skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I understand where you're coming from, but I feel like this ignores practicality and, coupled to that, social use. You can go on numbers related to health, or raw effectiveness, but those numbers don't measure practicality.

MD, mushrooms (and acid et al) are far too powerful (yes, you can take very small doses, but in general). To look at it coldly, they're just not at all practical, regardless of them having, I would say, far fewer direct negative health effects. Indirectly though, things that immediately change people's mental state to such a degree are I would say more dangerous than alcohol.

With alcohol, I can go and have a small amount with family or friends or colleagues, for a short period of time. I can do it home, with a meal. And the actual drinking of it is core. It's not like taking one the above drugs: I take the drug then I am mentally altered to a large degree, possibly for a long period of time. In the case of a selfish drug, like cocaine or an amphetamine, I can function, and the effects a shorter, but there's no social aspect. The actual sitting down with others to spend time imbibing is central.

Cannabis obviously has this in common, so I think that's a very fair comparison. And just to stay on topic, so does tobacco. It's not just the effect of the drug that's attractive, it's [what I think is fair to say is] the social ritual associated with it. It helps that taking those isn't quick (it's not just slipping a pill), that's a feature.
It isn't exactly a secret. :-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS-9
I feel like I read something new every week on HN about design philosophy; make your product this way not that way, try to do this and not that, here's 10 examples of products that failed because of x, here's 5 products that were successful because of y - maybe it's time to realise that there's no monolithic overarching "right" way to design a product. This is how we ended up with the current trendy cohort of minimalist apps with flat dark designs, with mobile apps that all look the same, with products that miss killer features for the sake of simplicity, with the annoying typefaces that all tech companies use that make it "trendy".
I think that e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 is massively overrated. Because the beauty that people find is largely based on the symbols that are present and because it doesn't really say anything meaningful beyond itself. It's not even a formula or an equation - it's a result. It's like being impressed by cos(pi) = -1.

The more general formula e^(ix) = cosx + i*sinx is a lot more impressive. Both because of it's implications for the rest of mathematics and aesthetically. If you look at the way the vectors at 38:00-39:20[1] cancel out to always land on the unit circle - I can get behind calling that beautiful.

[1] https://youtu.be/ZxYOEwM6Wbk?t=2280
Or maybe he just knew enough about his field to know that this theory is lala land and catnip for conspiracy nutheads.
Every BigCo that hires tons of un/minimally skilled workers does.

That's their whole shtick and a main part of their competitive advantage. By process-ifying everything they can use the cheapest, crappiest parts of the labor pool and still get good results. The operations that haven't abstracted away the need for employees to think somewhat about what they're doing either need to hire better labor or put up with lesser results.
>They kind of do? I get the point the article is trying to make, but they're just throwing everything at the wall to make that point, even when it doesn't really match reality.

They do not. A trainer's main goal is to keep an athlete healthy and capable of performing. In fact, rather than discard an injured athlete, they do the opposite: work with them to get them back to the best possible performance level.
> Blow up that report card and frame it on your wall. That's high praise.

Yeah, he can put it next to his membership acceptance letter from the flat earth society.

(What makes you think his teacher wasn't onto something there?)
What stack are you using for this? Looks great
Private Set Intersection: A Soft Introduction
Engineering and Design of Nuclear Weapons
I don't think it does occupy a big presence in most people's minds.

For the relatively small group that are either (a) happy to be the 'early' guy in an obvious ponzi/pyramid scheme or (b) convinced that despite all the evidence, it isn't in fact a scam, I'm sure it does occupy a big presence in their minds.
https://archive.is/jTht4
Defending the borders of a nation and making every corporate campus a green zone are different things with different logistics.
Then why would a Google worker (not a machine, but a real life human) tell this person that using their competitor is not allowed? Did you read the screenshot?
> the more material you put into your house, the less vulnerable it is;

After following the lock picking lawyer on youtube for a while, it seems to me there is a fallacy somewhere in here.

The weak points of a structure are often underestimated to begin with and adding complexity to the building (eg. door badge system vs. a good padlock) doesn't necessarily add security.
Even e^(ix) = cosx + i*sinx is an obvious result of the definition i^2= - 1.
The Economist is bullshit.
The two are not exclusive; in fact, "convention" means that out of all the possibilities a certain set is chosen and used by default. It is not possible to have a "convention" if there is no "configuration", otherwise it's just a limited set of features.

What the author says is that's it's good to have configuration, because then everyone can find what they want, but configuration alone is not enough. You need good defaults, and because "good" is subjective it means you need defaults that will please a specific category of users, and you need to go all-in on it because then your software will have its own identity. It also means that those who want to use the software another way can still do it because it's configurable.
Contrastive Representation Learning
No one expects a leader and influencer like Elon Musk, to just go and blabber something on social media without putting much thought into the subject matter or without taking advice from experts.

In other words, crypto is so fragile, volatile and unstable that any big player like Musk can easily scam and manipulate the market like a string puppet.

We all know it's true --- we just hate it being publicly proven for everyone to see.

The exchanges are doing the same sort of thing but they consult the "experts" and thus their scams are quieter, less overt and more "responsible" so as not to tip over the gravy train.
I don't say that? You just have to think about how this stuff is going to be used in the real world where we actually live. The thing which is objectively disturbing is how easy it is to lose control of one's life once the government is able to record, observe and judge every single thing a person does. I believe such a level of transparency is only beneficial when it's applied to people who hold power over others; to subject everyone in a society to that kind of scrutiny would just be laying the foundations for abuse.
In general yes. After the first difference the compressed streams will be basically random compared to each other. However there are numerous things that may avoid this.

For zip files each individual file is compressed independently. So unchanged files and prefixes don't need to be resent, even if once a file changes the entire tail end of it needs to be resent.

Some times compression algorithms "reset" periodically. For example the `gzip --rsyncable` patch. This basically resets the compression stream so that a change will only affect part of the compressed file. This does have a cost in terms of compressed size because the compressor can't deduplicate across resets. However if the resets are infrequent you can maintain fairly good delta transfer with little space overhead.

Additionally some delta transfer tools detect common compression and decompress the file "in transfer", performing the delta checks on the original file.
I can't disagree with what you observed.

However these stories involving some mega corp as an evil actor always raise the question: what's to be gained, and what's the risk.

As soon as some manager instructs someone beneath them to do bad stuff, some kind of trail exists. The downside to mega corp is enormous if that comes to light.

Imagine if Google is caught in the act of pulling some shady shit like that. The law suits, loss of trust and prestige. The personal exposure to the individuals involved.

All it takes is for some underling to pop up with a smoking gun email, a recorded conversation on their IPhone, a receipt from a shady transaction. Then it's immense risk and a big cover up needed to try and save things.

I don't doubt that shady shit happens, passed down the chain Mafia boss style so there's no paper trail, even at Google.

But does that lead to actual dodgy acts like prioritizing AdSense customers in search results?

How many engineers would need to be brought along for the ride for that to happen? How many of them are potential whistle blowers?

For all of these reasons (and perhaps naively) I like to think that corporate corruption is not this overt.

Tldr; I hope you were mistaken and it was purely a coincidence.
I don't find identity itself to be beautiful. It's just a special case of (much more useful) Euler formula. That I do find beautiful.
How could you ever expect the CCP to be even remotely honest in any “share this with the world” R/D scenario?
Giving it similar priority does not mean using similar methods. Hopefully..
Isn't this how OpenWRT got started?
I like to binge read the comment history when I bump into someone interesting on HN (which happens quite often). I've seen a few people very critical of China but admittedly they were not talking about Huawei specifically. Their comment history does not seem to back up your observation. Could it be something more specific than China in general?
The Spanish Flu most probably originated in the US, not Spain. Spain just had a pretty free press and published much about it. Never heard about the Brazilian Flu and couldn't find out when and where this was supposed to be, so can't comment here.
As with a lot of "unicorn" issues, the underlying issue is not that they're uniquely bad... it's that they're uniquely huge. Amazon warehouses aren't just another workplace. They're a new version of an industry, replacing an old version. Being so big, they also have pronounced effects on corporate culture and norms more broadly.

On bad faith... I won't argue that it's in good faith, but it's about average relative to journalism generally and Amazon vs Labour specifically. Amazon's PR is not a whole lot more intellectually honest, and euphemisation is (to me) one of the most grating forms.
Facebook has been doing this for years. It's invasive, dystopian and anti privacy - but it's nothing new in world of tech. Why is it such big news when a Chinese company does it, but when FB has been doing it for years nobody bats an eyelid?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-12/facebook-...
Hitachi did love to put their own touch on things. I do wish they had kept going with the SH processors.
UK and EU launch antitrust probes into Facebook
> What are you on about?

Not those variants, obviously.
Seriously, what's he getting here for his supposed "deception"?

Fauci has been covering this up since early on. Have you not followed the story of the released emails from the FOIA request? He knew this research was being conducted. He gave cover to those who attacked people like Sen Tom Cotton, who was trying to get this looked into from the beginning.

For this, his reward is a public servant's salary

Fauci is the highest paid employee in the Federal government.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/01/25/dr-...
In team sports the athletes and their team might have conflicting goals, especially if the team provides the trainers or an athlete is likely to sign a different team. Extract everything from an athlete and discard him / her could be in the immediate best interest for the team.
>Just because Apple decided to drop support for ZFS, that didn’t mean that ZFS was no longer available on Mac OS. In 2008, Dustin Sallings created the MacZFS project with the goal of “continuing where Apple left off with ZFS”. The MacZFS project ceased in 2013. In 2014 the effort was resumed, partly based on the ZFSOnLinux repo, under the name OpenZFS on OSX, which continues to this day.

I'll admit I'm a bit disappointed by the Mac section of this history. In particular this completely skips the very interesting Z-410/ZEVO year or so period mid-2011 to 2012 wherein somebody attempted to actually do a commercial release of ZFS for Mac. It was actually a pretty impressive effort for the brief development period that was far more functional, polished and integrated vs MacZFS at the time and I ran it on a few Mac Pros for years before O3X took over. I was bummed when the effort ran out of runway and got bought by "getgreenbytes" or some company along those lines IIRC, which did a single free community release and then canned it. O3X ultimately moved things much farther on the technical side and has been fantastic, but a project like ZEVO would likely have ultimately added more GUI tools and made it more approachable for typical Mac users.

Really it's one of those real tech historical shames that but for a few turns of events Apple might have thrown their weight behind it rather then APFS. The reasons given in this article are also a bit curious in that they completely skip over the shitty NetApp patent lawsuit going on literally right at the time Apple was deciding (September 2007). Then again maybe then we wouldn't have gotten the wonderful OpenZFS project in the same way either, hard to say how it'd all wash. But if there'd never been any patent concerns, or and CDDL/GPL compatibility concerns, it would have been neat to have an FS like that become the universal standard (sans windows granted).
> Mr Graeber relied heavily on surveys of British and Dutch workers that asked participants whether their job made a meaningful contribution to the world.

One may feel that their job is not making a meaningful contribution. That doesn't translate to the job being useless or BS.
> Now that the scientific consensus is settling and lab leak does indeed seem to be true

That is absolutely not the scientific consensus

> It had an enormous amount of evidence

I've been following this since the beginning. No it didn't

> This paper was publicly available in March 2020

did you read the paper? it does not conclude what you insinuate it does.
Why is a lab leak a likely scenario? You say that with no evidence to back up the claim. I say a lab leak is highly unlikely.
You can use request signatures to combat MITM attacks quite easily. Certificate pinning is not really needed. All requests are signed the same way license keys are, so without a crack to change the embedded public key, forging a request is essentially impossible.

That particular C++ example does not include signature verification, but there is another example repo [0] for that.

[0]: https://github.com/keygen-sh/example-cpp-request-signature-v...
The license of the previous code didn't magically become the GPL altogether, instead it by default became un-distributable. They were required to (a) stop distribution of the existing code since it at best had no clear license, and (b) if they wanted, going forward remedy the license by clearly making it GPL or doing the rewrite of the dependency. Or even reach out to the library author and ask for an LGPL or other alternative - there is sometimes (often?) some flexibility there.

The built-in conflict resolution in the GPL is no-distribution.
I've had similar struggles in the past. My solution at the time was a bib file quasi-managed by hand using JabRef. I would also periodically do some automatic updating using a script I wrote[0]. The script uses the NASA Astrophysics Data System to look for updates to papers (they cross-match arXiv preprints with the eventual publications) and updates the bibtex accordingly. It mostly worked, but there were some bugs (the last 10% takes 90% of the time).

I've since resorted to more hand-checking of references when I'm publishing a paper. Rreference management is tedious, but I've found that it is overall is a minor fraction of the time spent working on a paper. So it doesn't seem worth spending too much effort automating.

[0] https://github.com/privong/PaperTools/blob/main/bib_update.p...
What actually makes you think so?

Not only naked man starts profiting at 0 day meanwhile skilled engineer needs to develop his tools

but then also automation just makes things faster, so what if quantity of "tasks" is limited?
In hindsight, and if you know Mclaurin series.

Complex numbers were known and used for many years before Euler found this obvious result.
One of the more chilling things on this fascinating website is the following quote, that I was previously unaware of:

> Interestingly enough, the United States government conducted a controlled experiment called the Nth Country Experiment to see how much effort was actually required to develop a viable fission weapon design starting from nothing. In this experiment, which ended on 10 April 1967, three newly graduated physics students were given the task of developing a detailed weapon design using only public domain information. The project reached a successful conclusion, that is, they did develop a viable design (detailed in the classified report UCRL-50248) after expending only three man-years of effort over two and a half calendar years. In the years since, much more information has entered the public domain so that the level of effort required has obviously dropped further.

I am a medical physicist; detailed nuclear properties and information about both radiation and exactly the sort of systematic and comprehensive materials-science engineering detailed in this document are my day-to-day bread and butter. I have directly used software and information from places like Los Alamos and Oak Ridge in the context of radiochemistry, or understanding the natural abundance biodistribution of certain isotopes. Yet I've always found these horrible, technological weapons (linked above) deeply fascinating -- much like how I can appreciate the beauty, maneuverability and sheer engineering prowess of supersonic fighter jets whilst disliking their basic purpose.

I'd never encountered this site before -- it's very detailed, a lovely example of 1990s web design, and as far as I can tell, the physics is completely correct.
The really cool TL;DR here is that courgette "disassembles" the binary before diffing. Basically turning internal references into symbolic references. This way adding an extra instruction to a function won't affect all of the relative addresses in surrounding code.
Content gets “Smarter”, are you ready?
Installations on Debian are perfectly reproducible as long as you don't just pull random packages from Unstable/Sid.

You can use Stable or https://snapshot.debian.org/
This has me imagining a struggling engineer at Sun, trying to live up to the arrogance and falling short, who finds Brendan's work and decides to save his career by passing it off as his own. Then some high-level executive decides to make it one of the straws that will save the company...

This is a made-up story, so you are free to make up your own ending as to whether this was the world-travelling VIP, and if so, whether he had some partial or complete flashback on hearing Brendan's name. One thing we can be sure of: whoever 'carelessly' stripped the copyright notice out of Brendan's code had seen his name before (and it was, perhaps, the part of the code he was most familiar with!)
San Francisco’s Progressive Nightmare
I'm always curious with just how much my husky uses her paw to "activate" things. We definitely reinforce the notion by helping her out with whatever she paws, but it does seem like a cultural thing she's learned rather than the more dextrous bite they have.

In this case it's pretty mundane probably, she's using something more expressive to humans and it's happened to work well, but it still imparts on me that a dog living among humans picks up some pretty different signalling
The difference is that it’s a foreign company, based in a country with a government the U.S. doesn’t trust. People certainly do bat some eyelids at Facebook, also.
This is what I've been suspecting. It can't be true in competitive markets.
Scaling Keycloak on Distroless into Kubernetes
No, it will only get worse. The world is diverging into a dystopian future where we will have essentially two classes - the tech elite (software, product, QA, automation, AI, data) and the people who live on basic income because the jobs got automated out. On the flip side, they would be free to pursue their passions and discover themselves, be that in art or artisanal pickles.

It requires enforcing the social and economic balance, however. In a country like the United States, we are not going to talk about this being a problem until the rich get tired of tripping over homeless families on their way to the driverless Uber vehicle.
Just a FYI, murex is (also) a very widely used front of house trading platform, which costs an absolute fortune and has an army of lawyers, you may want to reconsider the name..
Until there's something like CDK for Azure and GCP I am hesitant to try it. Being able to leverage a mature language (TypeScript)'s completions and type system to code up an infra is absolutely wonderful. The docs are lacking a lot of examples, mind.
“Build it and they will come”, the biggest startup lie ever told
I know its a learned skill, but still only a very small percent of people develop or learn it.

Tho I would say overall in any field its pretty much one of the most important skills/or in life generally.
The thing is that UK dialects are virtually unknown outside the country; they can be very different from Received Pronounciation, but diverge in ways that are still fundamentally predictable for a native English speaker (unless you wander into Scotland or Ireland).

American accents are more familiar because of Hollywood, so they tend to be less surprising; and likely because a lot of them were actually developed by people who learned English as a second language, they are often exaggerate in effect, very clear, and actually more regular (particularly on names, where UK "rules" are anything but).

This said, "deep south" US accents, when pushed hard, can become as inscrutable as certain UK dialects.
Show HN: Project for Private Data Management
I think Google might have tweaked their search to not always go to stack overflow. That might be start of their downfall. Recent times it is rarely stack overflow as top result and it happened suddenly, not gradually.
Saying that a theory is wrong is different from saying it's a conspiracy theory.

In the second case, you’re smearing proponents of the theory. That’s a form of censorship.

Doing it for a theory that was not in any way proven wrong (then or now) is professional misconduct.
This is strained reasoning. The threat of war with China and the literal guns pointed at millions of heads in South Korea are what prevents the US from picking off DPRK infrastructure and personnel. Compare to Iran if you doubt.
And it’s usually trying to push an agenda, to boot.
To some extent sure, but the market isn’t perfectly competitive either.