skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> In practice, however, it's become the epicenter of a debate around whether it should actually be responsible for setting new standards and laws via interpretation, especially when the Legislature doesn't do what some people might want.

Yes, and this is the mistake you're making in reasoning: we do this because it is exceedingly difficult to modify the US constitution. Facebook has no such limitation. If the oversight board, for example, tried to interpret the existing policies in a speech absolutist way to force Facebook's hand, Facebook could simply change the text of the policies, equivalent to a constitutional amendment.

The value of judicial activism is far lower when the constitution is effortlessly fungible. When facebook modifies its policies, that is equivalent to an amendment to the constitution. If a gadfly tries to interpret that change in a way that Facebook dislikes, they can just clarify the constitution the next day.

You can see how this impacts the Board's rulings, they're almost always formed as requirements that Facebook clarify its policies further.

> Perhaps that gadfly is an "absolutist", or perhaps they're something else. My question is: how do we make sure that contingent continues to exist as new members are appointed?

But this has nothing to do with whether someone believes that Facebook should be able to moderate people's speech. An unflinching free speech absolutist who believes that no entity should be capable of moderating speech would be wholly incompatible with the oversight board, as they'd need to concede things about moderation to even accept the oversight board's validity as an arbiter of moderation decisions.

Also I do want to take a moment to mention that

> There's a common trope thrown around that "the first amendment only applies to the government"...which is obviously true and nobody credible actually believes otherwise.

Is easily found to be untrue, there are a number of sitting senators and house members, as well as tons of state representatives who are pushing for (trivially) unconstitutional laws that regulate tech companies in violation of the first amendment. The most recent example I saw was the Florida law that exempts companies that operate amusement parks.
I would refactor that line of code to ease my conscience:

if (user.subscription.is_current()) {
add_value();
}

Of course, add_value() then enables the technology. And I'm not "disabling" anything, merely adding value when appropriate!
It was a local "sales director" (which in many companies is a title given to pretty much everyone doing enterprise sales).
Raymond Loewy is a personal hero, Never Leave Well Enough Alone is a treasure trove of good thinking.
My mother committed suicide when I was a child. She kept a collection of journals, letters, writings, and various computer documents detailing her inner thoughts, bipolar disorder, specific medication schedule, ECT, and various medical records.

I should go through it someday. I know it’s probably a psychiatric students dream. A complete documentation of someone’s entire life, with associated medicine schedule (and eventually, ECT schedule). I imagine there’s some value to it.

Really don’t know where to start with it though.
Authentic Social Media presence associated with greater happiness
That's wonderful. Sorry for your loss.
George Abitbol, etc.

I thought it was!!

very nice job anyway
Just tried with a tiny file, it tries to work, as I can see the filename/size on the receiver end. But, it never downloads. It does say "Peers: 0, Up: 0, Down: 0".
It’s nonsense that you have to accept a premise to argue against it. That’s exactly what I did. On this website it’s expected that if you don’t have an argument, don’t make one.

With your assertion in mind that there is no issues with the activist technique. Do you denounce pedofilia? Do you denounce defrauding elderly relatives? See how this activist technique works, no answer is good and the question is directed at you as a potential complicit person, and using it is in my opinion a sure sign of a worse character than what I’d like to engage with.
And whatever algorithm they use for match-making should just be completely scrapped so they can start over. It seems like most games are really lopsided - you're either stomping on someone or getting stomped on. Maybe it's different in the high-ranked competitive play but the hard-fought matches that go back and forth until the very end are infrequent, in my experience, and those are the best part of playing!
> there is a way to get access to SuperMemo algorithm but you have to negotiate a license from memory

Well, SuperMemo may be of some help to the memory portion :-)
No. The naval plants are optimized to generate steam for the propulsion turbines first, and electric generation capacity second. Plugging generation capacity into a grid is far more complex than plugging in a consumer appliance. It'd require a lot of dedicated infrastructure on the carrier, and suitable tie in points from the grid.

The US did have a floating nuclear power plant for a while, intended for disaster response and such. It ultimately didn't prove to be useful enough vs the cost and complexity of keeping it running. Russia recently completed fabrication of a modern take on the same idea, but it's not clear how useful that will be to them other than being as part of a suite of nuclear technologies they're marketing militarily.
Really, how recent is your newest one?

The T-series (I’ve owned roughly every other generation since T420) have gotten increasingly less repairable with each release since at least the T430.

I was always a fan/happy user, but after the T480(s) I won’t be buying a new Thinkpad anymore.

The DRM in the batteries, only one RAM slot, the removal of some port in every new generation... Even the non-carbon ones have the writing on the wall.
I can comprehend your interpretation of ‘next’; it is algebraic: For all states ‘i’: ‘next P’ is true for state ‘i’, if P is true for state ‘i+1’.

The article seems to have a side-effect based interpretation rather than an algebraic one. It seems that ‘next P’ updates the state state of ‘P’. Hence the different diagram.
Yeah, I should've mentioned him as well. I was following it most closely in 2019, where Serral and Reynor were the main stars and Clem was mostly just a super young and kind of inconsistent up-and-comer. We'll see if Serral (23) can keep up with the teenagers.
Hey I got an unrelated question for you. Can you email: g at colonist.io
I was disappointed to find they have no plans to offer an AMD CPU.

No longer interested. But I cannot unsubscribe from email notifications, because a phishing link is substituted in place of a proper "unsubscribe" link in the email notification.
Samy Bengio is Yoshua Bengio's brother, not the other way around.
Makes more sense to disable the entire car, not the safety mechanisms.

At at least put the car in "limp mode" limiting it to 20mph (30kmh).
Çocuk Resimleri Analizi Eğitimi
You are right. Plus, the Diablo 2 remaster announced at the same time as Diablo 4 (IIRC)

Based on past track record, I don't hold much hope, though
The actual writing from a lot of the golden age and New Wave sci-fi authors is... OK at best, with a few exceptions (Bradbury's distinctively poetic and dreamlike prose, for example). Tons of modern sci-fi authors write stories with more literary merit, better clarity, better-conveyed action, more believable characters and dialog, and so on. The improvements there are really obvious when reading, say, an early 70s The Hugo Winners or collections of 1950s stories, and then a 90s The New Hugo Winners.

Whether their ideas and worlds stand up to Asimov and company, or happen to be appealing to a particular reader, is another matter, but the command of writing itself is overall better, I'd say. I don't think a modern author would have much luck getting novels or stories in major magazines published with Asimov-tier dialog & characterization, for example.

Plus those eras were full of tons of garbage, in addition to what we remember. New Wave (60s and 70s) in particular tended to some very special interests that I don't think have held up too well, with some exceptions. A lot of that era's stories are very in love with sex & drugs and not in a way that really translates into a good tale. Most of those aren't exactly well-beloved these days.

On the flip side, there are definitely some modern sci-fi authors that are among the most famous but have some serious problems putting together an entirely good novel. I'll refrain from naming names but among them is maybe the only author whose book has ever made me mad at them for wasting such a good idea, setting, and opening, by just having no damn follow-through and getting super lazy in the last 1/3 or so. They're probably a top-5 sci fi name, among active authors today. But I stand by the overall quality level being notably higher on at least some dimensions, and it's even true for that guy.
I’ve signed up - Nirav, lmk if you want more beta testers - happy to pay full price for testing. If somehow you can convince large tech companies to switch from MacBook Pro, I’d be in your debt forever.
HTTP status code 401 vs. 403 vs. 404
that was the easy part. now what do you do if two independent parts of the ui need to do something if the responseData gets updated. you either bubble downards or you need a store.
Burning Man: The Ascent of D H Lawrence
I used to think the same. Then I went there and experienced it. Culture makes a massive difference.
What is "predatory"? What is "just"? Justice for some equals unemployment for others. Is that just?

If safety and breaks are mandated, and someone is still willing to work for less, you're stopping them from bargaining to have a job for less pay, do you acknowledge that?

If "predatory" is agreeing to what someone wants to offer to take a job, why don't you tell the worker not to offer/participate?

Your stopping the "predatory" behavior has done nothing to alleviate the person's financial situation that causes them to consider agreeing to it.
Save Thousands of Lives
I watch both too and I disagree. After a while I have to stop watching SC1 games, I can continue watching SC2 for much much longer. SC1 just gets way too boring. It really is like watching chess, slow and methodical (assuming the perfect control only the top players can achieve in this game, I could not stand watching any less skilled players, other than with SC2). I appreciate the much faster games in SC2. I think SC2 game play is more significantly more varied too.
I strongly disagree. The maps add tons of variety and the objectives force you to have team battles instead of just one vs one landing to last hit minions all game. Shared XP is another part of making it less about winning your one lane

The issue is they were late to MOBAs and made the game entirely free so there was no reason to really support the game. Eventually the finance people notice
Heh, so many valley people microdose openly. It's not a fireable offence. Also, that incident happened in 2019. Why fire him now?
I miss the days of RTS games. Used to play a ton of frozen throne, and was getting back into it when Blizzard announced the remaster. Then in the act of launching the remaster they brought down the online ladder, causing me to leave the game and never return. To me it's because they want to be a multibillion dollar company and all their moves have to align with that. It's no longer good enough to make a solid game that devs and fans love and make a decent profit. It's all about the billions, often leads companies to do stupid things.
This isn't totally accurate.

You are correct that China cannot project power in the sense that they can't easily invade a country or level shattering economic sanctions but they have proven themselves quite capable of targetting individuals in other nations both online and in the real world.

Either way, there is a moral imperative to prevent China from gaining the ability to project power the way the US can. The US being able to project that kind of power is shitty, and the two entities being able to do that is even shittier.
I'm not sure I would call statements by a FEMA director "unscientific."
The Woes of PowerShell
> No.

Then you are someone else’s potential customer, as am I.
The men that are ruining her life are not the sort of "weak men" being discussed here. The ones ruining her life, I can just about guarantee, exude the impression that they don't play by other people's rules. To women, that is strength.
Anything low lying in that area is at high risk in a cascadia quake. Buildings on high ground "only" have the quake risk, which is still significant.
There is a server involved for mediating peer discovery but the file transfer itself is p2p.

Regarding your second point: I’m actually not sure if the file is copied into memory or if the browser just keeps a reference. I haven’t tried it with large files yet.
The ability for the vest to check if your still paying the subscription costs more money to build than an always working vest.

If it actually costs 800$ then you can give people the option to make 40 payments of 20$ a month easily like how many people buy iPhones and sofas.
Org-mode: Please help by becoming a Worg maintainer
Serious question: how likely is this to stand up to regulatory scrutiny? Given that they seem to be incorporated in the US and the EU, if a rider dies because the vest didn't inflate and, say, their family sues the company, is the company likely to fold into oblivion so no one tries this dumb stunt again?

If I remember correctly, this was what led to auto safety features in the first place (IE Nader's Unsafe At Any Speed).
Imagine my shock. Blizzard hasn’t released any new game since Overwatch, and that was in 2016. They have been able to keep their old games going to some extent with updates and expansions, but it’s mostly just been more of the same stuff, no innovation. Not much better on the Activision side. Other than umpteen versions of Call of Duty and re-releases of old games, the only memorable game they’ve done of late is Destiny (1 & 2). You can’t just keep rehashing the same old formula if you want to keep up with the market.
Motif elucidation in ChIP-seq datasets with a knockout control
I believe the complexity is that because no-one can express disagreement, management there have to be very subtle about creating consensus first, because once a decision is public it can't be changed or disagreed with. I'm not sure, though - I struggled with this and didn't find a solution before I left.
No, I think unpaid internships simply reflect the underlying situation and position of people. Restricting who can get the internships or how much those jobs have to pay will have less than a drop in the bucket's effect on the underlying problem of wealth inequality.

If I sum up the position, it sounds to me like "I don't want to see people working for $0, or only the rich to have the opportunity to work for $0, so I will require the job to pay $15/hr". Well, you didn't solve the problem that people are willing to work for $0 with that solution.

Letting people offer what they want, on both sides, (I believe) is the freest way to have people decide and achieve what they want, as long as basic protections for safety, hours, conditions are met.
Really well done! Playing around with it a little, the only thing I noticed was it was difficult to see which color meant "better" when comparing values. Maybe add a little checkmark or something if one stat is higher?

Other than that, I love how you don't just compare raw values, but have the ability to select armor/range/etc. That's something I see missing in a lot of similar "comparison" applications.
> You can see how this impacts the Board's rulings, they're almost always formed as requirements that Facebook clarify its policies further.

If that's the case, then the Oversight Board doesn't actually serve the purpose that the Supreme Court does, and your analogy there is inaccurate. In fact, if Facebook can simply unilaterally "change its constitution" when the Board issues an undesirable ruling, then it is much closer to the GGP's characterization of "One department of the megacorp confirms a decision made by the other department". In fact, if one might attempt to find an accurate analog in real world governance, another commenter pointed out that it's more akin to Iran: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27050948

"In theory, the Supreme Leader is elected by the Assembly of Experts. However, all candidates for membership at the Assembly of Experts (including the President and the Majlis (parliament)) must have their candidacy approved by the Guardian Council, whose members in turn, are half appointed unilaterally by the Supreme Leader and half subject to confirmation by the Majlis after being appointed by the head of the Iranian judiciary, who is himself appointed by the Supreme Leader."

> An unflinching free speech absolutist who believes that no entity should be capable of moderating speech would be wholly incompatible with the oversight board, as they'd need to concede things about moderation to even accept the oversight board's validity as an arbiter of moderation decisions.

I respectfully disagree. As long as the unflinching absolutist doesn't have the final say as a single individual, the unflinching absolutist serves the purpose of pulling the board in the direction of permissiveness (i.e. the principle of free speech). This is not all that different from the purpose that activists serve in society writ large, as you pointed out when you mentioned judicial activism.
Regression: Miscompilation due to bug in “mutable noalias” logic
If I could buy an NFT that gave the bearer a license to stream a particular movie from any host, and had the ability to resell or transfer it, I would find that significantly more valuable than the license Amazon offers with their "Buy" button.

Could be fun to trade.

Lots of interesting economic effects would come out of the ability to resell IP at the same market as the author:

- if a movie came out, and nobody likes it, they may instantly resell it at a market price after viewing. If it's unpopular enough, perhaps the original creator would only be able to get hundreds of licenses on the market before price to consumer is forcibly reduced against the will of the creator. Bad creators have to compete in price against dissatisfied fans.

- Great IP owners will want to carefully manage number of circulating licenses to maximize their overall earnings. A great film will not be resold after viewing, so owner may choose to gradually increase price until sales volume falls off. This invites speculators and enables IP owners to capture the lifetime value of their property more rapidly via effectively selling off future profits. Perhaps let IP owners could 'lock' or declare a frequency limit on license issuance to guarantee a level of scarcity to encourage investment.

- Scalpers can try to corner properties, but the IP owner can always issue more licenses to break the corner. It'd be a risky bet.

- If all of this lives on a blockchain, it'd make a bunch of cool publicly available metrics to economically quantify the value of IP over time.
I’m not really buying this, so I thought of a way to disprove it.

This statistical outcome only holds for recessive genes on the X chromosome, but it doesn’t make men with the recessive gene “more extreme” than woman with the recessive gene. Just the number of people would be different. So if there is such a gene that makes people excel in their specific field, theoretically we could sequence the x-chromosome of the top women in that field and look for the common recessive gene. They would be more likely to share it if it mattered in that field.

This is interesting, but when you consider the scale by which men across the board receive different societal advantages over women, it feels trivial. The discrepancy should only appear at the top of every game, not with the middle management too.

Because of this I fear it is more likely other societal effects are at play. I try to be mindful of the ones I can directly control.
As Amazon deforestation hits 12 year high, France rejects Brazilian soy
> A well-known example is gets[1] which is impossible to use without introducing a buffer overflow.

Actually, it is possible to use gets() safely, under a sufficiently contrived set of circumstances. Since it reads from stdin, you just have to make sure that stdin reads from a pipe which has its write end under the control of the same process, and be careful to only ever write a limited amount of data to that pipe, smaller than the buffer of any gets() call in the process.
Yes I'd like to see how the imperative escape hatches work for Fig and Murex (and how many completions needs to use it)

Actually I just remembered I enumerated some "unusual cases" here:

https://github.com/oilshell/oil/wiki/Diversity-in-Command-Li...

Is the escape hatch for Fig in JavaScript? One thing I would like to see "rescued" from Shellac is the idea of allowing the escape hatch to be in any language, not Oil or Murex, or JS. In particular, it could be the language that the tool itself is written in!
> you can have the capital and funding controlled by the DAO

Only the capital tied up in crypto tokens, which is probably very small compared to the capital tied up in offices or machines or whatever, which a government has control over.

> The DAO would have the treasury, the community, etc.

As far as I can see, none of this is easier to do on a DAO than with some more traditional method of organization.
If not for World of Warcraft Classic, how bad would this be?
> Sorry but what programmers use is not relevant here.

Why do you say that? This article is explicitly talking about programming tools, not mainstream tools. "At Repl.it, where our goal is to build a simple yet powerful programming environment"
I don't have much fluidity in my savings but have been saving some for this a while. Looks so great on paper so far, can't wait!
Yes, and we'll be adding support for that as opt-in in v5.1.0! Here's a little teaser: https://deploy-preview-31813--twbs-bootstrap.netlify.app/doc....
Brands have value insofar as the consuming public recognize those brands, right? I'd wager that Diablo is most famous for the first two games which both came out 20 years ago, and that the enthusiast segment of the market recognizes this brand more than the casual segment (who, by nature of being casual, know less about historic games.) In the enthusiast/pc segment of the market, Diablo may still be a valuable brand. But in the casual/mobile segment of the market, the Diablo brand is relatively unknown and relatively worthless.

Trying to sell games to mobile/casual gamers is fine, but they probably should have invented a new brand for the purpose (like they did with Hearthstone) instead of burning an old brand for little gain.
Not linear but I recommend: for HTML read chapter 3 & 4 of HTML spec - https://html.spec.whatwg.org/

For CSS I recommend Wes Bos tutorials about flexbox and grid - https://wesbos.com/courses and this blog: https://ishadeed.com/articles/
They influence Bitcoin development (SegWit is a good example), so they dictate the Bitcoin version of policy.
The Linux kernel very occasionally removes interfaces, but generally only via "this turns out to have been broken for years and nobody has been using it".

glibc does deprecate and remove things, but it uses very careful symbol versioning, such that code compiled against previous versions of glibc continues to run but new code can't use those interfaces. It's a rare example of being ABI-compatible but not API-compatible.