skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
i will be interviewing the team at siemens and maybe some of the folks at supplyframe / hackaday / tindie -- post up any questions you want me to ask (disclosure: i started hackaday 16 years ago or so, have nothing to do with this now).
Nuclear is ok for district heating because there aren't many alternatives. Burning gas 20% of the time as backup is not as big of a problem as many people make it out to be. The atmosphere doesn't care when you pollute, just how much, so intermittency is one of the biggest red herrings of all time.

If we had grids with 80% renewables you can start thinking about grid storage but right now it doesn't matter that much.
For most of us there is a disconnect between what we perceive as valuable to society and what is valuable in monetary terms. And yes, if someone can gain enormous sums of money by a stroke of dumb luck (in this case having made a video that went viral because it was just at the right time) than that tends to rub people who strife for fairness in life the wrong way.

About inherited wealth: once you grok the ideological arguments for heavily taxing inheritances, and then also realize that above a certain threshold people can just spend a minute fraction of that wealth to ensure that those rules don't apply to them and their offspring, you might feel the same way depending on your idealogical outlook. The idea that taxation is unfair or even theft is very pervasive in society though, and it is such a sucesful memetic device that people who stand to lose the most by it are often staunch supporters of tax evasion. The idea being that just as with the lottery, one day they too might hit it big time, and then they too would benefit! Statistically, this is unlikely to the point of being negligible, but it is easier on the mind than understanding the situation for what it really is.
I have seen this line of whataboutist reasoning as a counterpoint in every single forum that approaches this topic.

I can't understand how such a contrived equalization is spread in so many different forums.

The other replies make excellent, well-sourced points for the distinction of the Morales and Belarusian situations, so I won't repeat them. It seems easy to understand and prove this distinction.

I'm genuinely curious if this whataboutist reasoning could be contributed to by an active campaign to muddy the Belarus discussion or just anti-west/pro-anarchy idealisms.
Its better to think of NFTs as limited edition merch instead of ownership of the work.
When I work on ClojureScript app I am actually modifying application that is running in the browser, without ever reloading the page. That would not be possible if it could not compile or at least interpret it in the browser.
This is not about demonetizing anyone.

YouTube is planning to monetize videos that are not monetized by the creators (and thus currently don't have ads).
I'm curious what will happen when an NFT for the same piece of art gets sold on multiple blockchains. Now you can "own" a "Charlie Bit My Finger" NFT on Ethereum and someone else owns it on the FooBar blockchain. Which one is "authentic"? Blockchain doesn't help you here - you're going to have to go to court to prove you own the "authentic" one or sue the artist for selling 2 copies instead of one.
The Brutal Economics of the Big Sharks
The acquisitions by the juggernaut companies, mainly the 4 biggest technology companies, are making them invincible while squeezing the space of the startups and even large companies. Has the time come to finally regulate and break up the BIG Sharks?
I didn't say this particular action was justified, I just think the "collective punishment" reason not to do it is a terrible idea that would make it impossible to take action against any organization ever. It's really a stretch to call something like this collective punishment.

If a government does anything there are regular people that are going to get hurt, but that's not a reason to stop governing.
Sounds like a proper marketplace.
Butterfly Chaser’s Quest Leads to NC Coast – Coastal Review
It's probably preferable than continuing to use the JVM-clone like it's an OS, while porting Linux to be the actual OS to run their JVM-clone OS.
There are lots of good devs in Europe that will work for less than a US dev if it’s a good salary for their region. For example in Stockholm, I think pretty few developers earn more than €6500/month or so (before taxes). (And many of them earn less than that.)

Best of luck with your endeavour. You can do it!
Sure, and I'm not saying it's impossible. But cults based on some deep self-improvement and/or transcendence plus charismatic leadership, I can broadly understand why they developed. Based on an open-source software project, seems much less likely – imho certainly not enough to start openly worrying about it at this stage.
I did exactly that for free ;)
I use a bash function:

pass ()
{
if [ $# -eq 0 ] || ( [ $# -eq 1 ] && [ $1 = "-c" ] ); then
find ~/.password-store -name '\*.gpg' -printf '%P\n' | sed -e 's:.gpg$::gi' | fzf | xargs /usr/local/bin/pass $@;
else
/usr/local/bin/pass $@;
fi
}

pass + fzf + bash > gopass. DOTADIW.
Because there's no serious competitor, and many (most?) creators rely on other revenue streams than YouTube ads
I don't know if this does anything for you, but American Factory was actually produced by the Obamas. Their first Netflix documentary.

Politics aside, I thought that was a pretty neat tidbit.
Because YouTube has an audience.
Adventures in SWE Interviews: “Optimal” Longest Palindromic Substring
the phrase maybe, but the gdpr article itself provides more
"Article 20

Right to data portability

1. The data subject shall have the right to receive the personal data concerning him or her, which he or she has provided to a controller, in a structured, commonly used and machine-readable format and have the right to transmit those data to another controller without hindrance from the controller to which the personal data have been provided, where:"
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj#d1e2753-1-1
Maybe for the very small sellers, yes. But Shopify will be fine without them. They provide a lot of value to medium size sellers with a lot of turn over, through their app marketplace and integrations.
I'm pleasantly surprised to see four of us in one HN thread. I'm moving back this fall (been career building for the past 7 years out of state).
I doubt it solves a lot of problems for the employees
Not all of the tracking-blocking is technical, and those parts can't be technical, either.
The data is a couple years old, but CGP Grey mentioned that Premium subscribers result in more $ per view than ad subscribers do. Obviously there are some variables (it is split among everyone you watch by watch time) but that is how it generalized at the time he was commenting on it.
tl;dr copied from the TOS email that got sent out:

A summary of the changes:
- Facial recognition restrictions: The Terms of Service already state that you cannot collect any information that might identify a person without their permission. While this has always included facial recognition information, the new Terms make that explicitly clear.
- YouTube’s right to monetize: YouTube has the right to monetize all content on the platform and ads may appear on videos from channels not in the YouTube Partner Program.
- Royalty payments and tax withholding: For creators entitled to revenue payments, such payments will be treated as royalties from a U.S. tax perspective and Google will withhold taxes where required by law.
>but that just means infrastructure got built in Wisconsin.

Quite a bit of the infrastructure goes nowhere -it only benefits a factory built out at that location. As a Chicago resident who sometimes visits Milwaukee, I will personally note that the interstate construction was horrible and ripped up roads that had been completed just a few years prior.

To say nothing of the people that lost their homes to eminent domain.
Just to clarify, the text you type into the terminal NEVER leaves your device. Fig does not store or collect this information.

We send an event when you insert something using Fig's autocomplete, so we can get a sense for how frequently people use the app. We also send which completion spec (eg. git, npm or cd) was used to generate the suggestions to know which commands to prioritize.
What we have to worry about in the mean time is environmental changes leading to crop failures. The earth will be fine, whether we are able to continually feed ourselves in this society is an open question that we are actively trying to solve. But it's an uphill battle when even liberal minded people have villianized GMOs. GMOs are the tools we need to use to ensure our world is not like what was pictured in Interstellar. Inaction means famine.
Conflict free refers to active civil wars / use of non-punitive slave labour.

If you stretch the definition to include Cuba, I will happily stretch it to note that no minerals mined in the US are 'conflict-free', since every mine/pipeline/oil well of note has been built on the bones of a conflict between resource extractors, and communities/groups that they are negatively impacting.

Stretch it enough, and the term loses all meaning.
Shopify is fine is the funniest thing I’ve ever heard.

Shopify is the 2008 equivalent in the tech world. Hugely overvalued, no secret sauce (pretty web fronts that are powered by stripe)

Shopifys moat is nonexistent.
My coworker brooded on this very same ideas every single day. It became such an obsession for him that he started to spend more of his work time on it. He started to build own game of sort. I and many started to distance from him. This was way back.

It wasn't long before his work slacked and manager had to literally walk him outside the building (read firing).

To this day many in that team couldn't come to make sense of his obsession.
We are not much different of a paperclip-making AI gone rogue
$0.7b*!
Also, Google's internal politics are kind of broken. It's my understanding that a lot of the product launches and cancellations are a consequence of an internal culture that rewards launching new products, but not maintaining or improving them.
Imagine you got into Bitcoin in 2010 and bought a few hundred dollars worth. Now that is worth more money than you could even dream about. The real question is why not buy an nft for the lulz?
I love watching Stripe going upmarket with e-comm streamlining offerings (links, subscriptions), the foresight shows (payment commodification eventually, Value Add Is The Way).
The 400 $1 million bicycle factories will probably fare just as well as your $800k scooter assembly factory. I think Peloton knows a little bit more about manufacturing their product than you do.
Both are reasonable.

I would say that the problem is in the order: It is not OK for YT to be a healthy company, it needs to grow. It is like a car that is not allowed to max out at a speed.
There are other niche PSPs who have been doing exactly this for over a decade.
The behavioral analysis claims are chilling. It's either the road to AI surveillance dystopia, or shareholders are getting stiffed by wild claims of magic tech.
which doesn't work on TV or mobile, of course
And memory
I think that the issue people are having is that (a large portion of) the content on YT also does sponsorships. Also, 'like and subscribe and bell'. So you might pay for YT, but I don't think that the quality of the service improves that much (say like Spotify).

Until YT improve their algorithm and stop with the arbitrary 10m time marks for monetization, I think YT is going to have a problem with people seeing a premium variant as a good option opposed to just adblocking.

I get that the counterpoint to my point is that YT isn't paying that much and that people are free to do whatever in their videos, but that doesn't make it less annoying. Spotify doesn't pay great, but I don't have to hear a band saying 'buy our tshirts!' after listening to a song/album.

I think that the many community scandals, coupled with the, what I view as, changes in monetization strategies has put YT in this position.
I want to add something a bit more positive - if you come with an on-prem version, it will have much more of a chance to sell within the enterprise. Of course, that's a lot more hassle to support etc.
It's not so much that Tolkien explicitly didn't want his Beowulf published, as that it's one of the many, many works that he started and was never satisfied with.

Note that that category includes the Silmarillion, which was cobbled together by his son Christopher. And Christopher rarely chose his father's latest efforts, preferring instead versions more compatible with the published Lord of the Rings.

Christopher was chosen by his father for the job of literary executor. It's arguable whether JRR Tolkien really wanted him to publish every scrap the way he did, but they do form an extraordinary documentation of the extraordinary process of Tolkien's imagination.

His Beowulf could be tinkered with forever because it's not really a translation. It's a hook on which to hang a lengthy series of scholarly footnotes, discussing almost every single word of the original.

If you want to read Beowulf in translation, pick any other version. (I adore Maria Dahvana Headley's hilarious, insightful new version.) If you want to read Beowulf in the original, and want an exhaustive discussion of how it works, pick Tolkien's book -- which also includes a helpful prose gloss.
Well, if there is a problem, you can identify it, discuss it and address it, instead of ignoring it entirely which is what some people do. Do what works for your team.

Excessive abstractions, leaky abstractions and such are indeed a problem. The principle or least power works there (given a choice of solutions, use the least flexible/powerful to solve your problem).
> What I wish would happen — and yes, I know this is naive and stupid and probably fruitless — is that Apple would just give the slightest bit of ground.

Does anyone know if there's a strategic legal reason Apple hasn't done this (beyond the small developer program)? Like, imagine tomorrow they give ground. What op-eds would I read in the WSJ about how they've exposed themselves x, y, z problems?

I mean this in the legal sense, not the obvious, usual slippery slope.

One thing that really struck me in this article was Phil Schiller's email about sort of capping the rule after Apple takes in $1B in profit. I thought that was a very sweet and kind thing to suggest. Maybe the number is wrong, maybe the motivation is wrong, but I do like the spirit of this.

Basically, "fair" is hard to define. As stated in the article, literally everyone has good points. In cases like this, when fair in some kind of algebraic sense is impossible, maybe the easiest and best way to approach it is to say "fair is when everyone is more or less ok". Maybe that's the case now, maybe that's the sentiment that Phil was putting fourth. I wonder what that version of "fair" would like like today? Or maybe that's exactly what the small developer program is. Like, you don't have to pay that much unless you're making $1M or more. I know I would be very happy as a developer to have an app like this, and anything beyond that I'd probably be totally sucked into a money crazed world anyway, and probably miserable.
They still collect and save all of that information. It's just not displayed to you ;)
Is it? Most people will still have a website of some sort to actually promote what they're selling. And if you hope to sell more than a handful of items a week, you have to start thinking about fulfillment and customer emails etc.

This is definitely very cool, but I think Shopify still offers a lot (and still has their simple checkout this for $9 a month of whatever, which has a bunch of useful features).
You can pay for high quality video knowledge without ads in Curiosity Stream (https://curiositystream.com/).
Maybe GP was talking about video _uploaders_ paying YouTube to host their unmonetized videos with no ads? Seems like that could be a useful service to offer now that it's no longer going to be free. (Though I believe Vimeo and others already offer competing services in that space, so if YouTube doesn't do it it's not a huge loss.)
It's a damn shame that you have to use flutter, that's all I'd say.
This is bad advice and not what it means to be on salary.

If you want to be paid by the hour, be an hourly worker when you clock in and clock out. Then you are paid by the hour.

The whole point of being a "salary" worker is that you are not an hourly worker and you are not paid by the hour. In fact, you have no right to overtime as there is no such thing as "overtime" for a salary worker. There are state by state regulations that can limit how many hours you can legally work in certain professions, for example airline pilots are prevented from working too many consecutive hours, but there are never any regulations requiring you to get more pay if you work longer hours if you are on salary. Work expectations, time off, work-life balance -- these are things you need to negotiate and figure out when you sign that salary contract because it is absolutely not a per-hour contract. So please don't tell people it is -- instead make sure what you are getting into before you sign that contract.
(I wasn't a downvoter but sure)

Law isn't a simple practice due to the breadth of subjects it covers - but it is very simplified by the human factor. When laws are enforced they are done so after advocacy from a pair of humans and by the judgement of a human for penalty and possibly guilt (in some cases guilt is determined by a pool of jurors).

This means it's very different from programming where we have a dumb machine that is, at it's best ability, able to look at two numbers and tell you which one is bigger. When it comes to software edge cases must be explicit and factors must be encodable - violations must be recognizable by an algorithm and all cases must be covered. Compare that to the law where generally there are a set of guidelines that have slowly evolved over time to cover more and more edge cases - but viewing any law ever written as completely true to the letter would be a mistake - there will always be carve outs and reasonable judgement entering the picture.

I think the main problem with criticizing the creation of more laws is that we don't currently have laws to cover every situation and it's unreasonable to think we ever will - it'd be nice to get rid of some of the stupid ones but I strongly suspect you'll see this town in Italy end up being freed from any obligations since this hereditary claim is pretty bonkers.

Lastly I might point at countries with a long continuous legal history like England which hasn't changed governments violently or due to outside influence in a loooong time. There are a lot of really crazy real estate claims there, sure - but for the day to day stuff, the laws work. The cost of training lawyers might slowly be creeping up[1] but we aren't anywhere near a critical point of being unable to apply laws. I suspect that point will never be reached and we'll just see more and more specialty in legal professions - instead of an advocate in 1820 you can now hire a lawyer specialized in watershed rights. I expect that trend to continue with specialties deepening and growing further apart just like we've seen with development. You couldn't hire an "ops" guy in the 70's - everyone was expected to be well versed in operating system configuration, interaction and most were probably expected to be familiar with design.

So, I don't think this is actually an issue at quite the level you mentioned - but I do think it's one of these slowly creeping growth factors that makes us more vulnerable to societal system collapse.

1. I'd guess really slowly though since even in the US where precedent is a factor most relevant case rulings are probably from before 1870.
I Quit My Corporate Job to Start a Business School
But they're not the copyright:

> An NFT is a bit like a collectible certificate of authenticity, but its owner does not actually buy the copyright itself - meaning the artwork the NFT represents can still be shown wherever the original artist or creator chooses.

What you "own" when you buy an NFT is bragging rights about owning the NFT.

Edit: It's like if you bought the gold masters for Abbey Road. You don't own the copyrights, just a one-of-a-kind representation of that album that you can tell your golf buddies about.
> The fact that a CLI tool raised millions of dollars while also being basically powered by open-source contributions is also kind of a wtf moment to me, but what do I know.

There's probably more money than people know what to do with. So they might be investing in completely crazy ideas hoping that the founders figure it out along the way.
Seeking a Technical Cofounder
Location: New York, NY
Remote: Flexible
Willing to relocate: N/A (position can be remote)
Technologies: TBD
Résumé/CV: Send if interested.
Email: john@gigfix.com

I'm the CEO and founder of GigFix, which is a workflow platform for all members of the film production industry. I have extensive experience in the film world and am now seeking a technical cofounder to join me on this journey. I'm based in NYC, but open to working with someone remotely. Shoot me an email with your resume and a little bit about yourself if interested.
The whataboutism is exhausting.
AFAIK, countries may lawfully deny entry to their airspace. If the outcome is that an aeroplane has to divert its route, well, tough luck. Those countries played their cards.

To be a comparable case two conditions should be met, namely that a) the bomb threat is real, and b) landing in Minsk the most rational decision.

If both a) and b) are real, well, everything was lawfully managed and the blogger just had bad luck. But if they aren't, no it's not the same case at all.
I think it has to deal with how people think of optimization problems. Many people think there are global solutions. What we've learned over the last 200 years is that most problems are non-convex, lie in high dimensions, have long and coupled causal chains, are long-tailed, not-gaussian, non-zero summed (many positive, many negative), and are probabilistic in nature, but we assume the opposite of all these things (mostly due to approximations).

Needless to say, things are complicated. It's why we created specialization in the first place, but at the same time we expect people to be experts in many subjects (generalists). Because of this thinking many people will assume someone is being contradictory when they can criticize different things. The nature of reality is complex. No matter how you side on complicated issues there are reasons to critique different sides (Israel/Palestine, China/US, Communism/Socialism/Capitalism/xism, and so on). Simplifying things just causes us to argue over things we have no qualifications to argue over, but we'll do it with self-righteous indignation instead of as a way to learn or update our views. This is strange because arguing, debate, criticism, and self reflection are so important to democracies. It is far more important to critique your own philosophies (the ones you are fighting for) than those you oppose, since those are the things you have control over the direction of.

Sometimes it isn't about contradictions, sometimes (most of the times) we're just dumb and over simplifying.
As near as I figure, it's not even 'yes I own this thing'. It's 'I own the NFT that refers to that thing', which only happens to connote ownership by convention.

IE... somebody could sell the object and keep the NFT, or vice versa. There's no legal concept tying the NFT to ownership of the object, except perhaps indirectly via contract.