skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This is not true - there are plenty of other reasons.

- it requires more effort than not releasing it
- it requires approvals from other branches that are difficult to receive
- your staff don’t have the expertise (yes, this is a real thing some places!) or budget

I’m sure there are many other reasons too.
I agree with everything you've said here. I haven't bought a paperback for years (decades?).

Now that I think of it, practically every book I have any interest in is OOP or there is a nicer version of it available from some time ago.

In terms of ebooks, it'll be interesting to see if we continue to live in an increasing land o' plenty in terms of copyright violation (also including music and video) or if the hammer will come down on that. It's easy to imagine a legion of paratroopers outfitted in Disney uniforms doing a bit of digital axing on servers throughout the world.

One implication might be that this is the time to become a data hoarder.
Don't forget the population difference. There are a lot more people now than back then. (I intentional didn't specify world population of some subset - interesting to think about each)
C compiled down to eBPF (as implemented with the Linux kernel) is not turing-complete. eBPF has a wide variety of uses from network filtering to hooking into certain syscalls.

The bytecode is theoretically turing-complete, but the verifier present in the kernel ensures that the code contains no loops and accesses no out-of-bounds memory.

With `clang`, you can compile C down to eBPF bytecode. It's a subset of C, with a lot of restrictions, but it is familiar and capable of some remarkable things past just simple packet parsing & filtering.
Have you ever actually seen that error? :)

I'd guess it's pretty unlikely to occur, even when the virus detection actually deletes infected files.

Then again, I guess a filesystem filter driver can return whatever it pleases. Not sure if Windows anti-virus support works through filter drivers anymore, though.
That is how most of my friends use the word "cactus" in Arizona.
I entirely agree with your message and can only support the recommendation about those great books I've read countless times.
I think this really varies from person to person.

I re-read maybe 5% of books, and I tend to get a lot out of re-reading. Nassim Taleb said something like "if it's not worth re-reading, it was not worth reading in the first place".

My re-watch rate on movies and TV series is much higher, probably 85% of movies I will watch more than once. TV series, maybe 50%.

Some people just read or watch and never care to think much about it after. That's cool too; doesn't hurt me any.
No, in the context in which Marie-Louise Hammarskjöld wrote her statement the "experiment" you mention was totally not scientifically "legitimate" and only for one not knowing the context can the impression remain that "it appears to be".

That is exactly why Marie-Louise Hammarskjöld wrote that.

The context is, it was about the preprint on bioRxiv, and the said preprint was totally worthless scientifically, because the authors didn't understand what they write about. Specifically, they aren't the specialists in the field about which they wrote, and they failed to understand that what they believed they did was a totally normal effect of the process they used, that is, a "noise" and not a "signal."

To compare with the computer related topics, in that preprint the proof was like when somebody would claim that the nature consists of 8x8 pixel blocks and as a proof claim that they "made photos" and "when made bigger the 8x8 blocks were obvious." All while not mentioning that they actually made JPEG which reduces every image to 8x8 blocks and not knowing that these are just the artifacts of the process used.

That is why the real experts criticized the existence of the paper -- exactly because they knew almost every journalist and anybody else will quote the text and use it for scaring people even if all was an obvious nonsense.

Unfortunately these "details" weren't stated so clearly in the OP too. Covering the science is not easy.

Additionally, the current paper, actually published, was "Contributed by" its author, which allows him to avoid the proper peer review, as explained in wosk's comment here.

The author of the article we discuss writes that the published paper contains some additional work, compared to the preprint, but the title of the article is unfortunately certainly too clickbaity, again, in the whole context. "Evidence" gives an impression that the "support" is strong, whereas, again, in the complete context of the preprint and the "contribution" mechanism, it would be surprising if it's that good.

That's why one should give much more weight to the Harmit Malik's statement that he "remains unconvinced that the explanation is integrated virus."
Recently in Boswell's Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides, I noticed the passage

He asked me whether he had mentioned, in any of the papers of the Rambler, the description in Virgil of the entrance into Hell, with an application to the press; 'for,' said he, 'I do not much remember them'. I told him, 'No.' Upon which he repeated it:

Vestibulum ante ipsum, primisque in faucibus orci,
Luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae;
Pallentesque habitant Morbi, tristisque Senectus,
Et Metus, et malesuada Fames, et turpis Egestas,
Terribiles visu formae; Lethumque, Laborque.
[Footnote: Just in the gate, and in the jaws of hell,
Revengeful cares, and sullen sorrows dwell;
And pale diseases, and repining age;
Want, fear, and famine's unresisted rage;
Here toils and death, and death's half-brother, sleep,
Forms terrible to view, their sentry keep. DRYDEN.]

'Now,' said he, 'almost all these apply exactly to an authour; all these are the concomitants of a printing-house.' I proposed to him to dictate an essay on it, and offered to write it. He said, he would not do it then, but perhaps would write one at some future period.

(entry of Thursday, 14th October)
I have the older f1/4 EF that I use adapted to an M6. It's way soft under 2.2 or so and basically unusable for any non-flat objects under 30 feet at wide-open as the shallow DoF will blur a cheek if the nose is in focus.

That said, it works magic at night.
In https://www.humanetech.com/podcast/26-are-the-kids-alright interview, I heard the claim that mental health issues for kids are not correlated with internet use or technology but strictly with social media in particular.

Kids reading stuff or watching videos or playing games, none of that amounts to a constant numerical score of whether or not their peers "like" them.
You need to see a new big trend for fake profiles that are using big platforms such as sports and music to advertise their products. Has nothing to do with your search preferences
> When is the last time you read a serious financial analysis that divided up 150 years of world history in such a way? Or tried to relate it to investment?

Ray Dalio, the founder of the world's biggest hedge fund does primarily this in his public communication.

Anyway suit yourself, the whole point of it not being team politics is that it really doesn't matter at all if people disagree. I factor her advice heavily in my own portfolio and it has benefitted me. If you think she's wrong ignore her. And I guess complain loudly that other people find it useful.
I don't know where she gets the idea that serial publishing isn't done currently. Pirateaba, creator of wanderinginn.com has 4342 patreons (10k per month at least). At that point who cares about the NYTimes bestselling list?
Surely if you're hauling around all that fuel adding a small jet with an alternator can't be that difficult?

Sometimes things just take a while. We could have had inexpensive desktop 3D printers decades ago.
I think most readers would scoff at those price points, especially when comparing to the plethora of content available from streaming services such as Netflix, which is at $8-9/month for individual use.

That being said, is there a model for a group of authors/publishers that is $8-9/month for a growing large selection novels (a la Netflix catalog)? If there is, it probably won't 'solve' any of the issues the article and others are bringing up here.
Nxml Mode
Chipsets have all sort of properties, including the instruction set, the consumption as you mention, their physical size and heat profile (related to consumption, but can be influenced by other factors) that make them better or worse for some applications.

Your point on lens weight is valid, but I don't see it as something that should be in every single lens optic review, all the more so the use case of 50mm lenses are not just street snaps for instance.
The complexity of A Song of Ice and Fire... You get a lot out of a second read-through. There the density of the plot development is so thick that you don't even know what you're supposed to focus on. Some things that are mentioned in the first few hundred pages can resonate much stronger after reading the last few hundred pages.

That's just one example. It obviously depends on the book.
Getting "absolutely nothing" out of something seems more like a choice.
Writing novels isn't comparable to writing video games outside of very niche genres, which are probably in a similarly sad state to fiction overall.
Why couldn't those highly skilled workers do something more useful? Like build a fishing boat, research vessel, or hospital ship?
Rereading (or "reexperiencing") something can be very valuable. Since you already know where the destination is going to be, you get to focus your attention on more of the little details you might not have picked up on the first time through.

With that said, I only occasionally do it for books because of the time commitment. I have a large list of books I want to read, and only read about 25 books a year. So if I am going to reread something, it's usually for a specific reason or I am was in a specific mood.
> I disable javascript and look at web sites instead of run applications

The HN equivalent of "I don't even own a TV".
Exactly, anything that has survived 100 or 1000 years is most likely worth your time
I might let my kids on HN - they'd probably learn something useful.

Certainly not reddit which one of the worse places on the internet for developing minds. It doesn't get mentioned much in discussions of "damaging social media" because it's anonymous and can't target people personally, but I'd wager that a lot more people have absorbed a lot more damaging content than just about any site I can think of.
That's where the GFW starts to undermine the competitivity of China on the world stage.
The real exposé here would be to know how Bezos paid for the Yacht.

Did he pay cash? Was it financed (unsecured, or secured by the boat itself)? Was it financed secured by Amazon stock? Was it purchased by a business? Was there any sort of sales tax/VAT?

When people recoil at a frivolous expense of this size they do so for two reasons. The first is that it seems "wasteful". To that, I say "whatever."

The second is this idea that Bezos is not paying his fair share, and that a 500MM frivolous purchase is a symbol of that.

And that question is one that can be answered. If Bezos paid for the yacht in cash, then in a way there was some capital gains tax associated with it. Same if there was VAT/sales tax. Sure, let him buy a 500MM yacht if it means $15MM in tax for whatever country levied it.

There is a real problem with unfair taxation in the US/world, and if the average person doesn't understand how the ultra, ultra, ultra rich actually spend their money, we're doomed to enact legislation that falls short of improving the taxation scheme.
Seconded.

Kai W (& Lok) was solid when he was there, since he would trash things that deserved it and his juvenile objectivity was humorous. Now they seem more generic in the "this marginally better camera is 100% worth buying" sense.
A lot, but it's not just people like you.

I buy quite a few books. Almost all digital now. I probably buy a book every other month now. It'd be more, except that...

I also subscribe to Amazon Unlimited and read a lot of books on it.

I never buy movies now. If the theatres were open, I'd see 2, maybe 3 movies in a year with my wife. The rest I watch on Netflix/etc when they come out for free. I watch maybe 6 movies a month, and 4 of those are because we have a virtual movie night with a lot of friends every week since Covid started.

We watch a lot of TV, but again, Netflix/etc. We don't even pay for cable. We never buy TV series unless it's something really special.
Something I didn't see mentioned. Are you any good a gaming and/or are you entertaining?

what would make you unique?
Glacial Lake Missoula, the Big Picture: A Geologic Catastrophe
I had this feeling coming from a Canon DSLR (at the time) to my friend's A7RIII, something was...lost in it. Every shot looked perfect and it felt like there was no art really to it. I'm sure that to a portrait photographer they feel as it it lets them just focus on comp but wow.
An endowment for history and translation. A 2003 gift of $200 million from philanthropist Ruth Lilly helped bolster the Poetry Foundation, which not only runs an an important poetry magazine but also funds a great number of poets and projects. I'd like to set one up for the study of regions where not enough funding has gone for historical research (including archaeology) and for translating poetry and literary works from a wider variety of languages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poetry_Foundation
Serialization was quite common in science fiction pulp magazines also.

It's interesting to consider the meta-version of serialization..novel sets. Nothing new here, the Oz books being an obvious example, but it's funny how it plays into a human need to both read about familiar characters or places and to have physical sets of books that match.
Ok, so what’s the appeal of a sailing yacht that someone else captains?
From a humanitarian perspective, when I think about how many unfortunate people half a billion dollars could help, I don't see a win anywhere in here. From an environmental standpoint, it's also a massively wasteful use of material resources for the exclusive and likely very infrequent benefit of a tiny handful of people. I think it's abhorrent.
The phase matters as well if some parts are captured out of the focal plane.

Even if reconstruction is possible, it might amplify the noise by a substantial amount.
Estonia’s e-residency programme launching in Brazil, Thailand, Singapore and SA
Oh nice.. this one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdW5RKUboKc&list=PLSE8ODhjZX...
If you own your own home it would be pretty trivial to hide something that wouldn't get noticed in most burglaries. The average burglary is 10 minutes.

They aren't digging into insulation in your attic or going through multiple boxes of kids clothes in your basement.

I imagine most safes get burgled because their owner can't keep their mouth shut.
I’m not sure where the author got the whole “people don’t read books” either, unless it is meant to be taken literal, this excluding audiobooks.

I’m on 20+ books read in my good reads challenge for 2021, all paid for, many through audible but some directly from the black library (yes it’s very stupid warhammer fiction), but all of them have been audiobooks and the ones I didn’t get through audible cost me 33 euros a piece. So you’re not the only one buying books, there is at least two of us!
> “accessible" in the politically correct sense

I don’t know how you could get to this as being the point of this article. It’s calling for basic data-cleaning that is much cheaper for the publisher than the consumer, making it inaccessible to people who could really use it.
> I could push a git repo that has your information in it via commits

Hmm, wouldn't that you in trouble rather than github?
Beachfront Balcony Collapses in Malibu
These are two completely different statistics: 1) last year, new releases sold poorly, perhaps unexpectedly (NYT article's claim); 2) last year, a relatively small portion of all currently released titles sold a lot of books, and most titles sold few books (linked article's data).

Pulling from the central table, last year: one title sold over 1 million copies; ten titles sold a collective 5-10 million copies; 267 titles sold a collective 26-133 million copies; 7,294 titles sold a collective 70-700 million copies; and 2.6 million titles sold between 0 and 2.6 BILLION copies. My guess is that last number is way closer to zero than 2.6 billion, so I'll exclude it when I say: the table the author cites shows that last year sold 100-840 million copies. Digital copies! Nearly double that when you include print books. So there's no support for the author's claim, "Books as a medium just don’t have an audience—or rather, they have a very niche audience."

Was last year bad for new release sales? Seemingly, according to NYT. Was last year relatively bad for all book sales? Maybe, I don't know. Does the data support the implication that 0.0001% of new authors will make a living? No. It says that 0.0001% of all currently selling books will single-handedly earn a living for their author in that year.

My wild guess is that authors make most of their money from new releases, so we'd really need to see the data underlying the NYT article on new releases, not this article on all online book sales.
I don't believe in The Great Filter, as I disagree with it's basic premise, i.e. the Fermi paradox. The Prime Directive is the most plausible explanation.
The music is classic?

Yes.

Classical music?

No!
The "revenue earned self-published" is the key take-away - if you can sell 10k books a year (either 10 1k books or one 10k book) you can have a moderately comfortable income, especially if you have other work (or your book can come out of other work - thing books that are mainly compilations of blog posts or articles).
Unfortunately these are now nearly impossible to find without spending silly money... Where did you acquire yours?
Looks like the company behind the safe deposit boxes was pretty shady:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/akgwwb/criminals-hid-guns-ca...

Some quotes:

>According to the DEA, the company encouraged drug dealers to stash controlled substances in its safe deposit boxes, advised its customers on how to avoid government scrutiny, used a nearby gold business to help its customers launder money, and facilitated drug deals inside the business.

>To access the vaults, customers had to use an iris and hand print scanner. The keys they used to open their vaults were unmarked so the employees and law enforcement couldn’t know which key goes to which vault. "Since we don't know your name we can't provide information on your box to anyone,” Steven Gregory, prescient of U.S. Private Vaults, said in a 2012 commercial.

>In retrospect, U.S. Private Vaults’ advertisements are telling. “I’ve heard horror stories about individuals who have lost everything when their bank safe deposit box was frozen due to court order or a tax lien,” an actor said in one commercial. “At U.S. Private Vaults, I never have to worry about anything like that. My personal information is never shared or stored in a big bank computer system.”

>“Employees of defendant [U.S. Private Vaults] would conduct counter surveillance of the neighborhood and warn customers when they observed law enforcement,” the indictment said. If employees figured out the cops were on to them, “they would attempt to warn the customer, delay law enforcement, or even remove all but a nominal amount of cash from the box for the customer, to prevent law enforcement from discovering and seizing the bulk of the cash.”

Given all of the above, I can see why the FBI thought it needed to seize everything. As long as they are giving stuff back to their rightful owners, I don't see that much of a problem.
Technology makes sports less interesting, refinement culture https://paulskallas.substack.com/p/refinement-culture
It’s not about preventing them from making mistakes. It’s about protecting them from predators.
Amazon is launching a new serialized book program called Vella.

It seems sort of overly complicated to me in that Amazon will sell "tokens" to readers in batches with discounts for volume. The tokens can then be spent on episodes on Vella at the rate of 1 token per 100 words in the episode.

Apparently this is a thing they're copying from elsewhere, and it's supposedly huge in China.

https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/GR2L4AHPMQ44HNQ7
I'm sure it took me more than an hour to read that book, but I really enjoy that series so it was well worth the price to me. It's definitely a short book (novella?) but I get almost as much out of it as I do longer books.

And if the larger books are artificially padded, I actually enjoy them less.
So tell me why the web isn’t an option for a dating app?
> I don't know if this is true, but I do struggle with finding recent interesting books.

Sturgeons law definitely applies.

Reading (or watching, or whatever) only older stuff is basically using survivor-ship as a curation filter. It's a viable approach, although will definitely miss good stuff.

If you don't do this, you need some other way to discard most of the crap.
This comes down to COPPA regulations and the fact that child friendly channels are not allowed to use targeted ads, which really slashes revenue on a site like YouTube. Creators actively avoid it.
> The speed of light (or compensated with very long travel time) is limiting

It's only limiting if you're trying to reach C when traversing the spacetime. But if you're bending spacetime instead, there's no such limitation!
This is a sailing yacht, so presumably it won't be using its engines that much (if it has engines, I know nothing about yachts).
Totally agree, there's a gap there. I block youtube.com completely, only opening it up briefly when there's a school assignment to watch a video which I think is playing with fire.

I tried to create a youtube account with whatever checkbox they have that is "please only show safe content". I subscribed to kid's science channels. The garbage that came though was astonishing.
There are plenty of people selling their own e-books online and taking closer to 100% (minus processing fees) of revenue. Agreeing to 15% only makes sense if you have a huge distribution deal.

No mention of Patreon either.
Worth noting that serial fiction is far from a new creation or invention.

Charles Dickens wrote most of his work as a weekly or monthly serial, and that's why his stories rip along with regular cliffhangers. His single volume works were mostly less popular and less well known today with the exception of A Christmas Carol.

He wasn't alone either - his success with The Pickwick Papers led many others to follow, including Sir Arthur Conan Doyle with Sherlock Holmes stories originally serialised in The Strand magazine.

This model of quality fiction being in magazines never really entirely went away in terms of a mark of quality - even though they now print short stories rather than serialisation, it's likely much harder to get your fiction into the New Yorker than it is to get a publishing contract - so it's interesting to me that it's making a return.

As somebody who has wanted to write fiction for some time, but could not conceive of sitting down and writing a book in the traditional way, this appeals to me.

As a keen reader, I'm excited to see what comes out of it, too.