skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Something similar using GCC would be very nice!
Fun fact that somewhat swayed my opinion recently, we are essentially the only first world country that doesn’t require ID of some kind to vote.
> There's also an insidious pattern where entire layers of management exist strictly to report status to higher layers of management

I think everyone agrees.

> So yeah, there's often of fat layer of middle management that do bullshit jobs in large-enough orgs.

Here we disagree. You are positing that it's possible for there to be a large org without this fat layer, and I think this is unlikely. It's like complaining about entropy or the n^2 communication cost. Something may be terrible yet impossible to avoid. Making big bureaucracies as efficient as small bureaucracies is a really, really, hard problem. It may well be an unsolvable problem that comes with scale, sort of the flipside of how many things are more efficiently produced in large quantities, and it could be that the "optimal" size of a business is where these two trade-offs balance out -- e.g. where the scaling costs of the bureaucracy meets the efficiency gains of scale production.
It's a classic motte-and-bailey routine. The bailey are "open borders" or "defund the police" at face value. The motte are the more defensible positions they fall back on when challenged: "Actually when I say 'defund' I mean they should continue getting funding but we just need some reform is all"

Often this is paired with gaslighting. When called out, somebody employing the motte-and-bailey may refuse to admit the bailey exists at all. People who argue against the bailey get ridiculed for thinking the bailey exists.
>the dog would be killed by the police if it could be proved that it had bitten a human

and here lies the main issue - the dog gets punished for what is mainly the owner's fault (it is somewhat similar to destroying the gun in case of killing while letting the killer go free). I'm generally against corporal punishment, and this is one of the few exceptions where i think corporal punishment would be very useful - any damage inflicted by your dog as a result of your gross negligence should be inflicted as a punishment on you.
Assuming interstate ⇒ USA, I don’t think the USA has a shortage of land.

Also, if you want to use vehicles on that land, how do you get them there? “Via the interstate” is the obvious answer, but the vehicles may be too slow for that (minimum speed on interstates typically is ≥ 40 mph), and barriers in the middle of the road may limit you to movement in one direction.
Imported slaves aren't immigrants.
If you can’t pay your workers fairly and remain solvent then that’s not a business I want to exist.
You're not alone. I read it twice. Still don't get it. I think he's using Google Translate or something
Such an amazing video, though I will admit a lot of it went straight right over my head. I recently stumbled and have been fascinated by the demoscene culture and specially timed head-to-head competitions[1]. Shader programming boggles my mind, it still feels insanely complex, verbose, and hard to grok.

[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O-1zEo7DD8w&t=1723s
Making friends and Attitudes in the work place By, Evon Latrail
Agree, none of this makes sense. Three point perspective is best explained by the concept of a pinhole camera with a planar film surface, and simply assumes that we are most interested in the theoretical directions of the 3 major axes, X Y and Z.

For it to really duplicate the geometry you see with your eyes, you need to look at the resulting photo from the spot where the pinhole is (related to the paper, and presumably turning it upside down first). This of course means you need to close one eye, or show a different image to each eye).

But computer graphics, to my knowledge(see 1 below), almost never thinks of it in terms of vanishing points, this is a convenient concept (essentially, a shortcut) for humans who are drawing on paper. Do computers ever even calculate where the vanishing points are on the drawing plane? (other than niche uses, such as an art composition app or the like?) I have never seen computer graphics software "care" about the concept of vanishing points, such as by having a variable that represents said point.

I feel weird having such a negative reaction to this article since I have used the author's bezier library for ages and have a lot of respect for his writing regarding beziers and related curves.

[1] I implemented view controls in CAD systems 25 years ago that are still in use today, and which concentrated especially on perspective views, so I have some knowledge of the subject. Also I learned perspective drawing skills in my industrial design education prior to that, and previous to that was into photography and mechanical drawing and obsessed over such geometrical stuff, starting 40 years ago now.
Seems like a pretext for a G7-wide cut of corporate tax rates to 15%. Bravo globalists.
This is true. Hitler discovered it during the Russian war. He had an opportunity that was practically unique in warfare history: the populations freed from Stalin’s rule were eager to be rid of him, and would have happily joined ranks to fight him.

But, not so much after executing some of them for ideological reasons. Their comrades quickly learned what the stakes were.
Though if it is sold as a missile against big tech...
I would state that physical security is both necessary and sufficient to protect information.

Vetting personnel isn’t necessary, nor is it sufficient, to protect information.

Protecting more than just the information, is a different argument.

If we’re talking about securing personal information that has a physical footprint of a cell phone, vetting personnel is irrelevant. Never let your phone leave your person, on pain of death, so to speak.

If we’re talking about securing a building, vetting personnel is just an extension of physical security, anyways.

All of those checkboxes will ultimately reduce to being an extension of physical security.
Artists don't draw all the way to the vanishing points, we only draw in the part that looks normal. Look at the figure showing off how straight lines behave again, and you'll see that everything starts off actually looking like normal straight lines, and things don't actually go crazy until we start getting close to our vanishing points.

Which is why on paper, you place the vanishing points outside your drawing, so your drawing can stay constrained to the part of exponential space that looks normal. E.g. if you constrain the viewport to the unit area (the triangle between 1/0/0, 0/1/0, and 0/0/1) and scale your scene down to fit inside of that, things will actually look perfectly fine, with a gorgeous perspective (but will also be visually indistinguishable from a wide angle camera positioned closed to your major scene point, so just use that).

However, with computers we can trivially see what will happen if you do try to use the full space, rather than only working inside an (incredibly sensible!) crop. The result is pretty wild.
Plus 25 years ago images were a few k in size. Now with the average webpage being a megabyte in size, it is outrageous.
Thanks. That makes sense. The "in parallel" certainly threw me off.

Although in the article the author at some point switches from lists to vectors, which changes the whole task, and allows for a more efficient implementation (even if it's an answer to a different question).
> my bad, I misread. Not sure why comparing mega-corps to small nations has much value though.

No worries, it happens to all of us from time to time :)

As for why… the context is just that EU motivation was being discussed.

(Otherwise I would’ve said something like “Those three companies combined are valued more highly than the entire continent of Africa!”)
Try asking on a weekday, when the regulars are on, rather than the weekend.
I did set out to make a wireframe two-point perspective dungeon crawl in PICO-8 once. It worked(I recall the math for making the height of walls feel correct at different distances was hard to understand and I probably did resort to the CG approach) but I eventually abandoned it because I was spending way too much time trying to deal with occlusion and optimize it for PICO-8's CPU.

Since then the system constraints have changed and I would probably just make a tline() raycaster.
We've exploited nature to bootstrap us into the information age we currently exist in. I don't condemn the efforts past humans have made so I can live in a world with instant fresh water to wash myself and to drink, markets with food, sewer systems to manage waste, roads, electricity, medicine, etc.

We now have the tools humans have been dreaming of for millennia to make the world a better place. I personally think instead of looking backwards and blaming people for making mistakes, we should use the tools to look forward to accomplish the goals of the future; Human health, environmental health, agricultural sustainability, peace.
Last time I checked (a year ago), after login, authentication was using MAC address and no encryption is used (not WPA or WPA2). You can easily sniff a MAC address and impersonate a device that is using xinfinty wifi.
On the contrary, I find it amazing that bit shift and XOR can be combined in such a way to provide strong security at all. Maybe it just goes to show, if you have 128 or 256 bits of key, that’s actually a heck of a lot.
https://twitter.com/TheRealPomax/status/1400974346160533508
> it is not OK for Mexicans or Somalians to do the same now?

If the Mexicans and Somalians are given safe US citizenship with the rights and leverage that entails, it's great for them to do the same now. They wouldn't, because the reason companies want to employ them is their weakness, and the stability of citizenship would entitle them to make demands about pay and conditions.

Employing precarious immigrants isn't charity work.
Are you willing to have your taxes raised to guarantee everyone in your state gets a state ID including workers similar to census workers that go around helping people with less than stellar English, missing documents, or with out access to the internet.

Are you willing to have your taxes raised to fund government buildings that have reasonable hours similar to a retail store so that all people have access?

Would you be willing to have your taxes raised to fund a national ID or give passports to everyone at birth or upon becoming a citizen with a technological infrastructure that would make it simple to replace.

In my experience when it comes to dealing with any kind of government services, the hours are meant to punish and discourage people from coming.

When I needed to actually do something in person at the social security office they had ridiculous hours like closing at 3 or 4 and if you're lucky would open an hour or two before regular working hours, which would have masses of people in line if you weren't there an hour before. They exist to punish those who don't even want to be there but need to be.

ID requirements without the infrastructure is just a good way to make sure that certain people can't vote. The laws never come with any way of making it easier to get an ID
The photo definitely looks photoshopped, but it’s just believable enough to warrant reading the comments
Not at all: HTML compresses extremely well. CSS/favicon/etc are cached.

If you get rid of javascript frameworks used for SPA, the overhead of delivering a handful of HTML tables and forms instead of some JSON is negligible.
Computers graphics based on linear algebra can't do true vanishing points, so... no?

This isn't a tutorial on how to implement a useful three point perspective, this is an analysis of how three point perspective behaves if we don't make any computing concessions and examine the full space. You're never going to use that in 3D graphics, it looks terrible and I can't even think of a fun game mechanic that could be based on it. Just use a wide FOV camera in your software of choice and you'll get something much better. But it is a programming exercise that is worth running through.

Remember, when we draw perspective on paper, we never draw all the way up to the vanishing points, we keep them far away enough that every straight line we draw still behaves like a straight line. Things don't get crazy until you get close enough to the vanishing points for the exponential mapping to become really pronounced, and starts doing really wild things.

So obviously for an analysis of the space I'm going to draw something that is intentionally close enough to the vanishing points to show that insanity off =)
Even if insider information gives you a small percentage advantage over uninformed trading, that still increases expected gains unfairly. A hedge fund would probably be quite happy with a 5-10% signal over random chance.
I'd recommend Unity because it has good support for both 3d and mobile. Many great tutorials are on YouTube

Difficult things are lighting and multiuser networking. Cameras and input are not so hard anymore.
$15/hour is not a living wage in the US. That is absolutely ridiculous. Amazon should double it for their warehouse workers (they certainly can afford to!).
Assume we’re going back and forth in negotiations. After a few back and forth a, with small changes each time, I send you over some language and you say: “That’ll work, I’ll draw up a contract and send it over to you”.

At that point, I would tell people internally to my company that we have a deal with that client.

But we don’t count on that revenue arriving, until we have a signed contract in place. Anything can happen between the negotiation and the contract being signed. The client could come back to us and say “there’s been a sudden change in priorities on our end, and we’re cancelling the project”. Or they might come back with any other change that they want “when I sent this to my VP, he said the top line number wouldn’t work, and we need to move it again, I’m so sorry!”

Yes, we don’t consider anything to be legally binding until the contract is signed. We “had a deal”, but deals can fall through.

If you deal in any contract worth more than a few hundred dollars, I really recommend you take the same attitude: everything is provisional until the final agreement is written down and signed.

> Which car company do you work for?

Was that necessary? Really? You can make your point without attempting to attack people.
It’s silly, I think, to worry about these sorts of things because the right decision at the time was to spend, not to save. Given the information at the time, it was perfectly fine.

Obviously $10k is good, but I see no reason someone would have regrets or spend any time thinking about it.

If someone gave you $20 to spend on stuff and you bought dinner that’s a fair exchange. The one in a billion chance that it will be worth $10k years later is no reason to save it.

It’s like feeling bad about not buying Amazon stock early on.
See also another write-up in Science [1] and the original paper in Ecology and Society [2].

[1]: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/04/pacific-northwest-s-...

[2]: https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss2/art6/
If I'm reading your first paragraph correctly, you are making a claim that people who care about individual action will, generally speaking, stop at that and go no further because they think their work is done. That is a bit baffling to me and does not resonate with my personal experience. Is this a feeling or do you have anything to back it up?

Secondly, you flippantly reject recycling as greenwashing and leave it at that. Even if I accept this claim (time to stop recycling aluminum), what about other activities? Why wouldn't it be helpful to convince your friends to think about where they spend their money? Note for example how many more vegan protein options there are at the grocery store or restaurants now compared to even 5 years ago. Capitalism responds to consumer demand.

If I know that certain types of fish are way over-fished, should I just say "individual change doesn't do much until we get the government involved, so oh well, let's eat it anyway"? What about growing more of your food (perhaps a community garden) or trying to produce less waste? To me, it's better to act, and also show my friends and family my actions, so maybe one of them can do it and show their friends, and so on, so that ideas about e.g. sustainability permeate throughout society. Only then do they make it to the political domain.

All I see is criticism but no alternative given in return, so I'm curious what your view is. How do you think can we accomplish a "massive political shift in how we address these issues"? My opinion is that large-scale cultural change must start at an individual level, and it starts with individuals who actually do what they believe should be done, because people in general respond more by seeing action rather than only hearing ideas.
Oscillatory Sequence
My feeling (and why I wrote the article) is that it's easy to overlook that you need to do something active to enable your users to use HTTP/3. Previous upgrades to HTTPS of various forms generally required no firewall changes, unless you had a broken firewall that insisted on seeing specific things in TLS handshakes and dropped the connection otherwise. For instance, you can add HTTP/2 to your own servers or talk to HTTP/2 servers outside with no firewall change. But any shift to (or toward) HTTP/3 now requires firewall changes unless you're already passing UDP 443. You can't just deploy it on your own servers or assume that your users will be able to transparently take advantage of it; now you may need to do something active to enable it. It's easy to overlook that, especially since we're not likely to see active failures when HTTP/3 doesn't work, just a quietly degraded experience.

(I'm the author of the linked-to entry, and I should have done a better job of explaining this in the original entry.)
> 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...

The ban was actually lifted by the Obama administration, _11 days prior_ to Trump taking office.

Source: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2017/01/09/recomme...

JANUARY 9, 2017 AT 9:06
Recommended Policy Guidance for Potential Pandemic Pathogen Care and Oversight

"Adoption of these recommendations will satisfy the requirements for lifting the current moratorium on certain life sciences research that could enhance a pathogen’s virulence and/or transmissibility to produce a potential pandemic pathogen (an enhanced PPP)."
I found a good night's rest has restored my appetite for discussing this subject. Sorry if I was a bit cranky earlier, it was past my bedtime.

Let's look at it in a different way. Are these rats doctors? Well, definition 4 of "Doctor" from Merriam Webster's says ": a person who restores, repairs, or fine-tunes things." These rats are certainly restoring the fields by identifying the mines for removal. We can just anthropomorphize the rats to get by the "person" part of that definition and conclude that the rats are, in fact, doctors.

Are the rats lawyers? Again, from the same dictionary the first definition for "lawyer" says "one whose profession is to conduct lawsuits for clients or to advise as to legal rights and obligations in other matters". That definition is of the form "X or Y" and Y would be "profession to advise as to legal rights and obligations in other matters." The rats, of course, aren't removing the mines themselves. They simply locate the mines and inform their human employers who then defuse and remove the mines. We could say the rats are advising the humans. If the humans running this operation come to know about a mine they clearly have an obligation to remove or designate the mine for removal - knowingly leaving a land mine in a field is liability. So, these rats, in their professional capacity, are advising the humans with regards to their legal obligations. The rats are lawyers!

Are the rats scientists? Merriam-Webster tells us that scientists include "scientific investigators". The rats are clearly investigators. Are they scientific? The definition for "scientific" includes "practicing or using thorough or systematic methods". Well, the rats search an entire field. The article tells us that the rats scour fields so thoroughly that the human operators are willing to play soccer on the fields afterwards. That sounds pretty thorough to me, so we can call the rats scientific investigators, or scientists too.

I hope you get my point. Using this "sophisticated" conception of language, where you look at dictionary definitions and suggest that one interpretation of some clause of a definition could technically apply so therefore a word is apt to describe something leads to absurd conclusions. Not only are our rats heroic, they are heroic lawyer scientist doctor rats! And more!

The truth is that dictionary definitions are guides to help us understand language. An articulate person will strive to find words that fit well, not words that, by some torturous and philosophical contortion could technically, arguably, maybe not be entirely wrong if you ignore a couple words. "Hero" fits these rats the same way doctor, lawyer, scientist, engineer, and so on fits the rats - which is to say, not well.
Flameshot is also a great screenshot tool and includes a blurring tool among other things.. It also has a filled rectangle drawing tool that is probably better at hiding stuff...
Good to see [0] Polya's book mentioned (and linked) in the article. For anyone interested, it provides a pretty good general outline for problem solving techniques. [1] There's also a YouTube video of him explaining some of those methods.

[0] https://math.hawaii.edu/home/pdf/putnam/PolyaHowToSolveIt.pd...

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0gbw-Ur_do
Godot Engine if you don't want to deal with a foul-smelling EULA
Facebook and YouTube can afford to use SPAs without worrying too much about performance penalty because they invest massive amounts of effort into highly optimized and widespread content delivery networks, to the point where many ISPs literally host dedicated on-site caches for them.
Having written C++ in one way or another over the last 2 decades I still get burned by that surface area.

Last week it was a combination of forgetting the exact specifics of RVO hitting the implicit copy constructor that was causing things to go sideways. The number of implicit behaviors are pretty wide and things like move semantics still feel pretty brittle.
> It's kinda surprising that symmetric-key algorithms have been so resistant to attacks.

One reason is public-key cryptography is tremendously hard to get right. PGP as a case-in-point. Signal and Keybase tried to replace and extend PGP respectively with some success, so it could be done. Just that, it demands a lot of discipline.

> Where is symmetric key cryptography used for nowadays in normal applications programming?

As two examples: TLS, after the PKI-dependant key exchange, goes symmetrical (the same holds true for Signal and Keybase but not for PGP). Next, most server-side data encryption schemes are reliant on symmetric cryptography, as well.
I found that this starts to change as the kids get older. Mine are 8 and 11. They become a lot more independent and it frees up 15 minutes here and there.
...also everybody without modern and/or expensive hardware AKA 2 billion people in the world.
"Empower" is one of those stupidly meaningless words corporate drones like to use in their slides to impress upper management.

What happened to you, Google? You used to be cool.