skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Well if a merchant doesn't want to spend or lock anything, it doesn't have to.

If the merchant wants to receive funds via the gateway then funds need to be locked in a payment channel between the gateway and the merchant.

This is in addition to the funds locked in multiple payment channels between consumers and the gateway.

Consider a super simple LN setup, consisting of (a) one thousand consumers, each with 0.001 BTC to spend, (b) a single gateway and (c) a single merchant. The consumers are connected to the gateway, the gateway is connected to the merchant. In order for the one thousand consumers to each send 0.001 BTC to the merchant there needs to exist a payment channel between the gateway and merchant with 1 BTC in it (assigned to the gateway), and every time 0.001 BTC is sent from the consumer to the merchant, 0.001 BTC moves from a consumer to the gateway (in one payment channel) and from gateway to merchant (in a separate payment channel).

My concern here is that this is (1) expensive, and (2) inflexible. Expensive because the gateway needs to borrow 1 BTC to sit in a payment channel between it and the merchant, and inflexible because if another consumer connects to the gateway then the merchant cannot receive additional funds because it would require increasing the capacity of the channel between the gateway and merchant.
I just wonder if any creature depends on the lithium levels being what they currently are to survive. It seems we're great at discovering X but at the expense of the unknown Y and by the time we discover the problem in Y, it's too late to fix it. And now we have also have a problem with Z caused by Y.
homelessness is a big issue in NYC, it doesn’t seem clear to me that cars have much to do with it, compared to, say, lack of affordable housing. perhaps we could reclaim all the parking space to build more housing
Also somewhat relevant:

We uncovered how one ship helped North Korea get oil despite sanctions

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/22/world/winson-north-korea-...
I still have things in my house marked ‘made in East/West Germany’. But I am old.
> Why is no one pointing out that, in order to receive bitcoins on the Lightning Network (LN), you need to lock bitcoins in a payment channel?

Because it is false. To receive bitcoins on the LN you need to have a node. Other parties can open a channel with you to send you money.

> lock up bitcoins in a payment channel which can only send bitcoins to that given merchant

This is again false. The consumer can pay anyone on LN. The nodes you call "gateways" are just regular nodes, some with more funding than others. You can choose to run a regular node and keep it online and use it to route payments for other, or you can use a light wallet that opens a private channel and uses channel hints to route payments through his private channel to the network.

Bitcoins "locked" in a channel are not locked at all, You can send them to whoever you can route to on LN, or get it back to a regular on-chain wallet. And nowadays a well connected node reaches every other node.

> the gateway needs to know how many bitcoins the merchant will receive

No, the gateway needs to manage cash flow like every other money-transacting entity. There just needs to be enough capacity, like you need enough cash in a cash register. You do not need to know in advance the sum.
And you can replenish and empty channels with one on-chain tx, so no need to close and re-open channels.

> the gateway needs to borrow this amount of bitcoins in the market and lock it up in a payment channel between it and the merchant.

You got it wrong.

First, gateways (that are just regular nodes, some running on raspberri pis) are already online, and with funding (https://1ml.com/). Those are already denominated in btc, so price do not affects funding capability.

Second, replace "gateway" with "the LN network". A gateway has some funding and locks it up in some channel to the LN network (meaning some other nodes)

Third, those bitcoins are not really locked for anything, but let's keep using this word.

So the "gateway" can be anyone with some bitcoins he might want to spend on LN (or not).
Nice! You predict fish remain in 2050!
Which is deeply self-defeating, because those jobs are going away when the fish disappear anyway. The only question is who gets to eat the last ones.
Have lived here for a couple decades.

Kansas is certainly not the best drive you'll ever see, but there are many that are worse.

The east/west drive across Nebraska is a lot worse - even less geography around the interstates. Kansas at least has some geographic change as you come through the high plains in the west toward the hills in the east.

For that matter - going north/south on the western side of Iowa is crazy boring too. Road runs right along the river so there is no perceptible elevation change for an eternity. East/west across Illinois is the same way - completely and totally flat highways for hours and hours.
true but the structure is simpler than the main disc motor
> As someone who doesn’t live in the city center, and has no easy means of mass transportation to get there, my response is: fine I just won’t go then. You lose my money.

The bussiest city centers tend to be the least car and most pedestrian friendly ones. Park the car at the border of the center, then walk into the center.
Purely speculative, but I’m sure Jobs held back the flat UI changes. In his absence, Jonny Ive got carte blanche to go wild with his featureless, sexless UIs. Apple leadership obviously cut him off a few years ago after realizing the lack of sustainability of his design.
Microsoft’s Kate Crawford: ‘AI is neither artificial nor intelligent’
> The problem is that teams lose sight of the forest for the trees.

Oh! That's the problem! Silly me. I thought there were multiple problems like:

- rampant micromanagement

- non-devs creating stories for the devs

- "stories" not being used to tell stories

But that's what happens when dev tools (agile) are marketed as dev management tools (Agile). The problem is that the systems meant to get devs closer to customers have been coopted by middle men and now they create distance.
Either I'm missing something big, or this site is.

It assumes you can rent this capacity via NiceHash, but the whole point of a 51% attack is to run _different code_ on the majority of nodes.

Surely NiceHash would rent you capacity running the vanilla e.g. Ethereum code, rather than your fork?

To assume otherwise basically makes NiceHash remote code execution as a service.
Nah, Sam Vimes in Guards Guards had it all worked out. And he was lying in a gutter at the time.

“The city wasa, wasa, wasa wossname. Thing. Woman. Thass what it was. Woman. Roaring, ancient, centuries old. Strung you along, let you fall in thingy, love, with her, then kicked you inna, inna, thingy. Thingy, in your mouth. Tongue. Tonsils. Teeth.”
It does closely enough, here it would just translate to ‘avoid right turns’ or ‘avoid turns across opposing traffic’.
Is this like saying "I'm riding a public transit bus, it's already driving this way, so I'm not adding to usage or load"?

Lightning network relies on layer 1 nodes, right? So unless it reduces the load on the old dirty Bitcoin network, it's just lipstick.
Yes, Bongard problems are synonymous with the process of creating mental models, which is the process of science. Logical positivism and constructivism are both scientific - constructivism is a superset of positivist tools and better accommodates systemic/emergent properties.

Positivism is analytic/materialist, which is to say that it purports that you can understand a thing by understanding the behaviour of its smallest pieces. This denies emergent properties, which cannot be understood from the parts. Constructivism allows for multiple distinct (ie, irreconcilable) models to be used in reference to the same subject, depending on the properties that are of interest. It does not require all models to be reconciled into a hierarchy.
Hey, thanks for asking.

I use this to play with and test APIs I'm developing, or APIs that I want to develop against. For example. GitHub has a public API that can be used to access repositories and details about the repositories. I use Prestige to try out an example request, and tune the request to get the exact response that I want and _then_ translate it to use python-requests (if I want to use it in Python) or something else.
I agree about the importance of ecosystems.

But here is the thing: In the Python ecosystem I can have fast sparse matrix multiplication, or fast numba compiled functions, or fast JITed ODE solvers. But I can't use a sparse matrix library in a compiled function that gets run in a compiled ODE solver seamlessly.

So you end up in silos that can't talk to each other without losing a lot of performance. And if you only ever need to compose the fast parts in rather trivial ways, then that is entirely sufficient and it's why Python is so amazing.

But you are very wrong if you claim that scientists write Python and don't care about what's underneath. Many scientists first write a Python implementation of their new method, and then they write a CYthon implementation or whatever to actually publish the package.

And I have actual examples where new methods were not published in Python but only in Julia because the PhD student failed to get the Python code to a point where performance was reasonable.

In the end the Julia ecosystem is _very_ different from Python. Everything can and does interoperate. As heroic as Scipy is, I think Julia's ecosystem is on a completely different trajectory.

Something like https://clima.caltech.edu/ is completely unthinkable in Python/R/Matlab/Mathematica. It could maybe be done in C++.
I’m fairly certain I’ve commented about this on HN before but when I went to Antarctica (via ship from Argentina) in 2018 we saw tons of these vessels because the ships fishing for squid use huge bright lights to attract them at night. They looked like UFOs on the horizon. It was a really strange sight.

It was definitely well-known amongst the scientists on the ship that the operations were illegal. I know they made an effort to report as many as they could but my impression was that officials were overwhelmed by complaints and the illegal ships would work together to avoid detection/quickly move to international water so, since it was a losing battle, the government didn’t put forth too much effort.

Whether that’s the real reason nothing is done or just the good reason used to justify their inaction is anyone’s guess. I will say there were a shocking number of ships that I could see and I wouldn’t be surprised if they outnumbered the Argentinian navy.
I wonder, isn't it 1) obvious for the CCP what this amount of overfishing will do?

And, 2)

> These distant-water fleets mainly fish for shortfin squid, which are vital to Argentina’s economy

1 and 2 combined make me wonder if destroying the ocean ecosystem, and damaging Argentina's economy could be a goal in itself, somehow.

Maybe to (now I'm guessing), in the future, get to lend out money to the government in Argentina, if they're in a bad economic situation -- and make the country depend on the CCP or something like that?

I'm just guessing and wondering. However it'd be weird to me if the CCP hadn't thought about what'll happen, because of the overfishing, and they said that, yes this is good for us; it's something we want (the party, probably not the people).
I'm not a fan of Iron Maiden's music but from all I read they sound like absolute top blokes. They also licensed "Eddie" to Robinsons Brewery, a smallish company based in Stockport, to produce their "Trooper" beer - which is actually pretty fine.
This is really interesting, but I think it's too literal. If you consider how radically different, but nonetheless alike the human body is from a cell, and how different but similar multicellular life can be - the scale, environmental, and dietary optimizations cause a significant disparity from one organism to the next. To me that says this is too literal, and an exceedingly close reading of the more figurative analogy. With that I think the sensibility erodes rapidly.

I think what one really had ought to take from the cellular analogy is that humanity is inadvertently creating systems in the natural world that mimic evolutionary and biological systems - that the emergent forces of the mind and society are automatically following the very same patterns that selected them. Or perhaps even being forced into that range of development through a limit of range of the function leaving development what is only a handful of viable options. Obversely, we're given the same challenges as any other organism: for example signalling - at first we've a very slow inaccurate system kin to chemical messengers, it's improved upon us, and quite suddenly we've the telegraph and the telephone, it's improved further with coaxial transport. Perhaps we've even improved on the system with the use of light. I do suppose though there is some research in biology that points to quantum phenomena being leveraged by organisms. I don't know that this conception is applicable practically - you won't be able to do anything other than project the trends of evolution of society and probably quite badly but it is interesting food for thought.
Tldr: roads with 5+ lanes should be one way.
The latest commit to that anonymously authored repo is over a year ago. I am a bit tired of these "we are an anonymous group pushing the truth" efforts; in the case of HCQ they are unmitigated bullshit.

The best sourced argument for lab leak is the Drastic project[1]. This is basically the work that's been getting the media attention for the last few weeks.

A good source for arguments holding the lab leak unlikely (there is of course no evidence strong enough to rule it out entirely) is episodes 760 and 762 of the podcast This Week in Virology[2]. Skeptics of authority would say that this is the community of virologists covering their own back. Others who basically believe in science [ETA: meaning basically trust scientists; this is a pretty complex concept to unpack] will find passionate and knowledgeable experts explaining why they find the lab leak hypothesis unlikely.

[1]: https://drasticresearch.org/

[2]: https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/
>The contents of the six boxes on the left all have something in common. The six on right also all have something in common, which is the opposite of the ones on the left.

I think you and the author might disagree on the meaning of "opposite" here. I think they mean logical negation and you are using a more colloquial interpretation.
Well right now big companies can just move profits offshore by saying that they make no profit in any given location.

I think in either case big companies aren't going to be challenged much, the trick is what will be the better outcome for the countries and society as a whole.
I think the downvotes are probably because none of what you write makes sense in the "old European city" the ancestor comment suggested.

Although the article is about America, so shrug
No, they were not honest. The interview was for a job that they did not want. They knew that when they took the interview slot. They accepted the offer under false pretenses. They wasted the time of the interviewer and the company’s financial investment in that time slot. How is that not plainly viewed as theft by fraud? I mean, they literally confessed to this fact. If you pulled this crap with me, you would be put on the list of never-hires.
Do you have any references with detailed analysis of this issue? How much one should emphasize concrete data types vs. interfaces seems like a key consideration in language design.
Use Tailwind JIT with Hugo
it's base 24. after going from single character alpha to omega, then you introduce the second character: alpha alpha, alpha beta, ...
Interview with Ross Ulbricht at Bitcoin 2021 [audio]
There's probably only three large countries in the world by your definition then: the USA, China, and Japan. (India, Brazil and Russia's economies are probably too small to meet your standard, all being smaller than the UK's or Germany's.)
Also Google Meet apparently uses it for the virtual background effect: https://support.google.com/meet/answer/10058482
So what are the city people going to eat if it has to be local?

My perspective is that there are simply too many people and they are leading an increasingly modern (high consumption) lifestyle.
The theories seem to be: 1) Zoonotic 2) We have no idea, 3) Lab leak 4) Purposefully created and released bioweapon.

What seems to have happened is that there's a large group that have always backed theory 2, but theories 2, 3, and 4 were lumped together, and then all effectively suppressed, meaning all you saw being discussed was theory 1, despite the fact that it was always a minority view.

What happened fairly recently is that, for various reasons, theories 2 and 3 is no longer being effectively treated as synonymous with theory 4, and thus it's now "safe" to discuss theory 2 and 3. And now the large group of people who always backed theory 2 are seemingly everywhere.

(I'd caution against interpreting people supporting what I've labelled theory 2 as "implicitly accepting the lab leak hypothesis". As the linked article states, "...the only conclusion here is that of doubt. There is no direct evidence that COVID-19 escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.")
Oh lol, I didn't see this when contrasting graphene fabrication with the Moller Skycar.

Flying cars, a trope from the 60's, are already here in small numbers. The issue is it's unworkable:

1. Who wants random non-pilots flying over their homes when most people can't even drive on the ground?

2. Where are the runways / liftoff points going to be?

3. How loud will they be?

4. The energy required (and cost) is far higher than for ground transportation. Does this make any sense in the face of climate change?
So mostly safe from violent retaliation. How important is their trade with China? If they impound Chinese fishing vessels (assuming they have a coast guard capaple of keeping up with this many intruders?) a loss of trade mught occur.
No, as has been pointed out to you - multiple times - reaching a deal is not equivalent to a deal being legal.

> The BBC is not lying

No, just the status quo BBC propaganda. Let's review some quotes.

> the arrival of the Biden administration in the US, created a moment of opportunity.

> A minimum corporation tax rate of 15% is rather low

> European finance ministers succeeded in including the phrase "at least 15%", which offers a path to get that number higher.

> Tech firms say they welcomed the move.

> A process has begun, a precedent has been set. It may or may not end up being transformative, but this moment is historic.

This last quote is the BBC admitting to painting this as if it was a contract being signed.

Let's continue.

> more tax revenue would be raised from large multinationals and would help pay for public services.

Only public services? Not military? Salaries? Government contracts? etc., etc.? Well, this IS historic!

> Ms Yellen said there was an understanding that national digital services taxes such as those levied by the UK and EU countries would be scrapped and replaced by the new agreement. Such taxes are regarded by the US as unfairly targeting American technology giants.

So, the tech giants get a new tax standard that benefits them over the existing standard?? Funny, this really does go along with the previous quote:

> Tech firms say they welcomed the move.

And here is another interesting quote to focus on:

> Paolo Gentiloni, the EU commissioner for the economy, described Saturday's agreement as a "big step... towards an unprecedented global agreement on tax reform"

It sets a precedence that nothing about what is being done could even be remotely criticized except for it possibly not being enough.

It's laughable. How anyone does not see this as North Korean Kim Dynasty style propaganda is beyond redemption and likely has a double digit IQ.

Then the article ends with three quotes from Amazon, FB, and Google.

Gee, I wonder who sponsored this article (and possibly helped coordinate this meeting).

It couldn't be techopolies trying to cozy up with existing government officials in the hopes of securing an agreement that is mutually beneficial for everyone.

But, paying more money is never beneficial for a company. So, game-theoretically, and thus purely mathematically-speaking: what benefit could these tech companies be receiving from this new arrangement?

Hmm ... surely, in our modern crony capitalist system, it wouldn't be anything corrupt in nature?
> I don't know who 'they' are because that's unfortunately opposite to what I have been witnessing for 1 year.

Agreed. I was speaking from an academic perspective, and you're right -- this past year has been terrible. It seems that all best practices have gone out the window as everyone tries to figure out how to do remotes with consumer grade tools.

My point was, even in a medium that we mostly consider visual, audio is still more important to communicating the message than the picture. We can take this (pre-pandemic) best practice from television broadcasting and apply it to zoom conferences/interviews.
Whoever made the decision will be expecting this to happen, and I don't think there is much you can do
It's crazy to think that northeast Brazil is closer to Portugal than Miami!
They exist already. https://oceantoday.noaa.gov/fishonafarm/
Where is that quote from? I'm not seeing it on the linked page.
That treaty is not worth much of anything these days, too much history has happened since then.

It's true that the US consider South America "their own backyard", but there is a web of complex relationships which makes it unlikely they would blindly help this or that country retaliate against actions from superpowers - short of somebody establishing permanent strategic bases that are direct threats to the US mainland.
Previous discussion from the posting of this site three years ago (including by the dev who built this website). Some of which covers NiceHash topic and also other problems you're going to phase when trying to do a 51% attack + profit out of it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17173051
> If culture or technology at some point completely replaces genetics in a literal sense, I don't think it's even necessarily required to reproduce any of the current functions of genes at all.

Now that you have clarified that genes are a store of information, this passage seems to imply that genes could be replaced in a way that makes no use of a store of the sort of information genes store.

I can't prove it, but I very much doubt that is possible, unless you mean specifically that whatever information store this replacement needs is not precisely identical with that in a genome - but that is trivially true, given that no two genomes are identical in all respects.

Identity arguments are the hobgoblin of the philosophy of the mind, IMHO, keeping one of its feet chained to its vitalist past through tendentious modal arguments about concievability - but I digress.
On JavaScript Text Guide and Online Presence Kit
To elaborate a bit more on the GPU peak FP32 perf:

> VideoCore VI @ 500MHz: 500 [MHz] x 2 [slice] x 4 [qpu/slice] x 4 [processor] x 2 [op/clock] = 32 Gflop/s

which is the RPi4 config.

compared to a Snapdragon 800: 147.9Gflops FP32, and that's still a very old part.

And about the Wii itself:

> With the Wii, Nintendo opted to go with an innovative control scheme, rather than to focus on processing power. It offered 12 gigaflops, which represents a 1.27x improvement over its GameCube predecessor

The margins are way too slim when counting emulation overhead.
Never saw the responses. I agree with you that the mechanics come first. Game feel is so important. Graphics don’t need to be amazing for good game feel.
I just think of it as an alternate timeline now