.
Big European soccer teams announce breakaway league
It's really funny how their marketing and legal departments seem to say conflicting things almost as a prank.
I was asking C++ version not compiler version. So, C++11 or C++14?
Hmmm.

Nginx has an auth_subrequest module that yeets all the cookies in a requests over to a configured URL in a server-initiated subrequest (hence the name), then proceeds with the original request only if the subrequest returns 200 OK. The module works with any type of incoming request, including FastCGI and reverse proxy situations.

The idea is that some config magic turns the 401 into a 302 redirect that walks you through a single-signon page, then you get redirected back to wherever you left off. However since you can make failed requests do just about anything you could technically reroute the request to a WebSocket server that just serves error responses or something, but that feels very... wronky.

The module does feel somewhat unwieldy to use in general as well, although this may be due to general unfamiliarity on my part with Nginx's way of doing things (which I'd summarize as "AAAAAAaaaaaaaa (aaa!)"). (The whole `if`-statements-can-SEGV thing etc.)

The module can only return 200 (allow original request through) or 401 (deny original request); any other response causes nginx to cancel the original request and return 503. (In case of 401, anything else, or error, the FastCGI server or upstream never sees a connection at all.)

It's possible to pass interesting state information such as a username or non-opaque session token from the subrequest to the main request by capturing subrequest response headers then injecting them as request headers into the main request, but this is sufficiently into the weeds (and unlike any existing system Web developers would typically have experience with) that I have a strong tendency to just go \ N O \, but considering that it is admittedly an obscure yet established corner of nginx's configuration, I figured I'd say something for completeness... for the benefit of the 2 people still reading up to this point. :D

I've incidentally been trying to figure out how to set up a simple BeyondCorp-esque system with it for a while now (for remote access to home systems, so focusing mostly focusing on brain-dead simplicity), but the giant brick wall I keep running into is how to a) make things auth-aware, b) keep the cookie properly opaque, and b) prevent everything from exploding horribly if auth_subrequest gets turned off. The only method I can think of to enable (b) (so that individual services don't have to duplicate auth logic, kind of defeats the point) is to pass headers out from the subrequest, which then breaks (c) (making it possible to access things directly).

A small microservice that handles the cookie side of things and makes HTTP requests itself starts looking like a breath of fresh air...
The issue is that someone genuinely homeless will happily take the drink and sandwich and consume them later (thus the "no mayo") if they happen to not be hungry right now.

Someone who is panhandling wants money and they get very angry when you interrupt that process. At least in the US, the panhandlers tend not to be the genuinely homeless--they mostly tend to be scummy people. It's a semi-regular news occurrence for someone to follow a panhandler with a camera to find out they really aren't homeless.

It really makes the political discussion about how to help the "homeless" a lot harder because now you have to deal with "How do we make sure that we help the "homeless" instead of these scummy jerks?" And it's impossible to make the separation--the scummy jerks will always work your system better than the genuinely homeless. It's one of the reasons why I'm generally for the basic income kind of approaches--the scummy jerks can't work your system to the detriment of those who genuinely need it.

In the US at least, the "genuinely homeless" that you could actually help tend to be nearly invisible because they don't want to be seen--getting seen gets you noticed and harrassed.
growth rate seems too slow even for a side hustle.
Managed Competition or Competing Managers?
Here is my thesis by which humans can never be exterminated by an aggresive alien race directly via attack:

For a universe that is infinite and provided there are no aggressive alien races within our inmediate stellar neighborhood, it would break the rules of economics for humans to be attacked, whether for resources or for sport.

This is because for any alien to actually visit us, they would need FTL travel tech. If they do have FTL, then such tech would dramatically reduce the cost of travel to nil. This would make any point in the galaxy reachable inmediately at almost no cost.

Therefore, at that point, any valuable resource of earth... would also be reachable at the same cost at another earth-like planet. Except the latter would be without pesky humans on it.

Or, if you had infinite kit Kat bars in front of you, you would always pick the one without any ants on it.

Similarly, any aggressive alien race with FTL would not exterminate humans for sport. They may kill some similar to how you handle a roach, but any species unrestrained by resource limits (again, FTL) the tendencies for conflict will have naturally died out of the gene pool.
I write Go lambdas and run HandleFunc normally as an AWS user who has assumed the appropriate role.

Then when I'm done, I push `lambda.Start(HandleFunc)`

Frequently, though, when I want to change some code I already have, I just run through the edit-build-push-invoke loop. It isn't optimal but with fast Internet it is not much slower than a Scala build and I can iterate with that.
Does the gdpr or any other law prevent end users processing their own data in their user agents? Or require that headers sent to respected?
US sanctions cryptocurrency addresses linked to Russian cyberactivities
Yep, sounds like a lot of the authors found a cheap way to market their thing. I've been reading a bunch of the same type of Google 'replacements' promoting the same thing over and over. TBH, it gets annoying over time. HN should do something about this.
So probably the phasing out third-party cookies will be postponed due to these reaction?
I am in no way trying to defend avalanche. I have been speaking from the standpoint of datalisp.

Again, the Byzantine generals problem of the paper is not an accurate description of what is happening in the datalisp network and does not apply except locally (in a 'neighbourhood' of the dispute) so it's not 2/3 of the whole network but rather 2/3 of the echo chamber that needs to agree...

Anyway you seem to be eager to dismiss off-hand so I am losing interest in debating with you as-is.
I find it interesting (and a bit sad) that there is a common belief that Humans as a whole would be considered by alien intelligence to be are violent and unworthy of contact. I think partially this is because it makes for a good story prop, but I think it also reflects many peoples lack of self worth.

I like to see the flip side of this, and look at the amazing achievements that the species have achieved in a little under 100000 years.

We've gone from intelligent animals living lives a little different from any of the other intelligent animals to creating a civilisation that has a rich culture. We've created art that expands upon our physical experience, have developed science that is asking (and answering) questions that delve into the intimate workings of the universe, have perused and created challenging answers that address "why we are here" and are on the cusp of becoming a multi planetary species. All the while we have battled our animal natures and so far, seem to be doing a pretty good job of surviving the worst we can create. Not perfect by any measure, but we're doing a damn good job for a bunch of naked apes that on cosmic timescales just crawled out of the sludge.

So lets challenge ourselves, when asked how we would react to an encounter with alien civilisations, instead of putting up the "danger, stay away" sign, how about we roll out the best our species has achieved and take some pride in what so far has been an amazing ride.
An AI-powered Linux shell using OpenAI
You might love evpp instead ASIO. It's just pain to install it but once you do it's a heaven.

As for HTTP parsing, llhttp does great job. It however lack multipart parsing.