skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
McAfee has been prosecuted for his manipulation. Musk has been censured for his by the SEC, the unregulated nature of CC means he doesn't get in trouble for it, but that doesn't mean he isn't manipulating the market.

FWIW I agree, know the risks and invest, or not, accordingly. But that doesn't give Elon an out, he is aware of his effect and must therefore shoulder some responsibility for his actions and their effects.
Here's an extreme example to make the point: we pay soldiers to kill people and destroy property. At the level of our "business" (our country) this may increase "value" (our security), while at the level of "society" (the world) it may be a net loss and an enormous tragedy. The problem is that this whole idea of "the good of society/the world" is extremely fuzzy and not that useful. It presupposes the only worthwhile actions are those that increase the utility function of the entire world, which we undoubtedly lack the knowledge to do. Capitalism is just a best-try approximation at achieving that and seems to have more success than other systems we've tried.
Yes, please see my other answer - it is much stricter/clearer defined than any OOP definition that I've seen.
Don't worry you can always solve these problems trivially: The examples on the left side are all on the left side, while the examples on the right side are not.
There's no real need though with this: anything where the product is not on-demand electrical power can and should be able to be run off of intermittent solar or wind power.

Amortized over a year, letting the plant shut down because it's cloudy a few days should be fine.
Because libfuzzer is way better than gcc-based fuzzers. Also much easier to use. I usually get 20x more libfuzzer hits than with afl++ and friends. And there I usually have to use the llvm-based variant to keep compile times under 1hr. It compiles 20x faster.
The Three Greatest Myths of the Fall of Tenochtitlán (English at the Bottom)
My 2020 prediction that there will be no more wild caught fish in markets by 2030 seems ever closer...

The truth is, Argentina knows what’s happened but is likely powerless to stop it. If they acted to curb the issue, China would stop bribes to the Argentina leadership and likely impose sanctions of some kinda.
Thanks for coming to my TED Talk

(Seriously though, I hope it will get accepted and if so come to my talk on this at Kubecon?)
I really wish I could have Apple hardware without Apple software...
> divide and conquer management strategy

Yeah, this is a pre-privatisation setup; rather than run the whole thing as a national enterprise, have a set of separate "playing at shops" organisations engaged in a pseudo-market of buying services from each other.
I'd like to add that modern agile IT environments are different than that of traditional engineering.

We aim for fast MVPs, fast iterations, "failing fast", "moving fast", "delivering value quickly", generally preferring speed over quality, agility over "waterfall" planning, continuous delivery over batched releases and, well, often accruing tech debt over shipping features later.

One can argue that "fail fast" should not be about code & feature quality but rather about determining proper scope, splitting features sensibly etc. But then we still have deadlines to meet and code quality suffers.

What I'm saying that this kind of fast-moving environment actively discourages traditional (like doctors & civil engineers) engineering practices.

You might have lots of (unit|integration|E2E) tests but the company may miss practices like proper security reviews and code won't be reviewed, tested and approved by multiple people like, say, bridge building plans are.

This problem mostly comes up not with your usual web app but when critical systems are affected (like in the aerospace industry or industrial systems). But through supply chain attacks, nearly any system can be vulnerable these days.

We should definitely have better regulation on how software is made.
Put the lithium plant on a barge and tug it around without lingering too long in any one spot.
In this case the check engine light has been on because you have been running your engine on too little oil (inflation).
The ocean is pretty big. That's why fish poop and pee in it. Not much of a problem. And if you weren't already aware, did you know plants also excrete waste through their roots? I only found out recently. But yes, all waste needs to be spread out and able to diffuse into the large atmosphere or it causes dead zones.
Ok, this is a great hack - but what would one practically use this for ? I mean the standard checkbox hack works too right ? Or is there some place where this technique excels ?
Yes, that's one of the most prominent in a long line of attempts at creating formal models of OOP. And in the preface, you'll find:

> There is a well-established theory of functions, the λ-calculus, ... However, our theory of objects is self-contained; it is the first that does not require explicit reference to functions or procedures.

So that answers your question in the negative and proves my point: no, not every language is based on lambda calculus.
I don't think the NHS actually has the right to keep information from you simply on the "might be harmful" rationale, but I don't think that particular data protection fight has happened yet.
Channel factories will be able to open and close many channels at once, so if you open 100 channels in a single transaction, well then you can divide the onchain cost by 100.
Such passion and joy in these release notes!
This reads like an episode of black mirror. It's also brilliant. I also think we'll see this company IPO for $4 billion in 2030.
I think the 10 year, or 10,000 hours are for learning stuff you are not completely in love with.

It would take me 10,000 hours to become a proficient Programmer.

Now---stuff I am truly interested in took me less time to learn. I was going to say "master", but I didn't master anything in my life. I'm a good mechanic, and Watchmaker only because learning it was easy because I was interested.

It took me less than 4 years to become good at Watchmaking. Why--because for some reason I became facinated with watches, and clocks.

I can strum exactly 12 guitar chords. I memorized the charts, and then memorized the finger positions on the fret.
I can play a few songs. I sometimes wonder why I don't practice more. The reason is I don't love it. When playing a mental picture of Blutto pops up from Animal House.

Pick something you love. You never know where it will take you. Then again--maybe I should have learned things that society valued, and paid highly for?
The fact that the solution of these problems is in some sense satisfying also has a lot to do with the fact that the people making these problems are Western systematic-thinkers. They think like us (because we were trained by them).

That's not to say there isn't value in learning this way of thinking, it's gotten society a long way.
It is just strange how you have people like paxys arguing bullshit that they don't believe themselves.

Just bored people trying to win an argument for fun.

Good job paxys! You win. You are so smart! Here is pat on the back old chap.
Starlink is a series of tubes connected by airgaps :)
> In other words, there appears to be no reason why HN and Reddit folks should behave differently when on the opposite platform.

The site rules would be a pretty obvious reason why people should and do act differently here vs Reddit.
Goal Setting Is Bullshit: Try This Instead
And while we're at it, in the UK at least they should have an option for not sending you down bidirectional single track roads.

No, that 35 mile drive down twisty single track country lane with occasional passing spots will not save any time over the 40 mile motorway. Even if the road is _technically_ 60mph, you'll never reach that speed unless you're on a motorbike...
You don't accept that different online communities can have sufficiently different cultures that "memes" are more acceptable in one than the other, even if said communities have somewhat of an overlap in audiences?
great to see this quantified and publicized widely
It's one of those "hipster" podcasts by the UI designer at _that_ startup:
https://whats-wrong-with-the-podcast.simplecast.com/

"Make oxygen magnetic and then just pull it out of water to produce hydrogen"

I too like to fantasize. :-)
I agree Facebook events could be a lot better, but have you considered the possibility that Facebook simply does not see any reason to put resources into improving the feature?

Instead of assuming some conspiratorial theory that Facebook is deliberately sabotaging their own product, I think the much simpler explanation is that Facebook events work "well enough" that Facebook does not see any reason to invest resources into improving it.

Facebook events are probably one of the oldest features on the site, and from my personal experience working in big product orgs, these old, "working" features are often left to rot until the org sees a reason to invest into them again. (Such as a competitor threatening to steal their marketshare) I assume the events team is quite "barebone" if it even exists and Facebook probably thinks their engineers/UX developers are better spent elsewhere.
You missed the does this have any long term effects on 6 billion people. Without long term testing we may find out in 5 years those who had the vaccine may suffer some side effects unknown today. More worrying is if in the future this delivery model becomes the norm where we roll out solutions before fully testing to save money.
OneWeb is launching new sats I think in leo
This isn't Bermuda Triangle kind of vanishing it's about predominantly Chinese vessels going offline to avoid being tracked.
Of course, and finding that middle ground is key to good communication. My point was that "contemplate more, advocate less" is only the correct advice if you're currently contemplating too little and advocating too much. The opposite situation doesn't just exist, it's common, especially among us nerds, and the cure lies in the opposite direction.

Ultimately you want to set up a feedback loop that looks for evidence that you are erring in one direction or another and corrects appropriately, but by now we have descended into the realm of completely generic self-help :)
There's more to GoF research than developing vaccines. Sometimes its trying to understand host virus interaction, virus evolution, zoonotic events. The list goes on. The majority of primary research is not at all interested in vaccine development.

For coronaviruses they're a huge family of viruses. Sometimes it's not transferable between species
IMHO research about human body in general and immune system in specific is more useful to improve our ability to respond to epidemics with vaccines than gain-of-function research.
British Airways Flight 9
“It’s so flat you can watch your dog run away for 3 days”
Awesome idea! Or even build on a platform and locate in a major current like the Gulf Stream. That could mix it pretty fast.
To all the people downvoting me: if you really think OOP is as well understood as FP, learn some programming language theory. Tell me what the universally agreed foundation of OOP is. You won't be able to, but I can tell for FP it's lambda calculus.
You're right, of course, and that is why the situation is how it is. NHS Digital also seem reluctant to become custodians of the data and only administer services that have to be done centrally, such as HSCN and NHSMail, and those services tend to involve a lot of external contractors - so the in-house talent may well be missing. But by siloing the data, we're just trusting doctors and hospitals to know what is best and that can't be a good idea either. The WannaCry attack a few years ago was good evidence of that.

On a side note, I can't imagine how hard it must be for the NHS to do anything when essentially an internal transfer of data within the organisation is labeled as "Your medical records are about to be given away" by the media. They seem almost to be victims of how open they are about these data transfers and I sense an exasperation between the lines when reading their response [https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/data-collections...].
Great white sharks are so afraid of killer whales that they will leave a feeding area to them for over a year. The killer whales often kill a shark to only eat their liver.

Evolution of cetaceans started around 50 million years ago https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans. You could probably make a solid argument that sharks being displaced as apex predators in the sea would have caused the die out of many species. Perhaps a crossover occurred around 19 million years ago.
Thanks for the link. The resource is great but the UI is insane.
Why do you guarantee this?
Since I generally seem to do fairly well in problem solving, that is exactly what I'm trying to figure out: Are these problems actually representative of an important skill that you need for general problem solving, or are they, through their nature of being man-made puzzles, actually in a realm of their own?

When I'm looking at some pattern that I'm trying to find a rule for in real-life, I don't think I'm running into the same frustration and in fact greatly enjoy trying to figure out rules for how things work (or so I believe, at least).

I think a crucial difference is that I know that the problems I encounter in real-life are only "as complex as necessary", and the data I'm looking at is a direct result of some process that serves a specific goal; presumably one I think "makes sense", as I wouldn't look for a rule otherwise. In contrast, puzzles are made to be complicated on purpose, and I suspect that annoys me subconsciously to the point where my brain complains about engaging with it. But it's only these kinds of "figure out the rules" puzzles, so there has to be another important difference compared to logic puzzles. Possibly the difference is: for the logic puzzle, the "meta-rules" for the problem are made explicit and I know the solution-space exactly. For the Bongard problems here I found myself thinking for example: "wait, is it always just two groups distinguished by single rule, or can there be dependencies on the positions of the symbols within the groups as well? What kind of solution am I even looking for?", and that also apparently frustrates me.

Sorry for the wall of text, but I've actually been trying to figure out why these kinds of problems get on my nerves for quite a long time, lol.
What about a blurred background?
The solution is simple: just dump used batteries back into the ocean :)

Just kidding, of course.
There is nothing stopping me from using multiple frameworks to understand a position and seeing if they agree or not. Such an ability is integral in disciplines like design, like intelligence analysis, like trading... You can act as if you believe many things without endorsing beliefs, and at the level of behavior the two outcomes are indistinguishable.

Furthermore, cognitive dissonance exists, which shows that minds can maintain contradictory beliefs until their beliefs are made to be "live options" for a given situation; and there is no guarantee that the consistency of the mind's contents won't diverge again under new circumstances. Newton believed in alchemy.

The one concession I will make is that in the end, people take one action at a time, which implies a single judgement made at one time on which to act. But the train of thought leading up to that point doesn't have to feature a linear incrementing of ideas or beliefs.

You are also making some very strong assumptions about what is required to be a "semi-(!)functional member of society". What examples do you have in mind? Schizophrenics?
Yes! A subset of your users will access your website from public transportation, where reception can be significantly worse.

I specifically designed my website to work reasonably fast on the Berlin U-Bahn, where some of my readers are likely to be.
I think you're overcontemplating it. Sure, the means of transaction and the network responsible for the transaction are one in the same, but how does that fundamentally change the equation? If anything it makes cryptos more valuable, not less, because you only need the single token and you can do both (have a share in the network and transact on the network).
Yeah this is def the problem, I’m gonna mess with the web history API and see if I can fix that issue.
It would be worse because I think it would finally end the sequence of ever-bigger bubbles followed by collapses to higher lows.

Why? Because the narrative that fueled this sequence has been "people with ever deeper pockets coming into crypto", and we are close to the end of this narratives' natural life anyway. The current "ever-deeper pockets" are institutional investors, which is as far as it gets in terms of deep pockets anyway, but which are also very sensitive to risk and need calculable risk envelopes. Stablecoins, with their publicly-known market caps, provide an approach to guesstimate the total amount of actual value underlying cryptocurrencies and thus help significantly in evaluating the risk of a crypto investment - theoretically, as long as we know that there is X amount of fiat money invested, the total crypto market cap cannot fall below that value. If we now learn that a huge chunk of this money does not exist anymore or never existed at all, the risk calculation becomes much worse. It is akin to a fiat currency of a country that is found to have blatantly invented big chunks of its official GDP for years - nobody would want to store value in that currency anymore. And without institutional investors, there are no "deeper pockets" anymore, hence the primary reason why most people hold cryptocurrencies - to participate in the growing crypto pie - falls apart, which should trigger a series of waves of sell-offs, similar to the "buying waves" during the last decade, but inverted (quick drops to lower lows, followed by slow recoveries to lower highs, followed by lower lows and so on).

At least this is what I expect.
Elephants can communicate via underground vibrations even at great distances
> almost any data point can be predictive of almost any behaviour.

This isn't really true, though, even in theory. In practice it's much worse, as we aren't very good at using even large collections of data points in most cases to predict behavior. We can in some very few, narrow contexts occasionally do better (sometimes much better) than a random guess once in while.
Life is what happens to you while you were trying to achieve all those goals you spent so much effort deciding on when you were a kid, and wondering "what should my life be?"

There's people who want to decide what their life should be while young; they make plans and then fill their days with execution of those plans and wind up years later wondering why they've achieved all this success and fulfilled all their life plan points and never once been happy.

As I get older i think less and less of long term plans; I find my ignorance only grows as i age and there's never enough data to make the planning effort worthwhile.
Author links to Turing-Church thesis, which is widely assumed to be right to talk about things not related to any single thing that thesis is about.

It is about computable functions and abstract machines.
I don't see anything in gattaca as having become reality.
That's a pretty unfair way to put it. People that do "too much" to try to impress their collegues or themselves exist everywhere. You can see it in some people's code, you can see it in the way some people dress, you can see it in some powerpoint presentations, you can see it in sports.
> The essence of OOP is not inheritance, that’s a nice to have. The essence of OOP is to encapsulate the data and the functions that operate on that data into an object and hide the internal state of the object from the rest of the program.

What is inheritance but a way to encapsulate data and methods in a way where you only need to override a subset of very specific methods and/or data to specialize an implementation?
Until the rest of the world diversifies its manufacturing to lessen the power of China, and then regulates it, they will continue to do whatever they want with impunity.
I thought that the difficult part was mass producing defect-free strands of arbitrary length.
I created this landing page in 24 hours!! Looking for constructive feedback:)
if you want a lot of good info on the convid plandemic look up https://bitchute.com.

We are not being told the truth by the government and their bought and paid for main street media.
For yet another definition, OO is about encapsulated polymorphic interfaces. Which raises a communication difficulty: encapsulated polymorphic interfaces are very useful in some of the cases (ADTs, modules), and a misfeature for the other cases (data modeling). I have yet to see a conversation, especially an internet conversation, where participants reach a rough consensus on the contextualized upsides / downsides of a given concept. It's either 100% heaven or 100% hell.
It misses your >1080p mark, but the DELL G5 SE is a budget workhorse with a remarkably good screen (once calibrated).

Zen 2 6/8 core, RX5600, and uses AMDs shiftable power budget. Dual SSD slots as well.

It’s a plastic fantastic for sure, but at the $800 I paid 6 months ago it’s been a great machine.
> Study that shit, people!

From a practical point of view, It looks like an interesting demo, but I don't think it has too many applications. I only can imagine that it may be useful as a sterilization process, whatever virus or bacteria that is in the solution will be extremely unhappy with so much H2 and O2 around. The flame and the small risk of an explosion is a problem.

From a theoretical point of view, it's easy to model isolated small molecules. Big molecules or combination of molecules is exponentially more difficult, like in ~exp(5*N) where N is the number of atoms and 5 is an oversimplification. There are some approximations that reduce it to a polynomial time like ~(5N)^12 or ~(5N)^9 less if you use more approximations. And with more approximations you can calculate it in linear time that is very useful for biochemistry that are interested in big molecules. Anyway, most of these methods assume that atoms don't move, or don't move too much, or use a lot of simplifications.

Simulation water at the molecular level is a nightmare. You need to simulate many molecules, each one moving around, that form bounds between them that are not stable enough to simulate like a fixed length, but stable enough to be ignored. And now you need to add a strong electromagnetic field to the mix, and the nightmare is upgraded to the Freddy Krueger level.
Zoom backgrounds were cute the first few times they were being used on calls a month or two into video conference land. But, especially unless the lighting and actual physical background are right--and the person keeps relatively still--they're very obviously fake and are very distracting.
Show HN: An app to help foster personal connections within remote tech teams
Hi All, I'm a junior developer trying to work on some side projects and learn to code. I built this project in rails, and this is my most complex project so far, incorporating payments, multi-tenancy and things of that nature. Any Feedback welcome!
The reigning choice since Kissinger seems to be “appeasement”. His reasoning was their population size.
Note: this zld is completely written in Zig and it is a good example of Zig codebase of moderate size and complexity.
scientific papers are not a good medium of knowledge transfer.

show me the code and or a demo.
> China would stop bribes to the Argentina leadership

No need to inject unsubstantiable allegations in an otherwise sensible comment.

The power imbalance between a small country with long-standing financial issues and a history of inability in enforcing its complex borders, and a rising global superpower, is quite evident.