skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> What are the factors that you think would cause prices to reduce?

1) reductions in cost of launches
2) reductions in cost of satellites
3) bandwidth capacity improvements per satellite

I could keep going, but it’s obvious you’ve convinced yourself of a narrative and aren’t willing to think rationally about the topic, so I’m not going to waste my time.
Learning a piano piece is simply building up muscle memory, through repetitions.

If you practice and make mistakes, you are building up muscle memories for the wrong notes.

As a piano player, what OP says wrings very true. It's tempting to just "play the piece" to practice it, but this is very inneficient, for the reason stated above. focused repetitions is order of magnitudes faster.
> There’s no way to catch everything. But they market this, and use it as justification for their walled garden.

This is a valid point, and also the reason this particular attack is so interesting. Apple's system relies on holding people/companies accountable for submitting malware. Apple has the power to knock a company out of the App Store, so the company is incentivized to not push the limits. This hack is an attack directly on this relationship-based system. It's an attack on Apple's ability to punish. This doesn't make Apple's system worthless, just worth less.
That is literally not explicit (where by "literally" I mean literally, not figuratively, and by "explicit", I mean explicit, not implicit). It is sort of hinted at, but it is not explicitly said that the host will mechanically reveal a door that has a goat. It is quite conceivable that the host picks a door randomly, or in fact that he picks the door with the car with a certain probability (saving the show quite some money).
Here's another thought experiment.

Forget the opening of the door.

Start with picking a door at random, you have a 1/3 chance of having picked the car. On that I think we all agree.

Now let's say that the host offers to let you switch from the door you picked, to the other _two_ doors combined. He hasn't opened any doors, they are all closed, you're allowed to stick with your initial guess of one door, or switch to a combined guess of the other two doors.

If that's the case it should be fairly obvious that you have a 2/3 chance of getting the car by switching to the combined 2 doors.

Now that you've switched, would it really make a difference to your odds if the host opens one of your doors to reveal a goat? Would that lower your probably to 1/2 or would it remain 2/3?
> How exactly is the $300-ish Nintendo Switch a different thing altogether than a $300-ish iPad or iPod Touch

To start with, the Switch has superior first-party games, real physical buttons, real physical media, and less f2p garbage in its app store. It also lacks a decent web browser, email client, music player, Discord, and many other useful apps.

Another difference is that there is a DMCA exception for jailbreaking tablets and smartphones, but there is no such exception for handheld game consoles.

Which is nonsensical, because the hardware is nearly identical, and games are far and away the largest category of apps for tablets and smartphones.

So Gruber is right: they're nearly identical hardware, both used as handheld gaming/streaming devices, and it is wildly inconsistent to say that it is OK for Nintendo to have a closed eShop but not OK for Apple to have a closed App Store.
I'm not sure what wash you're referring to, but I'm talking about brand new jeans. Can't they measure whatever they want at the end of manufacture instead of the beginning? It's not like the consumer wears anything but the end product. The error bars are ridiculous.
There's lots of actual war. Not all wars are world wars.

Edit: it's also not the point of my post. The US invests in its military partially under the pretense of existential threats (basically, commies invading the mainland). That is undermined by having an laughably easy to cripple defense.
I looked at my bills. What changed is the city/clean power alliance (CPA) now provides my power, they claim to provide 100% clean power to my home. I now pay a generation charge and some other fees to the CPA. There are options to have 40%, 50%, or 100% clean power with 100% being the default. According to the CPA calculator, the difference in cost between 40% and 100% clean power is less than 10% of the bill - either way you still pay more now. Not complaining about having clean power.
But the goal isn't neuroplasticity, it's to play a single song. If you're looking to compose or improvise, then sure. Otherwise, learn to play without mistakes. I spent many years accepting errors in my playing and now wish I'd been more intentional in my practice habits.
You can backup your 2FA TOTP qrcodes to physical cold storage, and you can keep backups. Most non-technical people understand the process of "keep this print out safe + secure"

However you can lose control of your SMS phone number any number of ways that are beyond your control.

It's frustrating that so many providers push SMS as the only 2FA, when there are so many problems with it, and TOTP is provably better, privacy preserving, and much easier to work with.
Sadly, it's beneath scientific journals to feature a picture of a cat sitting proudly in a pretend box.
I feel like it's also a stereotype that mathy nerds play piano and violin when they're younger.
Well worth a watch - Abnett is the best writer in the GW canon by far and a significant asset. I remember when it was mostly Andy Chambers and Gav Thorpe writing the best stuff and Abnett was a new hand on the tiller.

The Gaunt’s Ghosts series in particular is a jewel.
I don't fully understand this business and so it seems a little off to me.

You claim:

> An authenticator that has public, verifiable proof to their claim of expertise will be assigned to your order.

Can you please share some of that public, verifiable proof?

You are averaging $28 per order and you say you have a 'team' of experts to help you do authentication. Is an expert's time really worth so little that this price point is profitable? Or is authentication really that trivial to do?

You only track revenue and net revenue and not profit. You are getting around $200k in revenue per year. It would be very enlightening to know the costs of the team of experts and now much of that revenue is profit.

You seem to be running something like 6 other lines of businesses at the same time:

- Layered Ink, a new way to do digital writing.

- Price Unlock, a SaaS pricing tool.

- Synergy, something that helps with decision making.

- Dear Mom/Investor, writing up progress/financial number of your businesses for subscribers.

- LegitCheck Price Comparison, a tool to find the lowest prices

- LegitCheck Organizer, a reselling tool (without those unnecessary fees)

To do that many things well would be extraordinary.

Doing some brief investigation into your competitors, this industry seems to be full of companies putting forth an image that they are a large and respected team with real expertise, while further digging suggests they are one person writing their opinions of questionable value and calling them certificates of authenticity. Why should your users trust that you aren't another one of those companies?

You claim expertise in 91 brands. In order to truly be able to authenticate those, it seems like it would require a good amount of expertise and time. You claim:

> Real expertise, not self-claimed.

> Find out the truth about your item and either start wearing it proudly or we’ll help you get your money back. > Our expertise is backed by the 1,000,000+ words we've written on this subject.

but with all due respect, writing lots of blog posts is not a basis for 'real expertise' rather than 'self-claimed'. You could be an expert in authenticity for 91 brands (I have no idea), or you could be a rando on the internet regurgitating (mis)information found on the internet. Being good at something and getting noticed for talking about something a lot are different skill sets. Why should your users believe you have real expertise in all 91 of those brands?
>If people attacked our hospitals and pipelines with explosives we wouldn't sit by and do nothing.

You are proposing that we attack them with explosives, are you fine with them retaliating in kind?

What if you lived next to some hackers targeting a foreign country, would you think it's acceptable to get blown up for their actions?
These aren't even comparable.

- Epic marketplace has a few exclusive video game titles for their marketplace.

- Their games can be installed on multiple platforms.

- Also, there are dozens of competing video game marketplaces, each with their own exclusives. You can't play Zelda on PC.

Vs.

- There are only two brands of smartphones. Everyone is forced into this duopoly.

- iPhone is a device that doesn't let users repair it

- iPhone is a device that doesn't let users install their own software

- iOS forces all commerce through Apple's tax rails

- iOS prevents forming a relationship with customers as it gives businesses a disposable fake contact. These are "Apple's customers", not yours.

Businesses have two choices: fuck off and die of irrelevancy, or put on the Apple gimp suit and get fucked. There's no way this was ever legal. We've all just been gaslighted by Apple's mind-bending PR. They've constructed the biggest monopoly of all time.
Pywal: Generate and apply color schemes from a background image on the fly
HackerNews isn’t for “scoring points”, your comment doesn’t contribute anything to the discussion. Make your snappy clap backs on twitter
i care less that people categorize Lil Nas X's music as country than as his music being semi marketed to children and hooking them and then coming out with a video directly referencing those songs while his entire video is of him "coming out" with his sexuality as some kind of illuminati, Satanist sex kitten, sliding down a stripper pole to give satan a lap dance for half the video. Not a great role model.
I find that there is a huge cross-over between programming and music. IIRC, someone told me years ago, that the most common non-CS degree among programmers was music. I can't verify it, but my experience does not belie it either.
Chinese Long March 5B re-enters over Arabian Peninsula
Avoid OpenCL. If you're going to the trouble to use an FPGA, it means you really want performance. In that case, there's no avoiding the rewrite in VHDL/Verilog and specifically targeting the resources that your FPGA hardware offers and rewriting your algorithms accordingly. The platforms are not the same.

e.g. 32-bit floating point is what GPUs are made for, while FPGAs really only handle integers unless you've purchased an expensive one with specialized arithmetic units on chip (e.g. DSP48 slice for Xilinx).
Copy-on-write is not fundamentally what we're talking about.

Copy-on-write is "the called function receives the original, but if it needs to write, then there's explicit code that makes a copy and replaces the reference to the original with a reference to the copy."

What we're talking about here is:

• A function is being compiled. It receives one of its formal parameters "by value." That parameter's data is larger than a machine-register in size.

• The compiler uniformly generates the call-sites of this function to provide the address of the original data, passing it in a register. The call-sites of the function look the same whether or not the function does the copy.

• The compiler, by static analysis of the function, determines whether the function really needs a copy—i.e. whether it would make a difference to the code whether the copying ever happens.

• If it needs a copy, then the compiler generates the function to have a prologue that does a copy from the address in the caller-passed register to the address in the stack pointer; and then the compiler generates code that interacts with the copy as a local stack variable. (Because, after the copy, it is!)

• But if the function doesn't actually "need" a copy, then the compiler generates no copy in the function prologue, and generates code for the function body that interacts with the original indirectly through the passed address in the register."

This has nothing-at-all to do with copy "on" write. This is "copy now, if we can't guarantee there won't be a write later."

Which is already what compilers do. That's what "pass by value" means. It's just that current calling conventions restrict compilers from being able to ever make that guarantee; whereas under the proposed calling convention, they would sometimes be able to make that guarantee.
What was added to the App code wasn't outside the bounds of acceptable code in apps, as far as I can tell. But maybe I missed something?

It just took some data from allowed phone APIs and sent it to a server, which is allowed. And maybe opened some other apps through deeplinking, which is also allowed.

How is a reviewer to know that the code in the app wasn't put there intentionally by the developer?

Maybe force everything through DNS and include a list of domains in the app submission. You might be surprised at how many people can connect when you include an IP in the app that couldn't connect via DNS though; if your user base is big enough, it adds up.
Didn't mean to suggest that they didn't do a fine job with what they did write. I did feel that the title overstated Marshall Dylan's role in it.

As for the 'music industry history' quote ... couldn't agree more. The industry did and does a great deal of damage to popular music since it popped up in the 1930s to decide what songs appeared on 'Your Hit Parade'. I also wanted to take this chance to promote Montgomery's overlooked film; it gets so much right with so much heart.
That quora answer does not quote the actual question she received. This archive claims to have the actual question: https://web.archive.org/web/20130121183432/http://marilynvos...

> the host, who knows what’s behind the doors, opens another door, say #3, which has a goat

The question, if that was indeed the formulation, very explicitly does state that the host both knows what's behind the doors, and uses that knowledge to show a goat.

Unless someone provides evidence of more ambiguity in the original question, I'm going to have to trust Marilyn's website to be quoting the question correctly... And the question seems to make the assumption very clear.
> The majority of that headcount spend is just to capture "talent" so others don't have it.

I think people on both sides forget this. You don’t need 300 engineers to solve very many problems, but if you use 300 it means 2 other companies don’t solve it too.

And just because you’re making a ton of money working for a big company, doesn’t mean that what you’re doing is that important. It might just be to humor you. Even at small places, sometimes the established players get thrown a bone, working on something frivolous because it makes them happy, so they stick around.
brand new jeans are washed before you get them. it gives them the texture.

i noticed that a certain jean i buy fit consistently only within a given dye and wash. darker pair or different wash fit differently.
Depends on your family's needs.

My neighbors have five children with the two youngest in diapers. They use cloth diapers to save money and reduce waste.

I am pretty sure they are running at least one load per day, perhaps more.
I think it boils down to the fact that time isn’t reversible, so the “reverse problem” isn’t like the “forward” version.

Let’s take some new problems. Suppose you have 100 doors and no switching. Your probability is 1/100, even if the host later opens a goat door, so in that sense the new information is irrelevant. But if we “reverse it” and the host opens the door first and you guess second, your probability improves to 1/99. So now suddenly the same information is relevant. Two things to observe here, one is that the forward and reverse problems are different, the other is that the relevance or irrelevance of the information depends on the direction of time. If you learn the information before you act it is relevant, afterward it is irrelevant.

One way to think about Monty Hall is you’re deciding which of these games to play. If you will stick with your first decision, you are sorta turning it into the toy problem above, where you decide the door first and then the goat information is irrelevant. Vs if you will switch, the goat door is opened before you decide, which is relevant.

Another way to think about it is with two contestants. Let’s say I pick the door initially, then someone opens the goat door, and finally you decide whether to switch. In this scenario, you don’t have self-preference bias to stick with “my” original door. In fact, my decision was the irrelevant information. It doesn’t matter at all what door I picked, what matters is whether you pick the right door, and involving me at all is a kind of misdirection to anchor you to the 1/3 probability.
That resvolves a 404 for me.
Messages' end to end cryptography are actively backdoored for the FBI.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv...
For a counterpoint to the confidence, but still a very high-confidence prediction, Aubrey de Grey has recently estimated a 50% chance that we'll hit longevity escape velocity by 2036. That is, enough treatments will be available to people such that they can expect their lifespans to be Y, an increase from their previous X. But before they hit Y age, there'll be new treatments developed they can take that extend expected life age even further to Z, and so on, until we arrive at general treatments that extend life indefinitely.

Aubrey is the foremost expert in the whole field of longevity research as far as I'm concerned, so I don't have any reason to be more or less confident than him about any aspect of it. If you haven't read it, his Ending Aging book covers a lot of details. It was published in 2007 but has still held up, especially with overall strategy. Apart from the various medical developments since then, another encouraging sign is the increase in newly formed companies in the space, lowering the need for philanthropy/government grants. https://agingbiotech.info/ has a list
Before the bitcoin you would ask for release of prisoners. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lufthansa_Flight_615 or get steady funding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_the_Jackal https://www.rferl.org/a/carlos_the_jackal_on_trial_for_1980s...
Yes, I’d think the formal fetishists of analytic philosophy are a symptom for sure (some of the projects of Russell, Frege, etc.), but I’m referring to a more general tendency after Descartes (of which Humean skepticism might be interpreted as an example) to take the cogito quite far, insofar as one falls into solipsism, forgetting that being and knowledge need objective grounds and are highly dependent on interaction with the so called “other” (a radical Descartean position would argue that the mind is able to “know” purely of its own accord and deemphasize the communicative and collaborative aspects of knowledge creation (an ahistoricity)). If you examine anglo-saxon philosophical practice post-Descartes you’ll find solipsistic tendencies are more then rule than the exception. (Continental philosophy is more exempt from this tendency, but also has instances of this)
If you would like to help out you can seed some at risk torrents which can be found here —> https://phillm.net/libgen-seeds-needed.php

For more information you can visit u/shrine’s original post here —> https://old.reddit.com/r/seedboxes/comments/e129yi/charitabl...
Any form (passive/active voice...) or description (especially of a wide array of attributes, for example of the context) can be interpreted in various ways, either discounting or condemning an actor.

"Chaotic", for me, conveys that there is no known way to always adequately solve this sort of problem ("911 calls ((...)) about a 'guy acting suspicious' who the callers thought had a gun"), however I reckon that interpreting it as some pseudo-justification is possible.

In a similar vein one may interpret the George Floyd case as exposing a "popular culture of corruption". One may also think that such cases have many causes, just like most major technological disasters result from a chain of causes (multiple and redundant safeties, however in some rare cases something isn't properly handled).
A main cause may be that speaking up about a criminal colleague is only possible if you know for sure that he is guilty, meaning that you probably are a witness, and in such a case a colleague of the culprit. There are many reasons for teammates to cover-up each other. For example they may all be guilty of something (establishing a "popular culture of corruption"), or they may think that their colleague is guilty but should be pardoned given his merits (somewhat acting as judges). Some configurations of the rotten apple's team forbid any upper stratum (department, union, community...) to work adequately, as they will systematically amplify the testimony of those teammates.

You don't have "one bad cop", but rather a non-neglectable probability for his teammates to avoid speaking out about his reprehensible acts, and also unreasonable hopes about the ability of upper strata to attain to the truth.

In theory we may alleviate this by establishing larger teams and/or frequently changing (rotating) their members, hoping that it will reduce complicit distortions. In practice this leads to a new set of problems, not only related to cost but also to sheer practical efficiency: a team larger and/or populated with members not used to work with each other cannot be as efficient as a small (but sufficient) and more tightly made one.
You can't get an Apple ID without giving a phone number.

Opening the App Store app transmits your hardware serial number to Apple, like a permanent supercookie, linking it to your email address and phone number and city-level location via client IP.
I'm not sure about these, but there are public limited partnerships that anyone can buy like a stock.

If you don't realize what you are getting into, you may regret it because you will get a K-1 at tax time.

I don't know if it's any more of a tax dodge than an REIT.
Sure, the tax bracket in 1913 might have been 1 million USD (not adjusted for inflation). The highest tax bracket was also paying 67 percent in 1917 and 77 percent in 1918 [1]. During WW2, the tax rate for the highest bracket jumped to a whopping 94% [1]. Most people don't realize how low the rates have gotten compared to previous times. Subsequently, as rates have gotten lower, the income inequality gap is near all-time highs [2].

[1] https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Inco...

[2] https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-...

Note: I'm not saying correlation = causation; just an interesting phenomenon to notice.
Chinese rocket debris crashes back to Earth, plunging into Indian Ocean
There is a fair amount of branding on the Youtube channel around "Sabine", so she might be deliberately encouraging the informality.
This is an interesting point. I thought about it and concluded that for me there’s a gradient of any freedom between the harm it causes and the liberty it grants. Making nukes accessible at Walmart is a little bit more freedom with likely much more harm. Allowing gun ownership is much more freedom with an increase in harm, but as I see it the increase in freedom is much bigger than the increase in harm.

On the other end of the spectrum of marginally more harm but dramatically less freedom, would you suggest that we go into a covid shutdown every flu season? Or compelled speech laws? Or banning cars because the harm they cause? It’s all a balance between freedom and harm.
Both options sound sane, so I guess it will be

3) blame Russia/China
Yeah I get that they're washed, but I don't care if they're washed... can't they just measure something after the wash? Is what I'm asking.

I'm talking about the exact same dye btw. Like the same color, number, everything. Only difference is sizes. I've gotten smaller sizes an inch larger than the "larger" sizes for the exact same jeans. It's ridiculous.