skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Sure, all work is theft, for some value of theft, but as I've said in a couple of other replies:

* "all these ideas have been done before, in various places" is one thing, "all these ideas have been done before in one program in the same role on all the same platforms" makes me feel like "new [to users who haven't used this other thing shipped with the OS for years on one of the platforms]" is insufficient to use without more explicit qualifiers

* I may be oblivious and missing some cool example, but the flip side to "all ideas implemented before" is "no new tricks", and when someone describes something to me as "a new type of X", I really expect at least one novel thing or composition of things to be present.

After all, I wouldn't describe TIFF as a "new type of image format" just because many people who haven't touched photo/graphics editing probably haven't encountered it, or IE4 as "a new type of web browser" (now) just because a significant fraction of internet users are not old enough to have used it when it had market share. (When it was first released, Active Desktop, for example, while a security nightmare, was indeed a new thing for almost all users.)
So SpaceX needs a place that's

1- as physically close to the equator they can get

2- while still being on American soil for legal / national security reasons

3- while being near a eastern seaboard beach, for both having viable rocket launch directions (no launching over land acc to US policy iirc), as well as for ease of access to transport

4- but also need a large empty unpopulated space where they can test rockets and blow up stuff without risking civilians

where else other than Boca chica can they go? South Tip of Florida is good for launching but not enough empty space for testing, and inland America has loads of empty space for testing but unless govt changes policy, they can't launch from there

I think Texas needs to realize that Boca chica will become the next Cape Canaveral / Area 51 combo thingy, and the Texas public Road/ Public Beach laws won't mean much.

So, either totally shut down the project NOW before it balloons to become the airport to mars, or accept that it has the same significance as say, a govt weapons testing site and effectively lock access to the entire area. (i am not American, but surely private companies testing for your DoD can get some security restrictions, I presume since DoD is interested in Starship, that might not be far behind.)
Yeah so you have to make a difference between empirical science and science here really. Which Max Weber who was one of the pillars of social sciences stated around one hundred years ago.

"As such, he was a key proponent of methodological anti-positivism, arguing for the study of social action through interpretive (rather than empiricist) methods, based on understanding the purpose and meanings that individuals attach to their own actions."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber

edit: This is then further developed by the so called Frankfurt School as Critical Theory.
I'm sorry to hear that, it does sound like a bummer. I grew up in a small residential community, and running around with my friends through the neighborhood from the age of 8-15 was a huge part of my development. Really can't imagine who I would be today if it wasn't for those super fun times.
Sounds like the Racket project badly needs a Code of Conduct and a governing body to enforce it. Many FOSS projects have already done this, I believe.
I don't think many people who were not white, christian and straight felt a ton of social trust in the era you are harkening back to.
That's all done on purpose.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
It's fun to realize how deeply ingrained the current scientific process is in our way of thinking.

All of these ideas that you tacitly take for granted are itself mutable parts of the scientific process:

* That iterative improvement and hill-climbing is an effective process for improving results.

* That replication of experiments and convergence is a truth-generating enterprise.

* That truth can be expressed numerically.

* That there are some values that are "known good". By what process? According to whom?

To be clear, I don't disagree with those. However, these rules aren't baked into the firmament of the universe. They are processes we humans have chosen to apply in our social process of reaching conensus on truth. In other words, this list here isn't physics, it's technology.

It's entirely possible to imagine a culture whose truth finding bodies don't take for granted one or more of these rules at all. That culture might be more or less effective (again, according to what metrics?), but it would still be well-defined.
Mark Zuckerberg is an entrepreneur that started a business 15 years ago. He isn’t in a governmental office.
Consumers don't have anything useful to bring to this table.

Historically the realisation that you need outside Cryptographers (not consumers) if you actually want to do anything novel with cryptography† was slow to arrive.

Even on the Internet, for PGP and SSL there was no real outside cryptographic design input. In SSL's case a few academics looked at the design of SSLv1, broke it and that's why SSLv2 is the first version shipped. Only TLS 1.2 finally had a step where they ask actual cryptographers "Is this secure?" and that step was after the design work was finished. TLS 1.3 (just a few years ago) is the first iteration where they have cryptographers looking at the problem from the outset and the working group rejected things that cryptographers said can't be made to fly.

And TLS 1.3 also reflects something that was effectively impossible last century, rather than just a bad mindset. Today we have reasonably good automated proof systems. An expert mathematician can tell a computer "Given A, B and C are true, is D true?" and have it tell them either that D is necessarily true or that in fact it can't be true because -something- and that helps avoid some goofs. So TLS 1.3 has been proven (in a specific and limited model). You just could not do that with the state of the art in say 1995 even if you'd known you wanted to.

Now, we need to get that same understanding into unwieldy SDOs like ISO, and also into pseudo SDOs like EMVco (the organisation that makes "Chip and pin" and "Contactless payment" work) none of which are really getting the cryptographers in first so far.

† "But what I want to do isn't novel". Cool, use one of the existing secure systems. If you can't, no matter why then you're wrong you did want to do something novel, start at the top.
The FTC certainly has been slow about dealing with Qualcomm/Google/Apple WRT phones. That may sound like a silly complaint but phones have almost completely replaced personal computers for most people along with almost every form of communication (both n to n and 1 to n.) Phone OS vendors abusing their position as monopolists on user's access to information is a serious threat to democracy and it's not something that can be just ignored.
If and when browsers start requiring pre-certificate transparency logging, anything like this should no longer be possible to pull off, since none of the fake certificates would be able to contain a stapled pre-certificate "signoff" from a trusted CT log.
Filtering would help only if the wages are suitably high enough to make similar jobs less attractive. The Fulfillment Center work is reportedly harder than other work that pays the same or better. If the wages are higher, it would be worth working harder for Amazon and staying. That's how a healthy labor market works.
Turns out Google’s AI is directed towards advertisers to guess how to make them pew the money the most inefficiently possible ;) Seriously those ads are inefficient for the immense majority of small shop owners.
We built a similar tool, utilizing a CNN. It works on structured (and unstructured) data and provides additional info.

https://github.com/capitalone/DataProfiler

Cool part, is you can “extend” the intern name-entity recognition model by refitting with the new data.

Out if the box, the DataProfiler does something like 18 entities including most of the PII dada.
I use DDG as my main search engine since a year or two, and I add !g for 90% of my technical searches, but for everything else it's more like 10% or less.
It isn't totally wrong to surmise that cell phones communicate directly with satellites; Mine is constantly listening to radio streams from satellites and using those to figure out where I am.
Show HN: I made a power grid engineering puzzle game (Steam Playtest)
Yeah, I would like to see some analysis of why he thinks so. Having no financial knowledge I tend to agree based solely on the social phenomena surrounding these things, but it would be nice to see the reasoning and numbers from someone who actually knows something.
Given that our society idolizes 20-something billionaire tech founders without questioning their capacity to run massive billion-dollar companies, why is it such a stretch to envision a 30-something running a government office?
> There is one objective truth, of course

Not necessarily, I think it's very likely that the foundation of truth is ever changing in itself, nothing has to be fixed in time and space.

> but there are higher-order concentric rings of abstractions above those that aren't strictly true but serve as an accurate enough first-order approximation of the truth

I think one thing that was a big "haha" moment for me was actually reconsidering what I'm even trying to accomplish when discussing "truth". I realized that in actuality, we are simply framing facts and observations into conceptual models that allows us to predict or infer further conclusions. This means we really only care about the practicalities.

Like you said, quantum physics and general relativity are simply two conceptual models, in practice they each work well for certain things, but we've found they are incompatible right now, and what one is good at the other not so much. And that's fine, unless you wrongly obsess over "truth", which you will never find. But if you focus on your practicalities, then it's a question of finding the most effective conceptual model you can, and then applying it to your life.

When it comes to history, it's the same. It doesn't really matter what actually happened and why. What matters is the conceptual model you use to look at the artifacts you've got, and what that allows you to do today in your life. It might be that one framing of history helps you keep together a free society and keep authoritarian agents at bay, if so, it's a pretty good model of history. If it doesn't allow you to do this, and actually does the opposite, and that's not your goal, than it's a bad model of history.

Start thinking that way, and history becomes a means to protect yourself from future mistakes using past data. Now your model of history can be objectively measured in how good it is at doing that.
It's still a pyramid. There are a few people at the top. There is the next layer of the people who make a decent living, aka the "middle class" actors, the folks making MLB minimum wage ($600K/yr), etc. and then all the people in the bottom layer trying to break in (the starving actors, the minor league players, etc).

And lawyers are very bimodal. You have a ton of lawyers who make less than <$90K/yr, and then a whole bunch making >$200K/yr, and not a lot in between.
Sorry I was talking about digital. I didn't even know about the pen and paper kind.

There are portable devices
https://github.com/openstenoproject/plover/wiki/Supported-Ha...
I made more in one summer interning than I did in a year as a full time RA.
I took a look at this, it seems the way it works is when you do a DNS lookup it does a lookup itself and rewrites the IPs before returning to you. It stores a mapping of client IP and rewritten IP to real IP and when it gets a request on the rewritten IP it looks up the original and proxies the request. Pretty cool, but I wouldn't trust it with anything unencrypted. It offers no privacy benefits.
Horizontal scaling is a delicate art. IMHO It's must be achieved by keeping in mind all 4, end users, business use case, application server and database.

Traditional RDBMS are near best possible solution as long as vertical scaling is concerned and also the number of features they provide, both sql and nonsql. Distributed SQL databases are good at horizontal scaling and query engine and they are getting better.

Divide and Rule method always gave me nice control over deployment and architecture complexity. Before adoption of Distributed SQL, I would rather consider traditional RDBMS (or should I say data platform ) like PostgreSQL, application server as reusable component at high level architecture. More kind of lego blocks but few in numbers.

I would rather implement sharding at business use cases through application logic level ( NodeJS / JVM / Whatever) by having few major individual services ( not microservices for each function ) instead of having monolith and if thats not enough then further shard at user level in application server layer and not database layer. For aggregation of data and analytics purpose we can have different computation servers ( either PG itself through use of fdw or apps written in general purpose language) querying the read replicas which are specifically deployed for this purpose.
> Mick West- a game developer is in no position to question observations of

He's also a pilot and has been focused on topics like this for two decades - but his arguments don't require taking anything on trust or his authority.

Additionally, he interviews experienced and relevant people, like his most recent video with Alex Dietrich (the second pilot present at the Nimitz "Tic-Tac" encounter).

> trained top gun pilots and the vast infrastructure of the US Navy/Pentagon who analyze this kind of stuff for a living. If they can't explain then I am sure they have considered and debunked trivial explanations that West purports

The filename "gimbal" suggests they might have the same suspicion as West on at least one encounter. Hopefully we'll get details of what they considered in the upcoming pentagon report.

But, even if we do prematurely assume that that the pentagon thinks there's no possible explanations, consider the analogous case of the Chilean Navy UFO video where the Chilean Navy and then a 2 year investigation failed to identify a plane 100 miles away (https://www.metabunk.org/threads/explained-chilean-navy-ufo-...). The pilots are experts but they aren't completely immune from making mistakes.

> in the NYTimes article they explicitly debunk the "weather balloon" hypothesis which has been proposed as a "rational" explanation for these ufos by some.

I assume you're talking about this quote (let me know if not): "One possible explanation — that the phenomena could be weather balloons or other research balloons — does not hold up in all cases"

It's a refutation if someone believed that all cases were weather/research balloons (which I don't think anyone does). And on the flip side there's the implication that some of the UAPs are consistent with weather balloons.
After the recent freenode drama, best to avoid them.
Quarterly earnings is pretty antiquated anyway. Perhaps public companies should just report continuous / daily earnings via automated accounting software.

This should make it harder to hide accounting fraud and improve transparency and market fairness.
The only Gladwell book I have read is "Outliers". When reading it I couldn't shake the feeling that he was cherry picking his examples. It never pulled back far enough to study the phenomenon systematically and the examples he did use were scattered all across the world and decades. I ended up being fairly disappointed and have not bothered with any of his other work.

I guess I was most disappointed because it was getting absolutely stellar reviews at the time and I'm not sure why.
I think you're right, and have those in the correct order of precedence.

- 60%: raise wages

- 30%: better working conditions

- 10%: better filters (with the two items above a prerequisite)
Why is the default assumption that this is the correct way to do things, and we just need to iron out the bugs? Why not just continue with the proven methods of in-person instruction?
This might be a radical notion, but I think I’d rather keep what’s going on in my mind to myself. Less frightening that way.
I don’t know why people keep making this comparison. Billionaire founders become billionaire founders because they build companies and manage people. No one appoints them to the office of CEO of a completely unrelated company at age 25.
Ha! I just interviewed with Kernel last week. I decided I was not a good fit, but really enjoyed talking with the very passionate devs there.
I spent too long on one occasion trying to figure out why my logs looked like they were in the wrong order for a NodeJS application.

It was because one message was console.info and another was console.error, which was going to stderr and so getting flushed differently.

A couple months ago I fell for it again.
It's the same on Linux, depending on what manpages you have installed. free(1) is the binary. free(3) and free(3p) are the C function.

If you have more than one installed, `man` might decide to show the first one or it may interactively ask you to pick one, depending on whether it's been configured to be "posixly correct" or not.
Actually, I seem to remember that these ads were contextual at first, not related to any profile they would have built for you but only related to the content of the page.

Which is entirely different. Ads are still manipulative (by design), but at least purely contextual ads don't track you.
I don’t have a good resource to point you to because most of what I know is from having seen data requests and from discussions with colleagues. To my knowledge the SEC hasn’t said much about how they use analytics and I suspect that’s deliberate.

The SEC has been gathering data after big price swings to identify potential insider trading for a while but my understanding is that they’re now able to assign an insider-trading risk-score to transactions that made money (or avoided a loss) by trading just before the swing.

What’s interesting is the risk-score seems to involve some degree of “who you know” and seems to de-emphasize the old metric used to prioritize investigations: how big your profit/loss avoided was. So rather than having to identify the big winners (or loss avoiders) and investigate those transactions they can instead focus on the transactions most likely to have been “tipped” by an insider. (This is entirely my own speculation but I think you can see it a bit in the attached press release. It’s an unusual chain of relationships between and among the six people charged and the two public companies. Insider > tips friend > tips guy who owes him money > tips three friends. I’d venture to guess there was some transaction data that allowed the SEC to form the link between the accounts profiting and the insiders because $1.7 million isn't a terribly huge sum to have SEC staff chasing after.)

It also seems, judging by Gensler’s recent comments, they’re considering gathering data about planned and forgone 10b5-1 transactions presumably for the purpose of applying insider trading analytics.
As far as turning up a link. It's all there in snippets. The complete theory A-Z is evidence dark matter. It's dark matter because you and me don't have access to it. To say it's not there and I can't turn up a link is dismissing the works of innovators like Thompson Brown who came up with an idea and spent the next 30 years working on it in secret with the US Air Force. He also got no real credit for it and ended up broke. It's also dark matter because UFO's are real. These supposed "objects" move in ways that are termed the defy the natural laws of known physics. It's stated in numerous patent documents that it is theorized to use gravitational manipulation technologies and elctrogravitic forces. We don't have to stick with what we know. We have already directly observed what we don't yet know. It is our responsibility to understand how to connect what we know with what we don't yet know as a greater civilization which is essentially what you seem to agree with too.
I disagree, but I upvoted because it is a perfectly valid point of view and expressed politely. Consider that this is a super outlier when it comes to government leadership, so maybe there is something to it.

Government is absolutely packed with old people[1], to the point where the young don't have much of a voice despite being a large US demographic. The average age of the 117th Congress is 59 years old. Only a single Senator is under 40. The house has only one member born in the 90s. The age groups with the biggest gains compared to the last Congress are 80+ and 50-59. Congress is old and getting older.

1: https://fiscalnote.com/blog/how-old-is-the-117th-congress
We must be talking about two very different decades. In the 1950s, which is generally the time people think to when talking about the "good old days" the number of women in the workforce was 27%. It had very little to do with income level. Both of my parents grew up dirt poor, both of them had mothers who stayed home. As the children were old enough to all be attending school, one of my grandma's got a job at the elementary school some of her children were enrolled in a few blocks from the house.
No, I would say we're living in the best times we've ever seen, and I would not want to roll back history.

I do think that modern sprawl suburbanism has some harmful elements and that other styles of urbanism and of suburbanism that don't look like we've built the last 50 years in North America have benefits.
Perhaps not, but missile cruisers can :) They try that in a different series, a fully armed WWII battleship group against a modern US carrier group. Guns just don't have the range compared to surface launched missiles and they can't get close enough.

I won't pretend to be some expert on military hardware, I'm a guy interested in flight sims, and that video series just happened to catch my attention. They make a compelling argument though, cruise missiles are one of the methods they try (unsure if supersonic), and they are attacking the carrier group in the absolute worst defensive position it could be in: a narrow gulf surrounded by unfriendly territory on most sides.

Still, not much gets through. If it's not the missile defense system that gets you, it's the F/A-18 patrols. If not them, it's the F-14s that can scramble in minutes. Scary stuff.
I had fun exploring Docker->VM conversion a while back [1], though the larger goal in my case was to be able to make the build path to custom GCP VM Images a bit simpler. Exciting to see other cases where folks are finding this sort of flow useful!

1: https://thekev.in/blog/2019-08-05-dockerfile-bootable-vm/ind...
Can you win at Tetris? (1992)
That was the most annoying video I have ever seen. I couldn't make it past about 4 minutes because the dude simply cannot get to the point.
Yes, though the age is a red herring: they are colloquially known as "patsies" or "fall guys" [1]. When faced with a problem with an obvious but costly solution, a common strategy is to find a popular but incompetent/inexperienced individual to put in charge of fixing it. Their incompetence/inexperience leads to an inevitable worsening of the problem until everyone is willing to pay the cost of the obvious solution, at which point the fall guy/gal's popularity is used to create The Downfall distraction. Meanwhile unpopular politicians implement what they wanted to all along while scoring political brownie points for saving the day and ammunition for next time.

My mom says I should have been a politician...

Edit: I'm not saying that's what's happening now. I have no idea whether Lina Khan is qualified or not

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_guy
>bagging a high-ranking financier is a ticket to higher office.

And not bagging is a ticket to a very nice corner office I guess :)