skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I won't... But only because, to be able to stop using them, I would have to have used them.
He can tank BTC further by dumping all Tesla holdings and at the same time announce the new much better Teslacoin. Every news outlet will post a front page “BTC crashes, Teslacoin up infinite%”.
Then the goal would be to capture the majority of the crypto market. It would be like another “ICO” for Tesla to get a huge shot in the arm
And they tag issues with labels like "good first project". It's very welcoming.
Vizio TV buyers are becoming the product Vizio sells, not just its customers
The original idea was dubbed "rods from God" and it was proposed by the U.S. Air Force to target bunkers, silos, and other hardened targets without using nuclear detonations. The rods would have orbital velocity—7 km/s at LEO—giving them, at 10,000kg, about the momentum of a jumbo jet at cruise (an unfortunate comparison, to be sure). Except the kinetic force would be targeted at an area the diameter of a telephone pole, so they would penetrate deeply (100m or more) and cause enough of a shockwave in the earth to collapse almost any buried structure. Their thin profile and solid tungsten construction ensured most of their mass would survive re-entry at close to their original speed.

They also evaded the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which forbade "objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction"[0].

I'm not sure they actually reach the yield of a nuclear device, but "bunker-buster" nukes are relying on overkill in yield since they can't achieve that kind of ground penetration in delivery.

[0] https://history.nasa.gov/1967treaty.html
Roam seems to be working on it. I’m unsure the status as I haven’t checked in a few months.
One of my hobby projects is a real-time optimal flight controller for Kerbal Space Program rockets, and it also uses CasADi! It's an absolutely fantastic software package that makes it dead simple for anyone to set up and solve NLP (nonlinear programming) problems. Indeed, a lot of hard work goes into making an online solver that can run in a reasonable time. I already have launch working quite well, but precision landing has proven more difficult.

For the initial trajectory, I use collocation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collocation_method) to encode the physics constraints. For updates, I use the previous solution as the initial guess for the updated trajectory. In practice this seems to work quite well, but there are still some issues I need to iron out. Sometimes the trajectories it provides are unstable in the sense that if you slightly overshoot, it will generate a radically different solution. I believe the solution here will be to turn some of the constraints in my solver into soft goals instead.

It's difficult for me to say whether this is evidence that SpaceX definitely uses optimal control for their flight control, since we would naturally expect any reasonably efficient control algorithm to produce a similar trajectory. After all, if you have a solution that's 99% efficient, how much slack is there in a trajectory using only ~1% more time than the optimum? However, I would not be surprised if they do that - I'm just wondering how they test it, since my setup seems so finicky!
Is anyone using this, a quick howto would be most appreciated. I went to CP/M sites and mainly found ARK files for the main software. Do I need to uncompress this into a directory and pretend it's a floppy drive? The github just talks about dragging and dropping of individual files.
You're calculating the resting potential energy, aren't you?

"Dropping a tungsten rod on earth" is not picking it up and dropping it. It's firing it at the earth. Depending on what body you're firing it from, that's a lot of additional delta v.

Something coming at the earth from the Moon, for instance, is moving at least 2.3 kps, plus another kps if you fire it forward. This calculator is telling me that's 55.2 gigajoules, about 15 thousand times higher.

Assuming your math is right, and then my math is right, .35 megatons is still an exceedingly bad day.
Congress is corrupt (via lobbyist money) which causes this problem.

The DoD tracks large scale threats to our nation. When the economy is rigged, then the establishment worries about the citizen base turning on the establishment.

Congress corruption (via lobbyiests) happens by:

a) Wall Street rigged economy HF front-running trades,

b) Wall Street is rigged

c) 2008 Mortgage crisis theft

d) Pharma is rigged

e) Medical costs are out of control. Every price fixes are killed by lobbyists): Hillary, Obama cost controls, etc.
From what I’ve seen (and it’s arguably inexact) is that machine learning is the “respectable” version of blockchain - a solution in search of a problem - though it’s easier to call things machine learning to get the big funding than it is to call MySQL “blockchain”.
It's been working very well for me, I completely replaced Dropbox, and on the VPS/phones [0] as well.

The only slow bit I know of is when it's initially syncing too many files (e.g. tens of thousands). Even if they are tiny, it takes a while. I suspect it has something to do with the index serialization, but also there is a maxConcurrentWrites setting which is 2 by default -- perhaps on an SSD this is an unreasonably low default? Not sure.

Is it possible that you didn't have inotify enabled (fsWatcherEnabled)? There is also fsWatcherDelayS [0] setting (10 by default), which groups changes to avoid excessive sync operations, so it might be percieved as latency.

[0] https://github.com/Catfriend1/syncthing-android#readme -- I recommend the 'fork' over the original app, it's got some nice extras. Although seems that Google doesn't want it on play store https://github.com/Catfriend1/syncthing-android/issues/704

[1] https://docs.syncthing.net/users/config.html#fswatcherdelays
I have the opposite take. In bull runs, the market swings between BTC and altcoins. Dogecoin rise unintentionally benefits ETH. It weakened Bitcoin but strengthens Dogecoin and Ethereum. With this crash, people will realize that BTC is the crypto that matters. BTC runs the market. The FUD will cause people to flock to BTC. But that's just a guess. Anything can happen in crypto.
To a surprising extent, yes.

I know the popular Western image of infrastructure development in China is jackbooted thugs forcing farmers off their land, and there's some of that as well, but most people are reasonably happy with the compensation they get. The Shanghai-Hangzhou maglev project (below) is also an instructive case study of an ambitious rail project that was cancelled largely thanks to (sadly unwarranted) public concern.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai%E2%80%93Hangzhou_magl...
A lot of early stage Mars terraforming talk always seem to deal in oddly limited human terms - and imposes limits we have on Earth which don't apply anywhere else in the solar system.

What does Mars need? An atmosphere. Doesn't really matter what it's made of, we need more pressure on the surface. But no one lives on Mars! It's not "oh how much work would this be" it's "redirect a comet and let it crash into the planet".

Most of the big early stage terraforming problems offer disproportionate returns on investment - you can do extinction-level event damage with no consequences and amazingly reasonable delta-V investments.

Personally, I've been hoping we'll get lucky and a suitably large comet would just hit Mars. A couple years back a retrograde comet looked like it would, but missed. It wouldn't have taken much effort at the right part of it's orbit to guarantee that hit.

This is what does make me wonder about the "oh it's too hard" people. We know there are bodies in the asteroid belt with more water then all of Earth's oceans. The gases and liquids we need are already in orbit and once we know where they are, getting them to Mars is comparatively very simple.

What does the terraforming argument look like once you change some of those initial assumptions people start with? Once CO2 in the atmosphere is warming it up, and surface pressure is 0.3 atmospheres? And once liquid water has filled all the low land areas?

These aren't insurmountable hurdles for us with todays technology - but they are catastrophic sort of changes which you can only do in the early phase. But once we're looking at a planet which is still "uninhabitable" but with sunlight, water and CO2...well that's an environment where Earth's greenery is going to go crazy colonizing.
Wouldn't it cause more ransoms and more damage to millions of Americans?
> This is a semantic argument

What argument?

> I agree that power flows from consensus.

That’s...not what I said, really.

> When it doesn't, we're talking about coercion, force, and violence, not power

“Power”, at least in the social sense, is the ability to get people to act as you wish; idealized moral or rational persuasion is one mechanism of that, the direct application or imminent threat of violence is a mechanism, and there’s a whole spectrum in between. But a leader’s ability, in practice, to apply power (by any mechanism) over a population is largely due to the successful use of power to influence a group of agents to act on behalf of the leader, and their application of power to others, etc. We might talk as if the state is a real concrete thing, but its really just an abstraction of the penumbra of indirect power emanating outward from the leadership.
After another canceled year in the desert, Burning Man plans for a virtual event
Bootstrapping civilization is a bit of a sub-thread in the three Zones Of Thought books by Vernor Vinge. Definitely my favourite SciFi books
True, but that's tiny by today's standards.
I work for a Fortune 500 company. Recently they wanted make sure women and minorities were making the same as white men in comparable jobs within $1. But they checked everyone salary to be fair. I ended up getting a 15% raise. I was happy with that, but I was also happy with my previous pay. I thought I was overpaid before. Now I really feel overpaid.
I don't know that it's "demanding" as much as "tedious"... I feel like our entire field is built as a mountain of hacks upon hacks. How the heck did Javascript become the dominant programming language of worldwide communications?! The ecosystem is so fragile and unstable (https://hackernoon.com/how-it-feels-to-learn-javascript-in-2...) that it seems like most of web dev is keeping up with fashion changes rather than doing anything truly good for the user.

Windows Forms supported responsive layouts decades ago, and Visual Studio was a beautiful system to work in... now we have forty dialects of Javascript and twenty thousand CSS mutations served by like four browsers that share mostly the same renderer but still aren't compatible, overseen by standards groups that compete with each other to actually be the standards... sigh... it's like our main output is job security, producing new features to fix the new features from last week, like a ouroboros forever trapped in the matrix.

</rant>

I just really appreciate people who can code a clean, elegant app, because I can't remember the last time I saw one in the web world!
The more relevant factor IMO is not time vs. money but the proportional risk. A year of my time is a much larger fraction of my net worth than the typical VC's investment is a fraction of their net worth.
I can't remember a longer outage than that offhand, but in ~40 years, I'm sure there have been some.

Causes of power outages I can think of that might happen in my area:

- wind storm
- ice storm
- tornado
- squirrel got in a transformer
- car hit a pole

I'm sure there have been more unusual things in several decades, but those are what come to mind.

One thing to keep in mind is if you are in a position where only your home lost power, or only your apartment building, you may be a low priority and have to wait longer for the power company than if there are a bunch of customers without power.
"That's a Dutch verdict you're waving around there. We'll do something about the IP violation you're claiming when you have one from this jurisdiction... And we'll see that case once you've registered the IP in question here."
European and some South American buses are quite nice, and I did the laptop thing on a bus in Chile no problem. Even had free wi-fi!
This is a very privileged, first-world perspective on things. You probably have a checking account, and a debit card. If you only have cash, and want to send money to (for example) family in another country, it gets very expensive, very fast.

Exchanging cash for cryptocurrency without a bank inbetween is a pain in the ass, but its a hell of a lot cheaper than, for example, Western Union.
I think the criticism is a bit over the top to be honest but not by much.

ML seems to be something an organization reaches for most often when: a) it doesn't understand the data it has and doesn't have individuals who have the competencies to hire analysts to help them; b) when they want to tell a story to an audience of engineers (e.g. as to attract "talent" or signal about how bleeding edge the tech is in the company).

A far less frequent case is when individuals with actual expertise have identified a real need for the use of the statistical methods and infrastructure used in ML applications. In this sense it's a scam--but one that technology organizations use against themselves.

The real money in ML, just like with most fads, is in selling the tools, not doing the work. Hence you see the rise of all these "ML ops" platform type businesses or business units (see: Sagemaker, Databricks, and various others).
> You will never get a promotion or raise if there's no formal performance review process and career ladder.

This has not been my experience. I've gotten promotions and raises at multiple companies without a formal ladder or meaningful performance review process. Sometimes to more-senior roles that were invented for me and played to my strengths.

In my limited experience, promotion/leveling at small companies without much formal process has mapped way closer to people's actual skill level and accomplishments than at large companies with formal process.

> You can't skip two steps ahead into whatever skills you wish you could learn.

I don't get how this title summarizes the insight of this passage.
In addition to miners, running actual Bitcoin nodes keeps the network safe, that's why it's very important for it to be very cheap to run so that many people/volunteers can do it.
If you live at the bottom of a well, don't make fun of the guy peering down at you from the top.

See also The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
> We know there are bodies in the asteroid belt with more water then all of Earth's oceans.

Can you say more about the technology to redirect that much mass to make it collide with Mars?

(I understand that shifting an orbit is much different from escaping from a gravity well, but I don't have a good intuition for how different, maybe because I haven't played Kerbal Space Program or something.)
You're saying that rich people should be paid less, a smaller multiple of what low paid workers get. You can make that debate, but it's not "equity vs wages".

Someone getting paid $100M but no "equity" isn't worse off than someone getting paid $100M of valuated equity (ignoring liquidity discount blah blah)
As far as I know, when I made my first comment we weren’t yet debating dumb vs evil.
What's intangible about a locomotive? It's a big engine the size of a house growling up a storm.
> In the quote you posted, Nelson is wrong when he states "[Bitcoin] provides a computational method for ranking fork quality". It only provides such a method when both forks agree on the underlying protocol.

Firstly, the “underlying [PoW] protocol” assumes the “majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network” (Satoshi, 2009). IOW “Bitcoin” is defined as the chain with the highest cumulative hashing power. That assumption is baked into all PoW networks.

Secondly, Jude C. Nelson — who you seem to have a professional/academic disagreement with — has a PhD in distributed systems from Princeton. I’m not saying your disagreement with Jude deserves no credibility, but I’m also not prepared to give a pseudonyous commenter on HN the same weight.

(JCN runs circles around Vitalik Buterin — a highly entertaining read [1].)

The 2013 bitcoin-0.7 BDB chainsplit incident you’ve propped up as “proof” PoW lacks a fork ranking protocol — which it doesn’t — was ultimately resolved with hashpower (of course). Humans only got involved there to prevent needless network downtime, read: “Eventually 24 blocks would be lost”. The incident would’ve eventually resolved itself on-chain by PoW miners, with hashing power only.

> I'm not saying [PoS] is better by the way... they're all the same.

Proof-of-Stake consensus lacks all notion of cumulative hashrate, and altogether lacks a quantitative fork ranking protocol. To claim PoS and PoW are “the same” in this respect is simply false equivalence.

PoS systems undeniably lack an on-chain mechanism for resolving fork disputes. Hence they have little need for a blockchain — after all, if a top-down human hierarchy presiding over a blockchain is going to unilaterally decide which chainfork to favor anyway, they might as well just skip the blockchain and use Git. As with Git repos, in PoS, forking disputes have to be handled by centralized authorities who outright dictate which Git history is valid. No other dispute resolution protocols are possible here.

Conversely, PoW systems make this determination by ranking cumulative hashing power amongst forked blockchains. PoW networks coldly and quantitatively come to consensus about what constitutes the longest valid chain. PoS systems use less energy than PoW systems, but they can’t even come to consensus without top-down hierarchical human intervention under adversarial conditions, hence they have little reason to use a blockchain at all.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25984356
There is a company that takes this concept and lets you take notes in "spaces".

https://www.nototo.app/
modern = modern.replace("software engineering", "machine learning")
My favorite video on the subject:

https://la.curbed.com/2014/9/26/10042166/bev-hills-paper-war...

Gas explosions and terrorists, oh my!
But did that idea make Mr. Dumbass a shit ton of money too, or just you? And if not, was it really his idea.
Thank you for posting that link, it was really informative.

> ProPublica has found that they [insurers] often accommodate attackers’ demands, even when alternatives such as saved backup files may be available.

What a perverse set of incentives. Insurance companies are paid to manage risk. Risks go up the more they pay ransoms. As risks go up, the risks are more visible, more companies get policies, insurance gets more money. This is bordering or racketeering.

How many times do people on HN say “back up your files”. Certainly that’s the way to do it if you want less ransomware. It’s not sexy, it’s not “visible”, but it will reduce your risk. But apparently, the goal here is to encourage more ransomware.
That analogy is way off. There are plenty of legitimate problems for which ML is a good solution. It's just the vast majority of companies employing ML techniques would find simple analytical techniques (basic statistics: regressions, simple clustering, etc.) to be at least as useful. They'd also be less costly in time and money as compared with building out even the basic infrastructure to implement an ML pipeline.
Oh, funny how your common sense just suddenly stopped being able to process stuff once the discussion got to a conclusion you didn't happen to like.
Three laptops on the same wifi router all talking to each other at once can be very problematic, especially if it's an inexpensive consumer router with one radio. Only one device can shout into the wifi ether at once and the protocol has backoffs to make sure multiple devices don't clobber each other by talking at the same time. Add on top of that other backoff strategies in higher level protocols like in TCP and you can have abysmally slow connections for anything.
Even large retailers like Costco do this sometimes.
Dzhanibekov effect makes me pretty sure you should spin the cylinder the other direction, in which case it doesn't have to be as long.

What do you think about Kim Stanley Robinson's hollowed out asteroids? Less efficient use of materials and angular momentum, but possibly a more stable arrangement.
Only of they are paid partly in equity. If they are getting a lower comp package than FAANG because of intangibles they value highly (perhaps developing skills FAANG will pay more for later) that's their choice.
Befunge is very cool, although a bit difficult to onboard users onto :)

My language is a lot simpler: it uses functional programming principles to transform input to output without storing state. The programmer would place down blocks on the screen and draw lines between them to indicate where they want data to flow. They'd start on the left (input side) and end on the right (output side). The cool benefit of this paradigm is that it's recursive; you can build blocks that contain blocks that contain blocks etc... all of which shuttle and transform data from the left to the right.

The other part of this is that it won't just be a language, I'm planning on building an actual cloud environment where you can click a button to deploy your code onto a REST endpoint, so you can integrate it with your existing websites + scripts + apps.
No--there was no movment on electrical vechicles before his interest. That alone should be enough to put his image on a coin.
Just put a carbon tax on everything with environmental side effects and let the market sort it out, otherwise who decides what get's banned?

For example, I think cars contribute very significantly to global warming and use lots of fossil fuels, do I get to say, let's ban all cars and force everyone to use public transport? No!
Fully vaccinated Americans can return to life without masks, CDC says
No masks with the exception of buses, planes, hospitals, prisons and homeless shelters.
What lobby is lobbying for warrantless surveillance?
The problem is that this is transparent bias. They may claim to adhere to that, yet it's clear in other cases that they've picked far more obscure Tweets instead of the viral ones.

This is intentional manipulation, they already know that most people read headlines (which are frequently the least accurate part of any story) and ratings fill a similar role.

Worse, they'll later compile the ratings into statistics and spread the misrepresentations further, all while claiming that technically in paragraph 7 they did admit the thing, which is why that's called a motte and bailey strategy.
Do they have something similar to MEGA or BOLT busses in Canada? If so, can they not serve some of these communities, or was the grey hound it?
Yes, that also means they had backups since the original outage but they were slow. Since they had backups they should never have paid for even slow decryption and, as you said, potential other security issues using the hackers software. So my reading of the situation is that the situation was urgent, backups were too slow, so they paid to try to have a quick fix only to have the description also be very slow. Paying might have been a complete waste of money. I could be wrong about my reading of events, but as I said originally, they lacked rapid recovery capabilities, which for something this critical is just as important as having the backups themselves.