skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think this is a vague line of reasoning. We want to give animals quality of life, because it’s a humane thing to do, but also slaughter them, which is inhumane. So which is it: is the life of animals just as important, or less?

The same line of reasoning can be applied to humans. We can have really shitty deaths categorised as ‘old age’, yet euthanising is controversial.
Wealth has a compounding effect.If your parents have the means to provide you tutoring lessons and a private education at top institutions from an early age, this has a stronger influence that mere talent. Talent is just not a good term to use here, it obfuscates that actual talent is rare compared to the much more common state of being "well taught and prepared," which is very much correlated to wealth and geography. Who gets to go to Top Schools in France? An majority of sons and daughters of Parisians. And I wouldn't imply top talents mostly occur in Paris.

Entry into Grandes Ecoles is usually a function of three things: knowledge, preparedness, and, indeed, talent. But that last variable has a much lesser effect that what people tend to assume.
Maybe the bribery to get your Doctor to recommend a different drug than is probably best for you or your pocket book?

Maybe the campaigns pushing opioids on doctors and patients to the point of crisis?

Insulin is at least twice the price (depending on type might be 3 or 4 times) in the $US as anywhere else in the world.

There's that famous case where a Turing Pharma skyrocketed price of Daraprim that only they were manufacturing because, well, they could get away with it.
> I hope we start rolling out desalination at scale before things get dire.

Desalination is easy for household water but probably not practical for farming.

But running out of household water is almost entirely a political and allocation problem to begin with.

So while desalination is one way to prevent dire situations, there's no reason to even have dire situations.
Debunking a theory doesn't make it disappear. Sometime it can do the opposite and reinforce the theory.

In this case there is no smoking gun either way and a natural origin is much harder to trace than lab origin. That lack of absolute certainty, which science is often comfortable working with, leaves room for alternative theories to circulate and attach to those who like the sound of them for various reasons. It is a common human flaw that being aware that an event could hypothetically occur can be mistaken for proof that event actually occurred.
A great software solution. I had a look and once Linux boots it actually uses devicemapper to map a dm device to the raw sectors containing the iso which it extracts (as it may be fragmented) to feed to dmsetup. Kinda crazy.

There is also a couple of hardware projects that to that in hardware. I used the ISOstick for many years.

You can also PXE NetBoot a lot of installers with dynamic menu selection - see http://netboot.xyz
>I think the easiest way to write webassembly is to write it in webassembly text format:

It's the simplest, but not the easiest.
Maintaining projects in assembler requires much less heroics than developing them. Significant part of Soviet computer program, shortly before (Minsk 32), and after they switched to cloning IBM mainframes (ES EVM), was maintained in assembler only, once they lost access to the original PL/S source code of the OS and other system products. These were teams of many people and the activity lasted long enough time to fit your criterium. They certainly outlived the originators by several dozen years.

Maintenance involved fixing bugs (including in the OS kernel), localizing software to a different language (sounds inoffensive ... when you have source code. Much more nasty when translated sentence doesn't fit into its allocated place in the binary). And adapting to hardware difference, such as less RAM, less capable peripherals and slower CPUs.

EDIT: Minsk 32 was bespoke development but the language still was close enough to hardware to be qualified as assembly by today's standards.
"Black people get 20% longer prison sentences for the same crimes even when you control for criminal history"

Why "Even" ? It does not say anything about racism if you do not control for other factors, like criminal history and society inclusion. It's phrased as if it would still hold without control variable, and the author is doing a favor to potential nitpicker. It may be true, but the "Even" does not make me confident of the scientific value of the publication and the absence of confirmation bias of the author.
Same with Qnap NAS.

https://www.qnap.com/en/live-demo
Yep... people are missing the obvious point that since the taste is so much worse, Beyond Burgers are just NOT going to sell beyond the population of people that value the ethics over the taste.
> But they are powered by an adequate and smaller number of very highly specialized researchers and engineers designing the product.

It doesn't work this way. You will get very smart people knowing what to do.

But they will not come to work in your city if there will be no factories to make their smart designs, and hire them.

Many tried, many, many to just have RnD shop, and ship everything else to China.

It did not work even for Apple for example. Most of their engineering has moved to China, and they are very shy getting public about this fact. People in Apple RnD office in Kerry Plaza for example were for years forbidden to even disclose the fact that they worked for Apple.
The issue is that it's not framed that way. It's framed as all or nothing, that blacks fail only because of racism. That's my lk entire issue. The message isn'tthat they're disadvantaged, the message is that there is 0 chance.

One encourages them to hold out as it gets better, the other for them to give up till it gets better.

I'm not calling it the root of all problems either, so please don't put words in my mouth. I'm saying it's not even a solution, it's the opposite, worsening the situation and feeding itself.

And to be specific here, I'm referring to the narrative around racism being the sole and primary cause of failure.
I tried Ventoy several months ago, and go back to Rufus because it can’t boot EndeavourOS. That’s weird because every comment I saw about Ventoy is positive.
By not using eval (and sh -c, and everything equivalent) unless it’s absolutely unavoidable and always quoting variables. The $ construct acts basically like (the shell’s) eval. Proper escaping is an absolute must here.
The phrasing might not be perfect, but obviously there is a huge difference in scale in what you compare. (and I don't mean in amounts of taxes, but in amounts of tactics to minimize them)
That isn't how to evaluate a career choice. You evaluate it against all other choices, not in a vacuum. Choosing to work in advertising only comes out ahead if the excess of the good you do with the money you earn over the harm done by the job exceeds the excess good you could have done with money earned over harm of the job from any other job you could have chosen. Net good is better than net harm, but it's not better than even more net good.

Even then, while this kind of individual calculus is at least tractable, there is also the concern of large-scale cultural drift, as in the net impact of the world's smartest people collectively working on things like ad targeting, engineering synthetic financial derivatives, and figuring out how to manufacture scarcity out of abundance so speculators can get rich off of modern tulip mania, compared to what good might have come from whatever else they could have collectively accomplished. It's entirely possible that if Google and Facebook are as good at identifying uniquely talented and intelligent people as they think they are, they could have figured out how to entirely eradicate malaria if that is where they chose to direct the effort rather than figuring out how to predict the spending habits of most people in the world and using some of the profit to buy nets.

I'm not saying this for sure comes out against working for personal profit, of course. Louis Pasteur effectively proved the germ theory of disease, enabling the population explosion of the post-industrial age and possibly the most good ever done, while trying to figure out how to make better wine so he could patent and sell the process. But scant historical knowledge though I have, I'm having trouble thinking of historical examples of great good done by people just being wealthy and giving money to others who then do good, as opposed to direct work on technological good multipliers even when doing good is not the intention. At first, I was thinking maybe Da Vinci, but he might even be a counterexample in that he had little to no direct impact on science and engineering in the centuries to come despite conceiving of quite a few novel devices that were eventually invented. Perhaps if the patrons of Renaissance era Europe had paid their greatest minds to work on engineering instead of art, we could have had the industrial age centuries earlier.
If we're going to play at paranoia and assume the virus was engineered, it doesn't necessarily follow that the release was an accidental leak.

It would be trivially easy for a hostile power to covertly release a pathogen in another country.

It would also be trivially easy to engineer simultaneous release in multiple locations.

It would be less easy but not impossible to take an existing pathogen during a pandemic, engineer a variant, and release it in another country.

There would always be ambiguity and uncertainty about the source, because there are no telltale markers that unambiguously define an origin, or even whether a pathogen is natural or man-made.

I am not suggesting any of this happened. But I am pointing out that biowarfare has some unexpected covert possibilities.

While Covid may or may not be an example - insufficient data - any defensive strategy should consider the possibility that some other pathogen might be seeded deliberately.
Yes, completely agree. Advertising is essentially mind hacking. Companies pay advertisers to introduce their brands into the minds of consumers. It's inherently hostile.
> C++ just has so many features that makes the development of programs and libraries easier, for almost no extra costs.

I respect your opinion, but mine is the exact opposite (I don't know how representative mine is, but I'm sure I'm not alone).

The problem with C++ is that many of those "features" are actually "anti-features". From the top of my head: operator overloading, copy-constructors, constructors, destructors, function overloading. While these "features" may make correct code easier to write, they always make incorrect code much, much harder to understand.

For example, you find a simple line of C++ that says "y=f(x);", and it can do anything: has the parenthesis operator been overloaded? and the copy constructor? how many times is a destructor called here? What are its side effects? What instance of f is called, if none of them is defined for the actual type of x? Every single line of C++ that you have to analyze is a terrifying nightmare like this one.
So funny thing. I was doing some research into the “non traditional” programs at the top schools.

A handful have programs for people who have been outside of academic for some years, and allows them to earn the same undergrad degree.

However the same gpa and test score requirements are all in place and you’re still being judged by who you were at 17/18. I suppose the main difference is instead of looking at involvement in things like sports, student organizations, volunteering, etc. it’s looking at work experience or membership in professional organizations.

But at that point why not just have the apply as a normal undergrad?
Building a supply chain attack with .NET, NuGet, DNS, source generators and more
No mention of your support for the invasion of Iraq then?
A necessary read.
Hi, I think you have posted in the wrong thread. This post seems more suited to those SEEKING WORK: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27025921

edit: typo
The Virtual Telescope Project 2.0: Remotely Controlled Robotic Telescopes Online
I'm not trying to quibble on the wording of your comment, but the thing is maybe you find it easy/obvious/whatever to combine those factors to explain this, but to me it's a fair bit of a jump.

Here's one way to look at it: if we had asked "how will China respond?" back in the beginning, how well would you have been able to predict their response if you had known the virus was of zoonotic origin? What if you had known the virus was of lab origin? I would think in the second case you'd have a lot more people betting that we'd get a swift (& deflective) response than in the former case, but it sounds like you disagree?
I don't think anyone going to McD's have health in mind.
Here is a list of the labs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosafety_level#List_of_BSL-4_...
As a vegetarian maybe I can provide some insight to my position.

The reason I consume dairy and eggs is because I think that fundamentally dairy and egg (honey too) production CAN be ethical, whereas I think intentionally killing an animal for food can never be ethical. I'm aware not everyone shares the same opinion - but for me, killing a conscious being for food is not something I want a part in, even if it had a great life before the slaughter.

However I should also note that I carefully select dairy and eggs I consume, only from organic, free range farms that I've researched. I choose the vegan option if I can't be sure of the provenance of the dairy/eggs. In practice I'm vegan most of the time and consume very little dairy/egg.

I do think I might become some form of vegan in the future though, once I've thought about it more.

However, there are a whole bunch of moral inconsistencies in my position. Per calorie, harvesting certain crops probably kills more conscious beings than certain types of fishing. And I'm not sure certain water creatures (bivalves?) even meet the threshold of consciousness, yet I nevertheless would refuse to eat them.

There are a lot of difficult moral issues at the edges that I think most people ignore. For me, the overall goal of my diet is to try and find a balance between providing me adequate nutrition for a healthy life while reducing overall negative moral and ecological impact to everything that isn't me.
Anger and mood swings seem to be a reported side effect, based on a cursory search. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Plaqunial+anger&t=iphone&ia=web
If you find this interesting, you may also consider canny edge detector.
None of these are relevant for users.
I don't salt my burgers at all. Decent ground meat doesn't need to be salted, and still tastes 100x better than beyond meat.
Love details like this in videogames, can't imagine the work to try and get all the nice details like this in, seems a struggle at times just to get the basics of a project implemented.
I used the same method as you, but from different source.

I tried to dig into my documentation for the link that I saved, it doesn't seem like I saved the google search terms for it, but they can be deduced from the link anyway.

1. https://win10.guru/usb-install-media-with-larger-than-4gb-wi...
Here we go again.

Follow Rocky Linux's path and start a community fork!
> People may cite plumbers but they don't make a fortune and the physical toll is quite serious

The “trades” argument has always felt rather disingenuous to me. Sure you can maybe make money in many trades in a state with a strong union culture or if you own your own business (at which point I argue that the “business” aspect is bigger than the “trade”) one, but in most places I’ve lived, you’re making low 5 figures, maybe upper 5 figures if you have decades of work experience.
Not just that, there are plenty of debates and discussions that don't need every single one of the billions of people on this planet as potential participants.

The people who decry changes like being able to restrict who can reply to you as "eroding discussion" don't seem to realise that what they're actually saying is "either you commit to listening to/engaging with random total strangers yelling whatever they want at you or you shouldn't say anything at all". In my opinion that silently stifles far more speech than the alternative.
Can anyone downvoting explain? Toyg appear to be correct on the drug naming and a known side effects include psychosis, hallucinations and paranoia and according to the wiki.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxychloroquine
Cool, thanks! It makes sense that VS Code would have this down already.
Victorian factory owners might use a similar argument to support using child labour to make cheap goods which the common man can afford; that doesn't mean that child labour is good.
It also means that accidentally adding a space somewhere (“$HOME/go” -> “$HOME /go”) can have catastrophic effect. I wouldn’t dare write a single “rm” if I’m not 100% sure the argument is being quoted.
For ages, there have been Zalman enclosures for making ISO-based multi-bootable external HDDs/SSDs working this way and on a lower level. And iodd which are essentially the same (AFAIK Zalman rebranded them).
CRT is a form of activism and ideology that goes far beyond explaining.

The link you provided is a nice reference, but it's a very small-c conservative description and avoids the harder parts of the issue.

The notion that 'minorities face challenges that majorities will have difficulty perceiving' is not unreasonable. But CRT uses language such as 'White Supremacy' - reminiscent of Men in Pointy White Hats' to describe those 'majority systems'. Their stated objective is to 'deconstruct and destroy Whiteness', implying that the 'majority culture must be removed', and that those who do not realize this and actively participate are holding up structures of White Supremacy.

So they use 'whiteness' in kind of an abstract way, something that 'stands in contrast to blackness' - but they also mean every classical cultural trait.

Things like a 'focus on the correct answer', 'focus on literacy', 'objectivity' etc. - these are artifacts of 'whiteness and white supremacy'.

The link you provided actually is fairly decent, if that text represented CRT then I think there would be controversy, but much less so.

But CRT in practices uses the language of race war: 'Destroy Whiteness or you are a White Supremacist'. In that case 'Whiteness' is effectively an ethnicity, broadly 'Westerners' or 'White People'.

Finally, even if we can agree on what CRT is, it plays heavily into ideological victimhood: 'the student failed to learn to read at a high level because that's a racist, colonial imposition, and shouldn't have to achieve literacy to graduate high school' etc..

When we're talking about 'systematic issues' then those who have a propensity for victimhood can view racism/sexism in literally everything. The 'truck' toy with the 'boy' on the front cover? Gendered language? Your company founders are white and male? It's all oppression.

On one hand, while the notion of systematic racism has legitimacy, CRT ideology opens up an ugly pandora's box that allows people to take an activist perspective on the basis of conjecture about literally everything and it plays directly into, and validates people's worst bigotries.

This article about how 'the sidewalks are racist' is not a joke. They make completely unsubstantiated and bigoted notions about how 'White people walk on sidewalks' at Northwestern U. This is the kind of crude, fantasy racist bigotry, supported and endorsed by CRT thinking. [3]

From the University of Toronto [1]

Wikipedia [2]

[1]
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory

[3] https://dailynorthwestern.com/2021/04/05/opinion/allen-are-t...
Polestar 2 cars are bricking all over the UK
FYI now there’s also :user-invalid which waits for the user to blur out of the field before it indicates the validity.
> but also slaughter them, which is inhumane

This is the very thing I completely disagree with. All living things die, and almost all animals die by being killed by other animals.

Why is it "inhumane" when this killing is done by a human with a sharp knife or electrocution, but it is "humane" when done by a wolf tearing at their throat, or by insects eating them alive?

And euthanasia of people is controversial for many complex reasons, but it is relatively well accepted by most secularists for cases of extreme pain, at least, which is how animals normally die.
That was a wild ride.

> The more people you convince to become vegans, the fewer people are buying "ethical" animal products.

Ok, good. In my mind, it goes no killing > ethical killing > unethical killing. I would try to maximize the amount in the no killing camp. I think I know what you're getting at overall, but I feel like this is in very speculative territory. I doubt that more people going vegan actually increases the amount of unethical killing, but I have nothing to back that up. I don't think you have anything to back it up either, which is why I think this won't lead anywhere. You have a hypothesis, I have a different one. I can only say that from experience, most people "move up" in the camps I defined above. I know I had no trouble destroying a few cheeseburgers just a few years back. At some point I started reflecting, and figured well it's best to buy from a butcher. It took a few years until I was no longer able to rationalize that either. I know pretty much only eat meat if I'm at my grandma's :) That is just to show I'm not religiously vegan, and I'm not trying to make people feel bad for the choices and rationalizations they make.

Regarding your short story: I appreciate the amount of effort you stuck into it, but I'm afraid you lost me throughout. There is just too much presupposing going on, which makes it a little difficult to apply to our ethical dilemma. For one, it completely disregards that we grew these animals in such a way that they're for the most part not able any longer to survive in the wild. I want to believe that the meat you buy comes from cows that had a life equivalent of us having traveled the galaxy and have expressed art and music throughout. But to me this reads like you yourself want to believe that the animals that had to die for your dishes had lives so good that given the choice, they would do it all over again.

This is simply not the case for 90%+ of all meat that finds its way onto a plate. And I will go one step further and say that this short story has not convinced me that the other <10% would choose to.
My first point is that this type of cruelty is just a basic part of life and survival for the people who practice it. You would condemn it as cruel just as some would condemn you for killing an animal with a gun. I'm just saying it's a rather arbitrary line to draw. How much cruelty is too much and for what purpose? Why would you draw a neat line around your actions and call it moral, then say that anything outside that line is overly cruel?

Note that in my story I did eat the meat - I may have understated how delicious it tasted. Freshly butchered pork made this way is unlike anything I've had in North America. Is killing for sustenance more moral than killing for sport, or for taste?

I don't pass judgement on people who hunt or slaughter animals this way, but I don't buy the idea that killing animals is simply a part of life and above moral consideration - or for that matter GP's argument, that it's perfectly moral to kill animals for food because it's as nature intended.