skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Academic communities are often quite small; back when I was publishing and serving on committees it often wasn't hard to figure out who the reviewers were, because a paper proposing a revolutionary new way to do X would be sent to top world experts on X. In those cases, the fact that you could sometimes figure out who was who limited possible bad behavior, because clearly unfair reviews would damage the reviewer's reputation.
I like them too but just viewing the page on Firefox loads 5950X to 250%. A bit too much.
> When everyone around you is breaking the rules and receiving no repercussions, then following the rules yourself is equivalent to choosing to lose.

Depends on how you define "lose". And also on what you think the "rules" are.

For example: most drivers in the US routinely exceed the posted speed limit on roads. Is that "violating the rules"? In a legal sense, it is, since if a cop catches you he can give you a ticket and you pay a ifne and points go on your driving record. But nobody considers you a bad person for doing it, and I would argue that doing it, if you don't cause an accident, is not harming anyone. However, obeying the speed limit is also not considered a bad thing; all it really means is you get where you're going a bit slower. The tradeoff is yours to make; you don't "lose" by choosing to obey the posted rule.

Now consider an example at the other end of the spectrum: all of the shenanigans with mortgages and the financial system that caused the crash of 2008. Those who "followed the rules" leading up to the crash--for example, those, like my wife and me, who limited our mortgage and the size of house we bought to what we could comfortably afford--did not "lose". Sure, the value of our home went down, but we had no need to sell it then. It was still a house and we could still live in it just fine. Sure, we didn't have a bigger house with more bells and whistles, but we also didn't have to worry about what might happen if the housing market crashed. In other words, we made a tradeoff not much different from the one made by the person who obeys the speed limit and just gets where they're going a bit slower--but still gets there.
Although a late-1970s computer definitely couldn't encompass all of the unconscious parts of a thinking mind, it's interesting to think about whether the surface level, conscious thoughts of one's mind could fit on a small computer...
That's a good example, but of a different thing. My examples show that the input is lexed differently based on what part of AST is being produced at a given point. Your example shows that input is parsed into different ASTs based on information from the type system. I.e my examples show that in C the lexer can't be separated from the parser, and your example shows that the parser can't be separated from the type system.
The abandoning of evidence and data happened long before Trump. Denying evolution, denying climate change, promoting abstinence only education, etc. Look to Liberty University if you want to see what a Republican institute of “higher learning” looks like.
If Your Phone Battery’s Dying, Facebook, WhatsApp and Tinder Could Be Why
I accept your rebuttal and raise you a kitten.

https://imgur.com/gallery/dVzW0Le
It's crazy that we created a similar environment to the last economic collapse again. Not as brittle but the same environment where if I have been aggressively going deep into debt and mortgaging one property to buy another I will be making more than highly paid professionals off my assets. I don't know why we love creating these situations where saving and working hard are punished but recklessness and rent seeking are rewarded.
I think in most cases the onus to prove that there is a baby is on the one making the claim that this is so. Besides the impossibility of proving a negative.
Or, just have real repercussions for unethical behavior such as this. If they've identified these people, revoke reviewer status for them. If it was egregious and they have good evidence, publicly announce the revocation. If getting published has a positive benefit on a career, public information about past unethical behavior with regard to publishing and research should hopefully have a negative one.
Why wait for generics? In praise of me-too drugs
I'm not sure if you ever write rage comments, just laced with profanity and nonsense, complaining about the situation at hand... I've written my fair share, I used to work with a lot of perl and bash, and I'd come across some disgusting ideas that had made their way into scripts and utilities. Naturally, finding some of that crap after an hours long search for some bugged behavior, it can be very frustrating and irritating to find out that it all stemmed from someone doing an easy task in a stupid way!

I once had someone leave me a message on my desk phone referring to one of these comments verbosely, and I happened to be listening to my messages on speakerphone as the day was almost over and we were all doing our little ritual tasks before we walked out the doors for the evening. So, this comment starts being read and all my neighbors are packing up their lunchboxes or tidying papers on desks, etc. As the message went on, I could hear the silence enveloping me, because of course it was wildly heinous, and I just froze up and let it play out. It wasn't that I couldn't have jumped over there and hung up the phone but it was so casual that it just caught me off guard that someone would read that awful crap I wrote right into my voicemail! I remember the end being sorta like "anyhow, that's not a very good practice, so don't write them like that anymore". I don't really even remember exactly what happened next other than leaving with my tail between my legs. I don't think anybody mentioned it to me. I guess it seemed worse in the moment of it.

This was well over 20 years ago now, I was basically brand new to everything. That was a turning point, thankfully enough.

Reading open source has exposed me to a LOT of different commenting practices. I don't really think about it often enough, but the human on other side is always the most important consideration.
games leans so far left it's a flat line.
It's not anecdotal, even if you have a different experience.

People putting out $50K cheques in 'very risky' things for strangers businesses very much likely to fit the criteria for accredited.

Maybe your 'Uncle' might do this, but it's generally not a concern that you're going to have that many of them that it's going to force you to go public. Also, you can vet for it by asking the question.
I used edge for a year.

Steep learning curve. Arrow keys are hard to find.

Amazing for my shoulders.

Got the brown keys. I regret. Too squishy
In my time in academia, 20 years ago, cheating specifically was much more common with students (and researchers) from what I would guess was your certain other countries. An example of general corruption, I think.
Unconventional aero. How did he go so fast? (2016)
Of course, that must be why the response from the free software community, particularly as expressed on HN, has been so overwhelmingly positive and supportive.

Clearly, Andrew doesn't need to defend any of his actions for anyone.

Have a great one, friend.
What you propose is actually how it used to function until around the mid-20th century. Journals used to be very permissive when accepting papers with the editor only doing a cursory check to make sure the paper wasn't total garbage.

More info here: https://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific...
are you suggesting that it is the large slant "left leaning" professors that will cause such issues, or that there is a slant at all?
A quick google search makes it seem like their Kyoto campus is for a study abroad program. and it's located in Doshisha University. https://ealc.stanford.edu/undergraduate-program/study-abroad
Because he defended reincarnation, pantheism, denied the trinity and so on.

Basically the church got upset he was preaching religious stuff against the church, it had nothing to do with his science.
As I said,

White liberals are the white supremacists dictating to minorities what they ought to believe.
Weechat-android might not drop because it's a relay client. But try running a non-relay client and see how it goes.

Anyways it's like you're intentionally missing the point. I'm not here for tech support with my setup. I'm trying to explain why IRC's user experience is inferior to Discord for most users.
Sorry to interrupt, but what are you laughing at?
What do most game studios use?
Right. Both the teapot and Ivan’s VW are “manual scans”. The teapot even got “accidentally” stretched by Jim Blinn and most copies use that one.

In searching for that evidence (Wikipedia says citation needed!), I rediscovered Frank Crow’s great write up from 1987 (which includes a scan of the graph paper!):

https://www.computer.org/csdl/magazine/cg/1987/01/mcg1987010...

aka

https://s3.amazonaws.com/ieeecs.cdn.csdl.content/mags/cg/198...
> Why not just tell people to supplement vitamin D instead?

One very consistent pattern with vitamin D research is that association studies will find a major relationship between serum vitamin D and some health outcome.[1] But an RCT using vitamin D supplementation will find no effect.[2]

That strongly suggests that serum vitamin D, at least as we measure it, is merely proxying for something else. The map is not the territory. There's an X-factor that's related to serum vitamin D, but is not just serum vitamin D. Artificial supplementation doesn't work. Since the vast majority of population vitamin D variance is related to sun exposure, that would strongly suggest that sun exposure is the X-factor that improves health.

[1]https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/proceedings-of-the-n...
[2]https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/article-abst...
Its only reason for existence is that if-s in C are statements and not expressions. But an if and a ternary expression do the same thing. Making two different constructs to do one thing doesn't sound all that simple to me. And the standard has special treatment for parsing ternary expressions. It basically says that in any "a ? b : c" pretend that "b" is surrounded with parens, so that it's effectively "a ? ( b ) : c". Because specifying a grammar that has clear precedence was too hard.
You're ignoring the obvious correlation - they aren't healthier because they get more sun, they get more sun because they spend more time walking/biking/whatever outside.
NAL, but I don't think talking to your friends and acquaintances privately rises to the level of libel or slander, or at least it would be very difficult to prove if it did.

What is the alternative that you would like to see? Should we be able to destroy any person we want simply by making an accusation without evidence? Should we throw out presumption of innocence and fair trials and just chuck people in jail the moment someone accuses someone of a crime?

If someone is making a public accusation with the intent of destroying someone's livelihood and reputation, I don't think it is too much to ask that we have some way of verifying that the accusation is true.
Is it also not possible that they were counting lunar cycles, seasons, or something else as years? In the case of lunar cycles 969 would be about 80.
you have been banned from /r/pyongyang
Alternatively I assume that I will be doxxed by a sufficiently motivated crowd anyways and just try to avoid motivating a crowd.
"lab leak" does not necessarily imply "originated in a lab". The lab can bring in a virus from the wild to study and then have a leak.
There was a very nice paper at this year's ELS on a call site optimization technique that they plan to put into SICL.

The idea solves the problem of optimizing function calls while allowing various things (functions, classes, methods) to be dynamically redefined, even while calls involving those are on the stack.

https://european-lisp-symposium.org/static/proceedings/2021.... (pages 72-78)
> there is something to be said for having roots and knowing your neighbors

I think knowing your neighbors is overvalued. My evidence is Tokyo and living in transient, largely ethnically homogenous sharehouses — in ethnically homogenous areas — for long periods of time.
Sounds like this is less "explicit casts are bad" and more "explicit casts are bad in C" then. Rust indeed errors out at compile time for the reason I stated: https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...
I am reading the words but trying to focus in on the core of your point. From my perspective, your point is incoherent. That you later contradict yourself does not mitigate that; it's exactly my concern.

> How would you theoretically create a decentralized, permissionless, pseudonymous/anonymous currency that's more democratic?

I would not try, because cryptocurrencies are hyper-individualist and hyper-libertarian, and very much antidemocratic. The core notion of any democracy is that a group of humans is in it together. There's a reason America's constitution starts with "We, the people", lays out ambitious collective goals, and then details how we make rules together. The point of an anonymous, permissionless, trustless currency is to sidestep all that, raising a middle finger to democratically chosen regulations. Which is why cryptocurrencies are basically not used for normal commerce, but are instead a haven for scammers, grifters, money launderers, ponzi schemers, thieves, and MMF fools who dream of living in the Big Rock Candy Mountains.

So I again suggest you are not really clear on what democracy is if you keep trying to suggest it's material to the original Bitcoin plan. At best you're applying a very thin coat of lipstick to a very large pig.
The point is that Shell is ignoring its obligations.

Apparently future taxes were not sufficient to change their practices right now. It is a fact stated by the company itself and the court opinion.

From the court ruling:

> The RI Annual Briefing 2020 contains the following warning (‘Definitions and cautionary note’), inter alia:

> Additionally, it is important to note that as of April 16, 2020, Shell’s operating plans and budgets do not reflect Shell’s net-zero emissions ambition. (...)

> Since 2016, the Dutch NGO Follow This, shareholder in RDS, has submitted various resolutions with the request to exchange the investments of the Shell group in oil and gas for sustainable energy. The RDS Board has consistently recommended its shareholders to vote against these resolutions for being contrary to the company’s interests. The RDS Board stated the following, among other things:

> “tying the Company’s hands to a renewables only mandate would be strategically and commercially unwise.”

> The majority of shareholders has voted against these resolutions. (...)

> It is also an established fact that RDS has set more stringent climate ambitions for the Shell group in 2019 and 2020 (see under 2.5.18). However, business plans in the Shell group still have to be updated in accordance with these climate ambitions, and a further explanation of its future portfolio and plans is forthcoming. In the court’s view, RDS’ policy, policy intentions and ambitions for the Shell group largely amount to rather intangible, undefined and non-binding plans for the long-term (2050). These plans (‘ambitions’ and ‘intentions’) are furthermore not unconditional but – as can be read in the disclaimer and cautionary notes to the Shell documents – dependent on the pace at which global society moves towards the climate goals of the Paris Agreement (‘in step with society and its customers’). Emissions reduction targets for 2030 are lacking completely; the NCF identifies the year 2035 as an intermediate step (see under 2.5.19). From this the court deduces that RDS retains the right to let the Shell group undergo a less rapid energy transition if society were to move slower. Moreover, RDS has insufficiently contested the standpoint of Milieudefensie et al. that RDS’ planned investments in new explorations are not compatible with the reduction target to be met. The Shell group’s policy, as determined by RDS, mainly shows that the Shell group monitors developments in society and lets states and other parties play a pioneering role. In doing so, RDS disregards its individual responsibility, which requires RDS to actively effectuate its reduction obligation through the Shell group’s corporate policy.
The alternative to "metering" is tolerating "waste." One reason tenure declined, for example, was checked-out professors. Perhaps that's a price worth paying. The other half of that coin is brilliant people with full freedom to pursue science unencumbered by bullshit.

It's a hard sell though. The cost of metering is subtle. The do-nothing tenured professor is visible.

Wikipedia, OSS, etc really are the shining beacons. Existence proof for something better. Someone needs to write The Cathedral and the Bazaar, but in non geekish.
We're frankly headed towards a USB type-D standard, where we intentionally create different ports for different uses. A dedicated power connector should never a data connector, and there should be a way to differentiate A/V ports from periphery ports. The mess we are in now doesn't really work as intended.
Maybe slightly different than this (which seems to be at an os level) but I would pay for new interfaces for social media apps/sites that make users less susceptible to social media addiction (or even interfaces that don’t explicitly optimize for maximizing the amount of time spent on a service).
There's an independently made Reddit search that is leagues ahead of Reddit's own search:

https://redditsearch.io/

It's made by the guy who runs pushshift.io - he does an incredible public service by archiving terabytes of social media data into a fully searchable ElasticSearch cluster. Plug for his Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/pushshift
I really hope the people who think I should feel even more restricted by what I can say about people who’ve sexually assaulted me will tell me why, instead of just making it more shitty to even admit it happened without even naming anyone who harmed me. Stay classy HN.
The obvious takeaway here is understanding the risks of restricting speech to only that which conforms to an Authority.
Does the Common Lisp standard need to be revamped? I remember seeing stuff about CL21 a while back...

I keep my eyes peeled for anything Scheme on GitHub, I love reading Scheme code, and seeing R7RS march eternally forward has brought me a lot of joy over the past few years.

But try as I might, and I HAVE tried, I just don't see Common Lisp as dealing with modern computing that well. It looks crufty and tired where Scheme continues to refine and sharpen. And then there's Clojure, which has become what I always kinda thought Common Lisp should've tried to become.

This isn't a very good comment, I guess it just always amazes me how much innovation is still happening from simple, unfancy s-expressions. Thank God.
I think you can pass a linker flag to make it use the oldest version of each symbol, but I'm not sure what that flag is.
I had a good guess as to what the byline would be from the title and I was right...
No more F keys on it :( I like having my media controls in hardware.
> the real advantage of [vim] is its installed everywhere, and just works over ssh.

I've always thought this is a very silly reason to use vim, when almost any text editor can remotely access files via ssh, and FUSE tools like sshfs exist.

I use vim extensively as both an IDE and config file editor, but almost never actually run it remotely on servers. I would rather not lose my configs and have to have two separate sets of muscle memory.
Yes, I setup a DDP to figure out how I can make my own TNF blockers using nutrient intake optimization.... yada yada yada. Immunomodulators and the immune system are really complex and now I have 2 detached retinas.
I'd say what's more provocative than the title is the fact that one of the richest men on Earth gets bailed out with public money.
I had this problem in iTerm. Switched to alacritty and it's buttery smooth. Might be worth trying.
There may be some high-level validity to using gini splitting as a means for 'general' prioritisation to better understand the data; however, second order effects (e.g. assumptions of non-independence between variables) can often dominate, in which case multi-dimensional clusters tend to be a better mental model for logical groupings. The simplest is like a k-means, or other 'embedding' or latent based models calculated from matrix factorizations (CF, PCA, etc) which seek to summarize data into 'topics' or 'categories'.
which perfectly ecapsulates the "problem" with usb-c: everybody wants a cable with all the features, but only wants to pay for the cheapest cable. and then gets frustrated when their $3 cable doesn't support thunderbolt and high-power modes.

you can get 3-metre thunderbolt cables if you want, you just have to pay a lot for them. all the problems with USB-C can be solved by spending more money. if you want to go the cheap route and buy cables that don't support all the various modes, then you're going to end up with a bunch of cables that don't support some modes and have to keep track of which ones those are.

if you regularly use devices that need higher-spec cables, it's probably worth keeping one good high-spec USB-C cable in your bag, instead of three terrible ones.
> If shareholders want it used to do buybacks, they vote for company leadership to do that.

Only if there is an option to do that.
The constant expressions that #if understands are a very restricted subset of C. It's best thought of as a small grammar inlined into the preprocessor rather than intermingled with the C parser, since the expressions can only evaluate preprocessor definitions and not any C declarations.

I've written several C-style preprocessors. They can be fiddly to write, but you shouldn't think of them as lexing to the same lexemes as a C parser needs. You can take a lot of shortcuts there.

Things like '<' and '>' being overloaded is quite common, even in lexers. You see it with nested templates / generics in C++, Java, C# etc. There are simple tricks for dealing with the ambiguity between '>>' vs '>' '>' in 'T<U<V>>'.

(FWIW, having written some of those preprocessors, I think they're a bad idea. It's notable that other languages haven't copied the idea, other than C++ which inherited it.)
He experienced an internet mob. But by calling out the people who made that happen in his "receipts" post, couldn't he be inadvertently sicing a mob on them?
Many languages "without implicit casts" e.g. Java still have this problem because they allow widening casts.

I don't think it makes sense to ban them in a language with powerful enough checks, like dependent types. If you have two variables and one is typed "int 1-10" and the other is typed "int 1-5", and it fails at runtime if it doesn't fit in the destination range, why do you need to type something that says you really meant to assign one to the other? Just assign it.
Is there a reason why you might want to mix endianness within a file format? Wouldn't it just be extremely error prone as demonstrated in the article?
Rainforest (YC S12) Is Hiring Remote Engineers, Product Designers and CSM
They're no longer shareholders. And, since buybacks are value neutral... they're not getting a premium when they sell.