skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There's a lot of literal bullshit to dispel here.

First, the whole bison vs. cow argument is bunk for a variety of reasons. The diet that roaming bison ate is very different that the beef and dairy cattle eat today. Also, they didn't typically shit in large pools given that they were not animals that we're penned in to the same geographical location and roamed, often over many, many miles throughout the year.

Second, you're looking solely at North America. Cattle "production" is truly worldwide at this point, with beef and dairy cattle farms in many far off places where the animals are not native, and the true reporting of their numbers is grossly under-reported.

And, the whole goddamn thing about fungi is just.. I don't even know where to start with that. The amount of food created to feed cattle is staggering, and without that need in the first place, then the fungi wouldn't need to metabolize and emit methane, even though all of this is just some kind of insane babble. The methane comes from huge pools of manure that can, and more likely is not, properly and sustainably dealt with. There are blighted areas in the US alone where large cattle companies have simply abandoned the areas due to health concerns.

Here's the thing about methane though, when you generate an enormous amount of it, year over year, the cumulative effects of it cooling the planet (you know, melting glaciers, raising sea temperatures) does not really give a damn about the half-life of atmospheric methane. Once those effects set in, they're self-perpetuating and continuing to feed into the same root causes only makes it more difficult to resolve.

Finally, if you think that beef filled with GMO corn is some kind of magical health / nutrition goal post, well, there's nothing I could possibly say to counteract the sheer inanity of that position.

I think Beyond Beef is fine. I don't eat it for "health" reasons, and anyone who eats mass produced ground beef for "health" reasons is just straight up lying to themselves. All of these are comfort foods that we can all sustainbly live without. The decision is whether the slight taste difference is worth the absolutely terrible cost to the environment, and the devastating cost associated with the mass slaughter of sentient animals.
The privacy problem should be considered
Do all SSDs do that? Is just powering them up every now and then enough? I mean, it's not refreshing the entire drive, is it?
That was, indeed, how cattle used to be raised back in the day, with maybe some grain added to their diet to make up for seasonality of plants (after all, cow eating is a year-round business).

Nowadays, most cattle lives confined in a pen, being fed grass and grains depending on the stage of growth. There’s still some very small farmers using the traditional methodology, but the vast majority of the meat you can buy in a supermarket - even fancy ones like Wholefoods - are the product of mass production.

The USDA’s website has a pretty good rundown of the process: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal-products/cattle-beef/...
Are you quoting the opinion of Advertisers? Advertising could only be benifical to society if advertisers knew better about what a person needed then the person itself.

Certainly if this were not the case, people seek out advertisements themselves (classifieds).
Land doesn't have to be used for anything, unless you want to do things.

The point is that grazing is much less destructive to the original ecology than farming, so it's not clear that 1 acre of farming is better than 100 acres of grazing.

I might be misguided here, but AFAIK grazing doesn't "deplete" the land at all (and might even improve the land with manure / etc), where as farming absolutely does unless you're careful about it.
There's a lot of talk in the comments here about how ads are terrible, Jeff is terrible, etc. Eg "I personally have a very low opinion of anyone who works for a company that does that and even lower of anyone who actually works on serving those adverts."

According to https://www.jefftk.com/donations, Jeff and Julia have donated about $1.5m. GiveWell top rated charities are estimated [1] to save a life for each $3,000 - $5,000 donated. For a ballpark analysis, let's call that $4,000 and ignore secondary factors (eg inflation over their donation history).

Jeff and Julia have saved something like 375 lives, many of them likely children.

Please keep that in mind while forming and communicating your views.

[1] https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities
The cost is a shame. Still, it will be cheaper eventually.
Energy. Storage is the topic of the day, but I personally think nuclear science is the tip of an iceberg we are completely blind of today. But when we start turning on the light in that corner, it’s going to rocket technological progress in very short order in ways we only ever dreamed. I’m very sure we’ll soon look back on our understanding and use of energy today like we do with horseback as a primary means of transportation now.

BioScience. So, so, so many things out there we ALREADY know/have/are capable of, but are held back from exploding us forward due to religiously founded governance. Younger generations are less tied to the latter, allowing the former to actually progress.

Both of these will happen faster than we think.
Yeah, I’ve only read part of that book but it’s quite good. There’s also a long PBS documentary based on it that came out in the ‘90s (maybe ‘95?) available on YouTube.
We should encourage PL experimentation and welcome new languages!

But keep in mind that cost of entry for production usage these days is a full suite of tooling (package manager, code formatter, language server for IDEs, etc).

I didn't see a standout feature in this article on Grain that made me think the manpower investment in developing the language and tooling is worth it, but I could be wrong!
Kudos to Tshepang Lekhonkhobe! It’s wonderful to see an African name in the contributors list. Can anyone spot others?
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005001514747616.html
There are more factors to systemic racism than just worse economic outcomes, so it's naive to assert that only black people experience its negative effects.

Immigration comes to mind, where profiling is rampant in enforcement (but only really for people who look Mexican, not for people who look / sound Canadian). Or even immigration quotas -- there's the same annual green card cap per country, whether it's India or China or Iceland, thereby implicitly biasing toward smaller countries.

Or, affirmative action being used as a wedge issue for Asian Americans especially.

And just because some Asian populations are doing well, doesn't mean that _all_ of them are.
My reading of the article, admittedly not a professional one, was that there is definitely still some micromanaging to do. That being said, yeah I'm definitely not confident in my position here. Every single damn thing I learn about biology makes it all the more incredible.
This looks like a cool and interesting project, but some of the syntax choices seem a little... all over the place to me. It seems like it's drawing quite a bit of inspiration from ML-family languages without fully internalizing _why_ things are the way they are there.

Of course, that's all "just syntax" and not the end of the world.

Reason targets a similar use case* but, to me, makes a more sane set of syntactic choices and tradeoffs, while also having access to the whole OCaml ecosystem. I'm not sure why one would reach for Grain over that, though maybe I'm just not the target audience here.

* i.e. developers who want type safety, good inference, a familiar JS-ish syntax, and to target the web

edit: I see now that the compiler is built in Reason -- I'd imagine they've thought about these things and made considered choices on syntax!
Pencil is fantastic and I used it many times for visualizing architecture. It's one of the few good diagramming tools available on Linux. I think I've donated a couple times to support them.

That said, portability and collaboration are important to me which has drawn me to cloud solutions like draw.io.
> Now some JIT impls like tracing JIT replace virtual function calls with if-elses.

I think it was about 2010ish when I first noticed a C compiler (Microsoft's) doing this optimization for function pointer calls. Might have been a link time optimization, because caller and callee were in different compilation units.
There needs to be nuance for sure. People are still responsible for their own actions and the only way to guarantee you wont succeed is to not try.

At the same time there is systemic unfairness both in the legacy of racism that has created inequality and in how society operates to this very day and I don't know how you solve those problems if you don't address them. The status quo is not acceptable to myself or a lot of other people
I think the best angle is the one given in the title: 90% less greenhouse emissions, 99% less water, and 93% less land.

This is an approach that provides compelling meal options in a manner that scales much better than our traditional livestock methods.
> Lisp was never supposed to be written with S-expressions. They were intermediate representation, for bootstrapping.

That's not the complete picture.

The early Lisp manual had a definition for Lisp syntax. The Lisp syntax was based on M-expressions for code and S-expressions for data.

Basically what now is

(append (quote (1 2 3))
(quote (a b c)))

was

append[(1,2,3);(A,B,C)]

where the function call uses M-Expression syntax and the data were S-expressions.

Then we have so-called S-Functions, which work with S-expressions. append is such an s-function.

McCarthy then defined a mapping from M-Expressions to S-Expressions, thus that M-Expressions could be represented (not just written, but also in memory) as S-expressions.

In the next step he defined new S-functions called apply and eval, which took M-Expressions as S-Expression data and computed the results of apply or eval operations.

Example use of apply:

apply[(LAMBDA,(X,Y),(CONS,X,Y));((A,B),(B,C))]

Thus these s-functions could compute with code which was represented at runtime by s-expression data.

Thus such a program would use both code in M-Expression format and compute with code in S-Expression format.

Since these S-functions apply and eval could be themselves translated to s-expressions and get executed, the specific S-functions apply and eval could get executed by a s-expression evaluator.

The code above would then be written:

(APPLY,(LAMBDA,(X,Y),(CONS,X,Y)),(QUOTE,((A,B),(B,C))))

which in modern way would be written as

(apply (lambda (x y)
(cons x y))
(quote ((a b) (b c))))

Since programs thus were executed / computed as s-expressions, they were input, computed and printed as s-expressions.

Thus the idea of a simple s-expression meta-programming system made the idea of an additional step of m-expression syntax reading/printing less attractive.
I have used mongo heavily in the past and had similar problems.

More often than not I hear the rationalization the no-sql is easier to develop because you don't need schemas. In my opinion that is a horrible anit-pattern.

What I am curious about is the use-cases where mongo actually is the correct choice of pg.
Simply false. Cats, for example, will die without animal protein.
How to regrow a wrecked coral reef
Fellow vegetarian take: I stopped eating meat for environmental reasons, not because I disliked the experience of eating meat, and while I was never a big meat eater, there are definitely some meat-containing foods I miss from time to time, a good burger being one. I think a well-made black bean burger can be really great, and without priors I'd probably say better than fake meat, but for whatever reason it doesn't pull the nostalgia levers for me, so I do like an impossible burger every now and then.

More importantly though, I don't really thing I'm the target audience (nor are you). I think it's more like, say, my parents: generally environmentally conscious (retrofit their house with a heat pump, etc.), but have established dietary habits that have kept them from making big changes specifically around meat. I think if you were able to offer them something indistinguishable from the real thing, though, they'd be totally down to swap it out at a barbecue or whatever. Personally I think getting 50% of Americans to cut their meat intake by 20% is way easier than getting 10% to give meat up entirely, especially with good alternatives, and the outcome is the same. Worth a shot, I'd say?
What Questions Might the Lender Ask You Before Giving You a Loan Approval?
That industry led to lots of chemical dumping in the area, so watch out.
Does Desalination remove DDT and its breakdown products?

https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2021-04-26/ddt-was...
So if some day an alien race arrives and starts farming humans for sandwich meat just because they like the way we taste that's fair play as far as you're concerned?
Have you tried the Impossible Whopper? I was pretty impressed by it. I still get it once in a while since it's pretty good and something different.
This is condensed pseudo-science given a veneer of acceptability by offhand reference to actual PTSD trauma research and treatment practice in psychiatry.
Generally speaking, a victim is someone who didn't/doesn't have the power to keep themselves from being a victim.
Exactly, you be better. The most important person you need to change is yourself.
No no you're right, we should all do better myself included. I shouldn't have called you a tin foil hat wearing flunky. The other side does that and I don't agree with that. I'm sorry I take that back.

I guess my point was there's a parallel between theorizing that it has to be aliens in theorizing that it has to be fabrication that I see is equally crazy.

I like your point about people mimicking each other. I hadn't thought about that and I do think it's a definite possibility. I guess as I've said elsewhere I simply have too much faith in people to believe there are so many morally corrupt people who fabricate this kind of stuff for some sort of attention or money or fame.

I reached a different conclusion to you and it's normal that will have different views on this topic because it's a big complex topic and none of us have any idea what it's about.

I was pretty harsh to you so I'm sorry. It's no excuse but I guess I feel hurt and angry about what I see as the normalization of abuse of people bold enough to share their stories and say maybe there's something we don't understand is going on. On closer reading of what you said and on your subsequent explanation where I think you did a much better job of explaining your points (I don't think you explained it at all clearly in the first one but you definitely explained it in the follow-up) I see that you weren't saying that. You're just critiquing Robin's particular logic. But I sensed that you delivered it with that kind of contempt for this topic that I see as so corrosive and hurtful, and I hoped to push you away from that into a more reflective and more open and respectful stance towards this topic, And the people brave enough to say what they think about it. Clearly I didn't go about that in the right way. I'm sorry please forgive me, ...but ... i do have more "lecturing" to give you ;) ;p xx if you're up for that
Are the second, third and fourth rungs so horrible? The bottom of the ladder is pretty bad, but people going to uni are unlikely to be on the bottom. As far as computer science goes, you can be a total fuck up and still easily live an upper middle class life.
I have to reiterate that you are arguing against a straw man.

The notion that DEI advocates have redefined racism to mean “inequitable outcomes” is a framing that has been constructed by conservatives and IDW types, but it is _not_ what DEI is about.

DEI is about what _explains_ the inequitable outcomes.

Given the history of western societies and the United States in particular, it is reasonable to assert that there should be a burden of proof to show that there are no longer racial privileges rather than the converse. Especially when the same hierarchy is displayed when looking at patterns of racial inequalities today. Further, there is significant scholarship that draws direct lines between things like redlining, housing convenants, and sentencing disparities and those same racial inequalities.

There are really only two classes of descriptions that can explain such disparities.

1. All people are inherently equally capable regardless of racial categorization, the disparities we observe at due to barriers placed in front of disadvantaged groups.

Or

2. Some groups are more capable of others, either due to biological or cultural factors.

2 has played out throughout the history of European colonization in different forms, both as a “scientific” practice and through cultural chauvinism. Both are general regarded as white supremacy, because that’s a fairly appropriate label.

One place I do agree with you however is here:
“The claim that white people don’t experience racism is objectively wrong”

The social justice side actually agrees with you and has just started an unhelpful fight over semantics. Whether you want to call is “racism” or “prejudice” it’s not like there is anything special about white people that makes it impossible to discrimination against them. That does differ, though, from structural level discrimination.
Why doesn't (or does?) this apply to youtube, spotify, or other similar services?
Rufus: Reliable USB Formatting Utility
Seems to be a new "feature". I'm also getting this as of an hour ago! Pretty stupid if you ask me, since my account is linked to all my Android devices, where I have Google Play installed and have purchased apps with a CC, so verifying my CC again seems to be lazy or greedy on their part. Alternately submitting a photo ID says it may take up to 3 days to verify. We really need a YouTube competitor sooner than later.
I don’t get it either, as someone who is not a strict vegetarian but also doesn’t eat a lot of meat. For someone that really loves meat, they are going to be supremely disappointed by that product. Similarly, I think most vegetarians would be be disappointed by that product. (I greatly prefer traditional veggie burgers.)

It fits a weird market niche. I think most people that buy it would be better served with really great (non-fake-meat) vegetarian food and the occasional bit of quality meat when they really want it, which would provide a superior eating experience all around and approximately achieve many of the same objectives. I don’t know any vegetarians that really eat the fake meat; most of the people I know that eat it seem to treat them as “offsets” for when they eat real meat.
This is just how those forums end up during these massive market increases (or bubbles if you so feel inclined). I remember back in 2017/18 /r/cryptocurrency it was a lot of sob stories and anecdotes mixed in with a bunch of pump and dump shilling.
It's not one step removed, it's 90 steps out of 100 removed, right?
The important part here is the consumption of resources, 90% less land/water/energy also means 90% fewer animals that had to die for the product.
(Also we could enforce more environmental protection measures while still being able to feed everyone.)
I’m going to guess that you are young (<30)?

If so, my only advice is just keep doing what you’re doing. Start, get bored, start something else, get bored. Do it over and over again. Don’t stop.

Keep going until you find yourself into something that you don’t WANT to let go.

Life has a way of guiding you on its own. Just keep going until you find it.

There’s nothing wrong with you. You just haven’t found “it” yet. Which is just fine.

Keep going.
as for page 41, sand eroding from pebble is not a convincing argument imho. page 41 is sufficient proof for me.
I can't figure out why I would want this.

So glad we traded the dev tools team for trash like this.

Being a fan of Mozilla is hard these days.
But... that’s actually a product of the industrialization of meat production. It’s like justifying climate change because ‘oh well, we’ve done until now so might as well keep going’.

In reality people are OK with violence against animals because when they think about animal products they just picture a slab of meat they pick up from the freezer at the supermarket. If they realized what feeds the process that ends up in that neatly packaged sirloin, I’m pretty sure they’d have a different reaction than ‘meh’.

(And again, I fish and hunt so it’s not like I’m some bleeding-heart hippie who can’t take violence against animals. I just think that we should all be less cavalier about meat intake, which after all is a very recent phenomenon)
I take my Damitol pill every day.
This game well deserves a spot in programming contest questions.
I don't think the places of articulation you list are considered all that different, really. Two speakers of different languages using sounds articulated along that continuum are likely to recognize the other language's sound as being their own, but sounding a little funny. (This phenomenon is especially notable for rhotics, where different languages may realize an "r" in very different ways -- for example, Spanish and Russian have loud alveolar trills, English has a retroflex approximant, and French has a uvular trill -- but everyone broadly agrees on which sounds are R-like, despite the fact that a Spanish R has much more in common with an English D, physically, than it does with an English R.)

Looking at the example sidethread of Mandarin pinyin "q", it is a laminal palatal aspirated affricate. Its equivalent in English is a much more complex issue than the equivalent of a Spanish "t", which everyone agrees on. The "q" may be perceived as a "ts" (witness "Tsingtao beer"), which is the English sound combination most closely matching the positioning of the tongue, though not the positioning of the restriction in airflow, or it may be perceived as "ch", which is the English single sound most closely matching the place and manner of articulation. Different English speakers may even disagree on the interpretation while listening to the same speech, and the same English speaker will disagree on (or be confused about) the interpretation when listening to the same speaker produce the sound multiple times.

There are languages that distinguish retroflex stops from alveolar stops, and IPA obliges those languages with different symbols for the two places of articulation. Do you know of a language that distinguishes alveolar stops from dental stops?
>I also find it a frustrating American-centric/urban-centric point of view that 'killing animals is bad'

This isn't really even an American centric view. It might be a silicon valley centric view or Upper class suburbs of America centric view. But the fact of the matter in most of America, the working class areas, the rural areas, etc. There are absolutely no moral qualms about hunting, or killing animals or eating meat.
Real meat is lindy. Fake meat is not. We won't know until multi-decade studies have been done on the health effects of a fake meat diet.
https://blaze.vercel.app/
height i could understand. reasonably short people seem like they’d be advantageous for space travel, up to a point — same as pilots on earth. but legs seem.. pretty important. i can’t imagine that someone without legs would be as mobile or able to stabilise themselves as well as legged individuals in low gravity, and doing an eva to repair something outside a spacecraft would seem especially perilous.
People who correct others grammar on the internet "found to be less agreeable"

https://www.ladbible.com/news/news-people-who-point-out-gram...
All living things die and are eaten by other living things. This isn’t wrong, it is the way nature works.

Would you have every living thing just...stay alive forever? That’s not going to happen.