skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Could it be because it is somewhat similar to Javascript in a way in that it is a dynamic language? Javascript while some may argue is clunky needs to be known to work on web stuff so I still have to learn it anyway. From what I've seen expressing concise patterns isn't where the weakness of modern Javascript is, and therefore I'm not sure if adding Clojure makes it that much better. It doesn't necessarily address the weaknesses that slow me down when working with Javascript is what I'm getting from your comment.

REPL development is great, but I'm more keen to try it on something like F#'s Fable, where I get static typing, the REPL driven development experience (F# also has an adequate REPL with package manager support), with a concise language that maps pretty closely to Javascript. At least then I'm covering up the weaknesses in development I see when doing Javascript - the lack of a type system especially as the project scales. If I'm going to use something to better my Javascript it needs to add something that Javascript doesn't have to make up for the extra complexity IMO. My biggest frustration when writing Javascript is remembering what each function returns especially cross libraries/cross projects. At least for me I'm not sure how ClojureScript fixes that problem. Especially since I could use something like Lodash to get the standard FP functions/syntax.
They removed the ability on some of their newer calculators, after you made that repository. E.g. the TI-84 Plus CE: https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/27/21271625/texas-instrument...
Wait a second. Does that mean the nonlocality was introduced in QM just because distance simply didn't occur in the model? There was no prior theory that predicted you could ignore distance? Later experiments then confirmed that yes, distance does indeed not matter for the wave function collapse? That's ... incredibly unlikely, right? I mean, one simply wouldn't expect a model to simplify things and then learn that the simplification reflects reality.
> Nobody chooses to be a fool

Dogecoin is at least honest, so many other "jokes" including Bitcoin, contemporary art, some stocks etc...

If people want to play a game of musical chairs, I rather prefer this game to be called exactly what it is.

It surprises me to see so many warnings about Dogecoin and so few about Bitcoin for instance. People actually believe there's any relevant difference?
> evidence reveals that all such traits, be it burial, toolmaking, artistry, abstract thinking etc, is something we share with other species to varying degrees

If actual achievements speak louder than words, then "varying degrees" is a huge gap between human and other species. Yes, we know that numerous animals exhibit intelligence and emotions, but that does not change the fact that humans are very different when it comes to the understanding of time and everything that goes with it. Also, there is no other animal out there who domesticated fire or developed some kind of societal system to expands its own resources beyond what's available in the wild.
Yes, I'm always happy to receive feedback, either via email or a GitHub issue: https://github.com/KasparEtter/ef1p/issues :-)
> The majority of the western world's economic output is collecting rents

Would love to read more about this, do you have any links?
Half that if you use Infrequent Access, reduce it more if you do something sensible with Glacier policies - it is an archive after all.

You'd need to consider method costs, egress, etc on top of all that, to be fair
Could it affect our understanding of the formation of these iron bands? I guess the funghi don't consume oxygen, or it wouldn't have taken those 800 million years, but if they're that old shouldn't we find them in the bacterial mats, decomposing stuffe affecting the chemistry?
Dogecoin is not a joke, it was made for adoption of crypto with its large quantities and tipping community and it very much succeeded in doing that creating a great decentralized cryptocurrency. What its price is is irrelevant and for me even the worst of crypto is much much better than fiat.
> I disagree with this. Fools have a hard enough life without permitting predators to take their money. Nobody chooses to be a fool.

And yet, it will always happen. Some of us are fools, some of us will be fools, and some of us will never know how much of a fool we really were. Those will be the lucky ones.

Nature works this way for a reason.

Misguided compassion is a big part of why we are even having this discussion in the first place: people wanting to help wholeheartedly without realizing they are being fools themselves.

Were our previous best intentions not good enough? or maybe were they the cause of it all? Who can tell, who can tell...
I don't even use Gnome, but the behavior in the gtk open and save dialogs changed in the same way a few years ago, so I'm going to assume it's the same issue:

I hate hate hate the new search behavior, and would go back to the old ("type-ahead") behavior in a second if there was a setting I could toggle.

I don't think it's "bad faith", I think it's just weird group-think and having things other than the users as priorities. The amount of condescension and misplaced confidence displayed in that thread is impressive. If you (or anyone reading this) is affiliated with the Gnome project, please reconsider how you handle and incorporate user feedback into your products.
>> You're completely correct! The Linux kernel maintainers should stop bugfixing. It will be faster to rewrite it in a safer language than to add a one-line bugfix :-/

>Linux actually doesn't bother fixing a lot of the kind of bugs I'm talking about (thus their use of e.g. -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks) and doesn't bother being portable between different compilers.
>

Correction, thy don't bother fixing some of the bugs you are talking about. A lot of the other bugs that you are talking about (bugs due to the C language) are fixed. Your proposal was to not add any fixes due to bugs in the C language.

>> Oracle should also throw away their database code. As you say, it's faster to rewrite their 30m LoC database than to add a few lines of bugfixes.

>Oracle only stays alive because of aggressive sales and legal teams.

What does that have to do with your proposal? In fact, if as you say that Oracle is alive because of non-technical reasons, then your proposal that a rewrite is better than a bugfix is even more unreasonable - they can use their lock-in to spend a decade rewriting their core products.

They aren't doing this though.

> H2 is both more standards-compliant and better-performing (why do you think Oracle's license doesn't let you benchmark it?).

How is that relevant?

>> Wait, hang on ... what about my volvo s/wagen? The various ECUs in it are all written in C! Certainly I don't want them to fix problems and roll out a patch next week. I'll wait the 5 years it takes for them to rewrite the entire system.

>> Then, of course, there's airliners. You're completely correct that we should not fix the problems in their code; we can shutdown air travel for the 8 years or so it takes to rewrite the system.

>Safety-critical software is not written in C in the sense of everyday C codebases. It might be written using C syntax, but that code will not be treated as normal C: specific (often non-optimizing) compilers will be used, analysis tools will be applied, particular coding policies will be applied, using arbitrary C libraries is right out...

I've worked as C programmer in safety-critical software. Specifically, in munitions control. The "safety" that comes is not from religious adherence to MISRA-like guidelines but from regulatory bodies who specify the process around QA, testing and official release of the software.

Changing from C to another language might help, but rewriting the entire product is out the window completely - the regulatory hurdles to re-certify and re-test alone means that such an attempt is bound to kill the rewrite effort outright.

I'm currently working in another field (C and C++ this time), and making small incremental changes is considered by the regulatory bodies as less risky than throwing everything away and restarting.

The meme "scrap C, rewrite it in $FOO" only applies to software that has very little impact on the world.
> It isn't an inevitable product though. E.g.[1]:

Yes, and there are still tribes that eat the flesh of the dead - this was a major cause of what we identified later on as prion-related diseases: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/09/06/482952588/wh...
the first choice matters insofar that you can choose to stick with it, so while the coin toss in isolation is 50/50, for the game as a whole you need to consider the option of sticking with that initial 1 in 3 chance along side the 1 in 2 chance.
> . It is very streamlined and built into the Git code itself and mail clients that are actively maintained like Mutt. Just because you can't imagine what life would be like without Gmail doesn't mean that these maintainers are less efficient and antiquated than you are.

You assume that there are not other tools to submit code and participate in discussion. That's obviously not true. Also the argument that "it is supported with git" is just a non-argument.

> Don't even know what this means. What coding standard is based on old TTY terminals? TTY is part of Linux.

You obviously don't know indeed. 80 lines comes from old teletype writers: http://www.navy-radio.com/tty.htm

And even Linus disagreed recently (http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/2005.3/08168.html) but the limit was only increased to 100 columns. So yeah.

> Linux is the most widely used OS in enterprise. The internet runs on Linux.

And?

> If you want unit tests for everyone then start an open source project to do this, or complain about the enterprises that aren't testing.

That's just arguing from a position of power. There is an open source project by the way, named kunit, but it's obviously left as an afterthought. Testing is left to "community testing" which is just a way of saying "compile the whole thing, test the whole thing, let's wish somebody caught most bugs", which is just the naive way of doing things before automated testing became popular in the early 2000s.

> Who is toxic? I love Linus's approach. It has allowed him to get things done without toxic people in the community trying to social engineer their way into destroying something good.

There are tons of other successful open source projects that do have to rely on base insults and abuse. The fact that the way the Linux kernel hasn't changed a bit for 30 years just shows how much its community is intolerant to ideas.
In the old Internet Explorer monopoly situation, Microsoft was forced to prompt the user which browser to use on first startup.

It was not an option of choosing an alternative from the default, the order was random. Same for the default search engine.

If this was setup in the same way i wonder what the ratio would be. With that i mean a fair yes/no choice, not the GDPR-joke where accept is a big green button and reject is hidden in confusing fine print 3 sub-pages deep.
https://pkt.cash/
I would say that by now the laws more represent social norms and habits rather than religious precepts. (Even though they come from those precepts originally.)
Hey honkycat,

I'm currently trying to solve the exact same problem you're describing, since I also got frustrated by the current state of music teaching.

I'm still in an early stage of development, currently trying to fetch proofs of interests and working on a prototype, but I should be able to release a MVP by the end of the year.

If you want to have a chat about it, or want to be on the list for early access, feel free to reach me.

https://mamie-note.dorik.io/
> you can short equity if you think valuations are dangerously high

But they can stay irrational longer than I can remain solvent :)

But yes, I can tweak my portfolio. But for the most part we're largely left with no other option than to ride the bubble.
:o, did not know about that. This sucks–but I guess you can skip the update for now…
I’m glad these companies aren’t just getting a slap on the wrist. I wonder how effective it will be though - surely they can just spring up under a new name very quickly.
I agree that if people are free for other life decisions (some worst like driving when they can kill themeselves), then they should be free to manage their money. But maybe the additional problem in the US is that people can lose their retirement money, so you need a level of protection, whereas a French person losing all in stock doesn’t impact its retirement.
> , nor particularly true in many ways

I think it's pretty obvious that if someone wanted to dig through popular historical stories they could easily cherry pick factoids from virtually any decade in order to paint it in a decadent light.

In this case, the null hypothesis is that human behavior is pretty consistent over time. It's on the claimant of an idea that cuts against the null hypothesis to provide the evidence. I have never seen a statistically convincing analysis of decadence. It's just usually someone spouting off with a bunch of anecdotes. I can provide you some from an array of decades if you like.
> What do you think would be a correct statement?

"because this is not a properly designed study and there is so much chance that this is pure coincidence or related to a non-captured factor, we don't recommend you do anything about your diet. And you can skip reading this paper as well."
Yep, I agree. It is like a consequence of hick’s law. The more options you have two choose from the higher probability you will choose the one already chosen by the majority in your circle.

In this regard, I recall an old advice: if you’re a linux newbie and aren’t sure what linux distribution to choose, choose the one used by your friend/neighbour.
Can WhatsApp’s own backup be turned off? On the iOS side of things, if WhatsApp data gets backed up to iCloud alongside the rest of the device, it will be encrypted but not E2E (which makes it largely pointless)—however, you can turn iCloud backup off.
Seems to me like this story itself is an inkblot test for HN
Thank you for your feedback. I see how this can be confusing. The first chapter is explicitly about user-facing concepts, though. I explain message envelopes here: https://explained-from-first-principles.com/email/#message-v...

Right afterwards, you find an example of how and why the envelope diverges from the message header fields, followed by an in detail treatment of who removes the Bcc header field, and how Gmail recovers the Bcc recipients.
inflation makes buying stuff on credit more attractive, especially when you can get it with really low interest rates which everyone expect to rise sooner than later
> This post is for paying subscribers
Democracy in Telegram Groups
Unsupervised Glossary Creation for Books Using NLP
I'd add a disclaimer that Hossenfelder has some very strongly held negative views on how resources in the physics community should be allocated, particularly theoretical particle physics. This stack overflow answer is a pretty charitable explanation of why the overwhelming majority of the physics world disagrees with her on these specific meta issues: https://www.quora.com/How-do-theoretical-particle-physicists...
But in fact compilers do regularly prove such things as, "this function call did not touch that local variable". Escape analysis is a term related to this.

I'm more of two minds about that other step, where the compiler goes like, "here in the printf call the p will be dereferenced, so it surely is non-null, so we silently optimize that other thing out where we consider the possibility of it being null".

Also @joshuamorton, couldn't the compiler at least print a warning that it removed code based on an assumption that was inferred by the compiler? I really don't know a lot about those abstract logic solver approaches, but it feels like it should be easy to do.
Challenges in setting up port forwarding in Xfinity
Of course it can. People are just lazy and prefer repeating easy solutions that worked in the past rather than trying something that has real value but has inherent risks.
Understanding T5 Model: Text to Text Transfer Transformer Model
Ha, just making sure :P I do have one suggestion, though: try WSL, because it will give you access to Linux, where you can actually write programs entirely in assembly because the system call API is stable. The ABI matches with macOS's too, which is another plus.
When people ate people, a strange disease emerged (2016)
I was recently looking at Bubble.io. The main reasons I didn’t like it was it didn’t have version control, it wasn’t easy to test, and the UI wasn’t that intuitive for the types of things I like to do. When I started thinking about it, I basically realized is that by the time one adds all the features I’d want, it’d no longer be a no-code tool. So as a developer, I’m not concerned about being replaced by a no-code tool, because it’s literally can’t be appropriate for solutions that require code.
And you of course can trust Google that they actually remove your phone number. /s
Gravity is a double copy of other forces
I'd like to do activist investments too, but they're savagely time consuming.

By ethical, I mean no-eviction tenancies, long tenancies, no rent increases, etc. The fact is that lower income families have no hope whatsoever in the UK of buying a house because low incomes are now a signifier of insecure work. There's a section of the population that rotate through housing regularly enough through no fault of their own (because of landlords) that their kids can't go to the same school each year etc. Shelter has an introduction to the idea here: https://blog.shelter.org.uk/2012/11/a-return-to-revolving-do...

I'm aware of many of the other 'ethical' schemes on the market, but mostly, they're not actually that ethical once you scratch the surface. The genuinely interesting ethical stuff does carry some risk, but also accomplishes a lot. See the kinds of things listed here for what I mean: https://www.ethex.org.uk/investments

What I'd really like in my pension is freedom to take some risks, and representative democracy. It boils my blood to know that fund managers don't have to respect my values when they've investing my money. Likewise when the government says I can't invest in things I understand and approve of.
That's called feudalism.
Ah yes, the old

"Doctor, when I do [x] it hurts"

"Then stop doing that"

approach
Bell's theorem has proven that quantum entangled particles do not behave exactly like the socks. To understand it, let's imagine the sock experiment, but with 2 differences: one of the socks is red and fluffy, the other is blue and coarse; and you can't see exactly how red and how fluffy the sock you got is, you can only measure a combination of the two.

So, you open your envelope and set your device to measure if the sock is 0.2 red and 0.8 soft (so, either blue or soft), and you get True. If the person who got the other sock set their device to 0.8 red and 0.2 soft, the classical probability that they get True would be 0.5 I believe.

But if you perform this experiment with quantum entangled properties, you would see a greater value. Further, Bell has shown that one of 3 things must hold for quantum socks:

- either they are neither blue/red nor coarse/fluffy until the measurement; after the measurement, your sock gets some value, and the other sock implicitly gets the opposite value, but there is no real "state change" since they didn't have any state to begin with (we reject realism)

- they "tell" each other instantly in what state they were found (we reject locality)

- the fact that you were always going to receive the red sock also caused you to choose 0.2 red and 0.8 soft, so what may look like a coincidence is in fact pre-determined (superdeterminism)
This article has a lot of hyperbole which makes me question it as a whole. VPNs are great for harvesting metadata and doing analytics, but realistically most people use encrypted email and messaging these days, so very little of that would be harvested.

Edit: also pretty sure there aren’t 40 million Americans using a Chinese VPN.
When you say "inherent fools" what I think of is "some people are too stupid to be in charge of their own lives." Call me an optimist or a utopian, but I don't think that's true, and even if it is they still have a right to try, and even if they don't, the onus is still on them and nobody can change that. If they're inherent fools no amount of nerfing is going to protect them from tanking their own lives. It's like mandating tags on chairs that tell you not to eat the chair fabric. It's catering to the lowest common denominator. Do you want to live in a world where all of us, even you, are herded like cattle in some futile attempt to prevent people from behaving in ways that aren't good for themselves?

Some speculative vehicles are not zero sum games because they have one or more of the following characteristics: they are an experiment in some technology or tool that can benefit all people, or the simple fact that they exist is useful, or they enable capital to be allocated more efficiently. Almost all speculative assets have the last trait, all currencies have the second trait, and right now as far as speculative assets go, only cryptocurrencies have the first trait.

When you say "benefit" you mean to get profit. But "benefit" can mean much more than that. The benefit of the invention of electricity cannot simply be attributed to the amount of profit made from it, or the amount used by the purchaser. It has a myriad of less tangible yet more impactful benefits, such as it helped humanity understand electromagnetism and it helped humanity get out of the mud. The same applies to new ways to abstract value. Would you say the concept of money has value beyond simply who has how much?
I feel like the satanism should give it more appeal, not less. The satanism in metal came from an anti-authoritarian place, and now that the west has become less Christian, metal has become noticeably less satanist. In particular I've noticed that bands that do still invoke this imagery tend to come from more religious places (e.g. Behemoth comes from catholic Poland).
As someone who grew up in middle class new england without any sort of inheritance, now living in southern california where there is seemingly an ethnic caste system in place, I think this article is a little circlejerky. People move to california for the weather.
It's a shit move. Three letters, easy to remember. Great name.

Some busybody will claim moral victory and - thanks to search & replace commits - call themselves a developer. Big step for the mankind!

Recent examples of projects with lousy names:

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26902430 - self-explanatory
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27088377 - when I see this one I think I have flies crawling on my screen. WTF...
I'm not trying to argue what is a good or bad thing in Tetris. I'm trying to explain the algorithm. Hatetris tries to maximise the minimum time to removing a line; Lovetris, as explained by its author[1], flips a sign, thus it tries to minimise the minimum time to removing a line.

If that contradicts your notion of "best piece" then either the author is being too imprecise or you are being too literal. Either way I don't think it's an interesting discussion.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27083716
We built an idea engine in Slack
I built a way for our team to submit ideas directly in Slack using the #idea keyword. Maybe someone here will find it useful too.

The process is simple:
1. People write an #idea in a slack channel
2. It's pulled via Zapier and creates a page in Notion, but could be airtable, jira, trello, whatever.
3. A message is sent back to slack with a link to the page so the person can add details about the idea
4. We vote on ideas every week
5. Best ideas get evaluated for implementation by the product team