skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Genetic study finds the brain is most similar to – testicles?
the zeitgeist the past 10 to 20 years heavily biases people to think government cant work and if it can, its too expensive, and if it does, it infringes someones right to profit at others expense.
This is frequently proven wrong by actual numbers. Remember when ElectronConf was cancelled a few years back [1]? The process was completely open, and all judging was completely blind, and still there was a huge uproar when the accepted panels didn't match some folks' notions of what a diverse slate of speakers should be.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14480868
Nope. The sequence of statements in the (let) block is imperative. Atoms are actually an example of how the values of references are updated functionally. Clojure has facilities for both imperative and functional style.
Many times it's not the government securing their systems, they've outsourced it to places like SolarWinds. Maybe they would do a better job if political pressure didn't push for more and more privatization of critical operations.
List of classes. Only a subset are required for a degree. A bachelor's degree from the School of Engineering looks like it requires these CS classes [1].

• CS 103 and 109

• CS 106B or 106X

• One of CS 181W, 182W, 191W, 194W, 210B, or 294W

• One of CS 107 or 107 E

• One of CS 110 or 111

• CS 161

• A senior project, which seems to fall under any of several course numbers

• It looks like you have to pick a "track" (AI, Biocomputation, Graphics, and a few others) and take 4 or 5 classes from that track.

(That is just CS classes. There are also some required math and physics classes).

(I specifically said from the School of Engineering because I don't happen to know if all Stanford CS bachelor's degrees come from that. Some schools offer a degree from more than one school/college, sometimes with different requirements).

[1] https://exploredegrees.stanford.edu/schoolofengineering/comp...
> An abstraction doesn't mean you can close your eyes and everything will work by magic.

Right... that's why they're called "leaky abstractions". Because when you don't pay attention to the implementation details and their constraints, things break.

If it weren't leaky, you'd call it a "specification" instead of an "abstraction".
So, will this will be another TSA? Time will tell, but looking at recent history of what USG decided lately in past 2 decades, the score is leaning overwhelmingly to "yes".
I read that as 1 meter feet instead of one million feet.
I agree with this comment. In my opinion there should be stronger laws regarding the misuse of police power, but those can be implemented at the state level, the extension of the CFAA to that is dangerous. One key point is this document:

> The Government’s interpretation of the “exceeds authorized access” clause would attach criminal penalties to a breathtaking amount of commonplace computer activity. For instance, employers commonly state that computers and electronic devices can be used only for business purposes. On the Government’s reading, an employee who sends a personal e-mail or reads the news using a work computer has violated the CFAA. The Government speculates that other provisions might limit its prosecutorial power, but its charging practice and policy indicate otherwise.
Robot Sticks to Ceilings by Vibrating a Flexible Disc
Take a look here for another shocking article:
https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-peop...
Honestly - what other outcome was there? I am too cynical to believe that the government would have outed Black programs as reasons for sightings, and there isn't a shred of conclusive evidence for anything else.

Also, does hypersonic technology and extreme maneuverability go together? Wouldn't some really thorny CFD problems have to be solved to allow a scramjet to turn on a dime?
I mean the ethics seem to be analytically more complex.

If consenting surgeon A is to perform surgery procedure X on A such that the success chance of X on person i in the set of patients I (with the disease) is increased, then A necessarily has a higher chance of saving more lives in exchange for potentially accidentally killing/injuring himself.

So in fact, restricting X on A is analytically unethical when the set of patients i have a high probability of death or disability.

But it's also analytically unethical to perform X on A if X results in permanent damage (i.e. remove a kidney).

I've had a lot of surgery, and the best surgeons understand what it's like to be a patient, but perhaps things aren't as complex as it being totally untenable.

I can see an ENT undergoing a tonsillectomy that he doesn't need so that his friends can learn, and he can learn what patients go through. Or something else relatively minor - adenoids and so on.

I would say that further, doctors who prescribe medications that you can recover from (stimulants, ketamine etc.) should take them first so they know what their patients are going through.

In fact, I think most surgeons/doctors would agree with the above.
I dunno. If they use the key to gain access and throw a party, they probably aren't trespassing. Their guests might be. You might have civil cause against the kid, but if they clean up after the party and don't cause a nuisance or disturbance, there's not obviously a criminal act by the kid there. Maybe a conspiracy charge on the trespassing?
No, but they could have, no problem. It just wasn't part of their goals.

I also want to mention that although we were/are a religious household, we did not do homeschooling at all because of religion. We did it so that the kids could get the best education possible.

And people might wonder about their ability, as a parent, to teach. Are they up to the task? The answer is simple: The person who has the most interest in a child is going to be the best teacher. And who has more interest than a parent who loves them?

If somebody wanting to do homeschooling is doing it because it's the "easy" way out, or because they are trying to "buck the system" for the sake of bucking the system, then DONT. Do it because it's what is best for your kids. It was best for ours, and the way we did it worked for them.

Before you decide anything at all, do tons of research. Talk to parents in your area who are homeschooling. Look for co-ops and home schooling groups on facebook etc. There are excellent resources available to you.
They'd restore from backups, which is already what they did even after paying the ransom. More importantly, would the hack have happened in first place if they knew there was no chance of being paid?

Every ransom paid just funds and encourages the next hack. The social damage is deserving of a large fine (i.e. 10x the ransom).
I still haven't come across a convincing argument why Apple should be compelled by regulation to open up the iPhone and let anyone do anything they want with it, ie be a general purpose mobile computer.

It sucks that they simultaneously have (1) such restrictive policies on what you can do with your device and (2) a well-designed hardware and software ecosystem that serves as a foundation that's hard to move away from.

However, what's stopping others from coming out with a better, less restrictive alternative that benefits from the publicly visible work and lessons that Apple has done/taught us to get us to the great products we have today?

This would be a lot of work. It would require lots of investment of resources. But there's nothing explicitly stopping anyone else from doing this. With global hardware and software advances, and the mobile ecosystem becoming more mature and less changing, the technical moat between only Apple being able to make a good phone vs others doing the same is decreasing.

If Apple's behavior is unacceptable, we should move on to an alternative even if we have to create one to do so. An analogy of a relationship seems fitting. At the start of the relationship, it was all love, roses and fun dates. Now, years into the relationship, we are seeing that Apple is actually kind of a control freak and maybe not so good for us after all. Instead of futilely fighting with someone who won't change after so many fights, maybe we should use the free market to move on to a healthier relationship. There is no gun to our head forcing us to stay with Apple.

I personally dislike the fact that we aren't free to do what we want on our iPhones. But instead of being obsessed with Apple, maybe we should let Apple be Apple, and appreciate what they have contributed to the world. And then create the change in the world that we would like to see.
Any specific group(s) you are referring to?
No, because what you're describing isn't about hiding an identity from the public. What you're talking about is the ability to speak with tact. I disagree with my boss about a lot of things. I commonly explain why he's wrong or why I'm right. Then in the very rare cases when we still disagree, I do what he asks because he's my boss. If you can't say something you think is true about your work because you fear the repercussions. That's not normal. And a huge red flag.

Ditto for my ex-SO who we've disagreed with about a few things. If you talk to someone with respect, and compassion with the goal of understanding over proving you're right. It's very easy to disagree harmoniously. But again, that's a matter of respect and tact. Not about separating who you appear to be from what you actually believe.

I'm hard pressed to think of a more toxic relationship with someone you'd call your significant other than one where you have to pretend to be or pretend believe something fake just to avoid something that may be uncomfortable. If you're speaking from experience; I don't envy you. That sounds like a horrible way to live your life. Avoiding conversations because of fear of conversations that require tact. If that really is you, you have a lot of learning about how to have conversations to make up for.
You are misrepresenting Kamau Bobb's blog post by cherry-picking a single sentence from it. This is the first paragraph of his post:

> If I were a Jew today, my sensibilities would be tormented. I would find it increasingly difficult to reconcile the long cycles of oppression that Jewish people have endured and the insatiable appetite for vengeful violence that Israel, my homeland, has now acquired. This reconciliation would be particularly difficult now, in November, 79 years after Kristallnacht – the Night of Broken Glass. The anniversary of this dreadfully monumental day in my history would bring me pause. It would force me to reflect on the legacy of extraordinary human suffering. I might wonder how the vicious eruption of cruelty in the mid-twentieth century has influenced the shape of my identity as a Jewish person and our collective identity as Jewish people.

He is imagining a dichotomy; commitment to Israel and to humanist values. "If I were a Jew today, my sensibilities would be tormented." This does not sound like anti-Semitism to me.
It gets worse - gain of function research was banned under Obama until the ban was lifted in 2017 under Trump - https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...

I can’t find sources for this right now but apparently Dr Anthony Fauci played a key role in getting the ban lifted. He’s also the head of the NIAID ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Fauci ) which (apparently) is the ultimate source for all funding on gain of function research.

So the lead guy we’ve been listening to (and still are) for scientific advice on this pandemic is entangled in a massive conflict of interest.

Edit: I assume this is getting down-voted either because is sounds like conspiracy theory or just everyone has already heard it and it's not news. Fauci has already admitted having been involved in funding Wuhan - https://nypost.com/2021/05/25/fauci-admits-nih-funding-of-wu... - that on it's own should not have been something he first admitted to in May 2021, while holding such a responsible position. Looking for more sources right now...

Edit 2: In this article from December 2011 - https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-flu-virus-risk-wor... - you have Fauci making the case for creating viruses in a lab;

> "Given these uncertainties, important information and insights can come from generating a potentially dangerous virus in the laboratory."

It doesn't explicitly mention gain of function but - while raising the concerns, it's arguing for research which would include gain of function. Meanwhile listening to this panel discussion which included Fauci from Nov 2017 - https://www.c-span.org/video/?437187-1/johns-hopkins-forum-e... ... again he's arguing for more aggressive types of research
It's not any different than the war on drugs. The gov't can't really think in a different manner than just black and white. The world is made up of shades of gray, and it's just too difficult to create legislation to handle shades of gray.
what? nothing's perfect, but i thought darklang was kinda cool to the extent i messed around with it. i even did a couple toy "useful" things with it and found it pretty fun.
Ahhh, so if I disagree with you on a point, it's due to lack of education?

That's a hell of a worldview.

I grew up in an impoverished family, in a trailer park, in a mostly black county. I know far better than you do about "privilege structures", but since I happened to be white, none of the diversity initiatives care or help.

Poor white people are underrepresented in tech. But the white elites think poor whites are in trailer parks because they are stupid. It's their fault, right? That's what all of you say, I've heard it said everywhere. "Trailer trash" this and that, said casually without batting an eye. Never questioning if maybe, just maybe, the kids born there have opportunities equivalent to yours.

It's obvious nobody cares. If they did, they would talk about it, or try to do something. But there are no activist professors for them, so crickets.
If they treat them as terrorists, then paying a ransom is funding terrorists. Which is how it it should be treated.
1 is necessary for ssh keys to work: unless configured otherwise, the client has to send the public key for every private key to the server so the server can determine whether any of the keys is trusted. (a) this isn’t a security issue, but it might be a privacy issue. (b) you can configure ssh to use a specific private key if this really is unacceptable.
Vaccinated or not, California workers may keep masks on
Another pretty good article, certainly higher quality than you'd consider given the source[0].
What switch flipped to make all these come out right now?

[0]: https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-how-amateur-sleuths-broke...
Thomas Nagel is awesome. Highly recommend his A Very Short Introduction to Philosophy - he takes the approach of just getting you to think about philosophical questions, rather than the usual historical perspective.
Tattooing a wolf on yourself is sending a strong signal.
It's tough because I don't think you can excuse the fact that some dealer's try to overcharge. However on the same token I can see that in order to provide a 10 year warranty, you need to expect that your drivers are regularly servicing their cars at the appropriate intervals by the right people.

At the end of the day, you don't actually need to abide by the warranty and you can still have your standard warranty period if you don't follow the rules.
That doesn't make much sense to me. It's well known that fast chargers cost a lot more than charging at home on a watt-to-watt basis. Selling electricity is clearly more profitable than selling gasoline.

It's not cheap to build pumps and underground storage tanks for gas stations, so it's not as if gas station owners would be stunned by upfront costs. Lots of stations already have plenty normal parking spots that generate zero income on their own.

If anything, a longer stop would incentivize more convenience store shopping. Which would make them want to have better stock and selection, which in turn might attract nearby foot traffic. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
I hesitate to earmark this as competence, but what I see again and again is that my colleagues in Asia (India, China, Russia on one occasion) have a much higher tolerance for pain than the majority of their North American and Western European contemporaries.

This is not a good thing. The dominant form of 'bullshit' in code is pointlessly self-inflicted pain, and so people who don't hit the 'enough is enough' point are wallowing in bullshit code most of the time, and writing more bullshit the rest of the time. We politely call this 'accidental complexity' to water it down and not point fingers. It wasn't an accident. It was deliberate, or thoughtless.

Anyone who hits the 'enough' point now starts to consider high threshold people as mess-makers. As being less than 1x employees (worst case, -x employees). Doing that kind of janitorial work for long is a quick road to burnout. It's taking and challenging to explain to people that 'okay' is not universal and just because you think something is 'okay' doesn't mean anyone else does and as you work on a team you need to adjust your levels to match expectations.
This is a great crossing of literary flair and fairly sophisticated research. Is this a thing? Can I get more?
Autopilot is not engaged during this video. You can tell because the steering wheel icon is grey, meaning AP is available. If it was engaged, it would be blue. The driver is driving manually.
I took my (recently out of warranty) BMW in to the local BMW dealer for a regular service. New coils, plugs and intake cleaning.

When I got it back the check engine light was on and the car was idling rough where previously it was just notifying of scheduled service and running fine. The dealer took another look and determined that I had a bent intake valve. They quoted me $15,000.00 to fix it.

They claimed this must be my fault, probably downshifting on the highway. I noted that the car ran fine when I dropped it off and a missed shift would bend more than one valve. Also, they were just doing service in the intake near the valves (with a media blaster) and that the car had 30 more miles than when I dropped it off. It seemed obvious to me that any engine damage was done by them. They insisted it was "impossible" that the damage was done by them.

I said not to do anything and that I would tow it to another shop for another opinion. Strangely they suggested I could drive the car to another shop (with a bent valve?). I had it towed and the other shop determined that one of the new spark plugs had the electrode pinched shut so it was shorting out. They also noted that the coils did not look new. They installed a new plug (~$12.00) and the car ran fine. To be sure they also did a compression test and found no evidence of a bent valve.

I went back to the BMW shop and got all my money back for the service. The service writer still had the balls to tell me that I "should be prepared for expensive service bills on these cars". I wonder how much of that reputation comes from shady dealerships ripping people off. I suspect quite a bit.

I have no proof but I think the dealership sabotaged the car on purpose. There's no way any inspection would have missed the shorted plug. The car was immediately warning of the condition after startup and was misfiring badly.

Dealerships absolutely will rip you off if they think they can get away with it.
The government could set & enforce standards for levels of security and disaster recovery, especially if critical systems. It could not just research but also pass on knowledge of vulnerabilities. I don't expect the government to actually run the security. I expect the government to provide the framework and tools so that everyone doesn't have to figure it out on their own.
I upvoted, but then I felt like that wasn't enough. There is something about this book that seems more real than life. The author not only was a neurosurgeon, but also had a Master of Arts in Literature from Stanford. He is an absolutely incredible and deep writer.

Couldn't recommend it enough.
Looks like the author replied to a similar comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27388827

I tried both solutions a couple months ago with one of these cheap USB HDMI capture dongles https://www.amazon.ca/MavisLink-Capture-Definition-Acquisiti...

& pi-kvm had better performance
There's been an argument that schemes relying on backpropagation can't provide insight into biological neural systems, but this argument is weakened by the existence of predictive coding equivalents.
This is silly. The lab leak hypothesis was never off limits, it was ridiculed because it had little evidence and was based on political things are different this time thinking. Finding viral origins is never a fight, it is hard work requiring detailed research. Both SARS and MERS are good comparisons and took around three years to fully understand.

The lab leak theory is popular because of politics and ignoring the down sides of potential error. The lab leak theory posits that natural disasters such as have happened throughout history no longer happen because all events are shaped by the hands of man. The lab leak theory is based on the idea that establishing guilt brings justice. The lab leak theory is based on a generalized loathing of China. The lab leak theory ignores the history of ongoing transfers of animal viruses to man in favor of the view that it is different this time. Garbage in results in garbage out and the lab leak theory assumes that an incorrect idea will result in correct political action.

Perhaps the greatest tragedy here is that people are appealing to ideas about justice by saying this was a forbidden struggle that is a big fight, yet ignoring the most important realities of justice. If you really want justice then you need a coherent statement of the offense, there should be a fair hearing with representatives of all sides, there should be impartial review whether that be trained judges or a selected jury of peers or whatever else, and so on. We know what justice looks like and any serious introspection will show that this shrill advocacy of the lab leak theory is just more social media garbage like q anon and the rest. If you want justice then you will have to submit to the kind of impartiality that brings justice, but that isn't what we are talking about here.
Give me a second to get a beer as I untangle this sentence
SCADA's a good example of systems that are difficult to secure for complex reasons. There are many others.

You ask a very wise question. Unfortunately, I think it's unknownable. The best we know is that the answer is more than none and less than all. The more you get towards "all" the more prevention measures cost to implement. For instance, managing a mature backup and imaging operation at scale may be conceptually simple but is both complex in practice and far from free.

Hospitals in particular are the scene of some interesting conflicts between security and usability. There are a lot of stories about health staff doing things like jamming open medication dispensing machines so that they could get on with the job instead of dealing with security measures they experienced largely as obstacles.

Can you imagine throwing yubikeys into a scenario like that, where people already have an adversarial relationship with IT and security measures? What do you think is going to happen when someone forgets their key and can't send an x-ray to the remote radiology center? I have my guesses.
It would be cool, but you could also place a piece of paper on the nightstand in each room with instructions for the same effect.

Technology doesn't have to be the answer for everything.
I wonder if returning to a more human/intimate offices size (vs open spaces) would not solve a big part of the frustrations about productivity. (Only because I remember my first offices +20 years ago).