skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>> It's the same as you have the right to free speech, but not the right to print it, or you can print it, but you can't distribute it on the street corner, or talk about it in an assembly of over a certain number of people.

No printing press is obligated to mass-print a book you write. Similarly, you cannot go to a corporation's campus and distribute stuff unless you have their permission — because it is their private property. Just because private parties are refusing to give you a platform does not mean they are totalitarians.

>> Totalitarians will always use an example of where speech somehow created harm to exhibit the need for control, the truth is that freedom does cause harm, and will always cause harm, because you cannot eliminate harm completely no matter the system.

This is a strawman in the shape of an Argument from Futility. It's no different than saying "why have safety systems in cars when you cannot eliminate car accident deaths completely?" It's a strawman because nobody is aiming to completely eliminate harm from online speech, just prevent it in egregious situations where it can be prevented. It's an argument from futility because harm reduction is still a valid goal even if complete elimination of harm is not possible or feasible.
I didn't know about firejail. Thanks.

The gist of it is

sudo apt install firejail
firejail audacity

I guess that the line

net none

in /etc/firejail/audacity.profile prevents any network connections. And

man firejail

for many useful functionalities.
> quite a lot of MIT code

Where is this MIT licensed codes of yours, because it definitely is not on your github.
Funny thing is … Hacker News discussions and a certain subset of channels on Telegram and Discord are probably among the most actively actually social media I've managed to find online.
Not the cost of the car, I consider it well amortized (16 year old car). I do include everything else.
You said If a system is critical

I thought you were making a more general statement about all critical systems, that's all. And since many critical systems have a safety factor in play, I wanted to distinguish them as not always being a good target for a Blockchain solution to the problems of consensus.

Blockchain is a very interesting solution to the problem of obtaining consensus in the face of imperfect inputs, there are other options so, like anything else, you choose the right tool for the job. My own view is that-- given other established protocols, blockchain is going to be overkill for dealing with some types of fault tolerance. It is a very good fit for applications where you want to minimize relying on the trust of humans. (And other areas too, but right now I'm just speaking of the narrow context of consensus amid inconsistent inputs)
Seems like the basic EV design of "thick slab with wheels at the corners and everything else flexible and bolted on" could actually be an advantage in a lot of ways. Slide out ramps may not fit, but lifts shouldn't be a problem and internal movement could be easier.

Heck, height adjustment of the entire body (or just one side) is probably not out of the question when you don't have to worry about mechanical connections to the engine because the motors are contained in the wheels.
That seems to be a deliberate misunderstanding on his part. Of course I can vacuum up whatever data I want and feed it as training data to my model.

But the moment I redistribute (1) the model and that (2) model reproduces the original copyrighted training data that is an obvious violation.
What you are describing as "infection" is in fact an extra escape hatch for license violators not an extra restriction.

If you incorporate closed source software into your work you may stop distributing your software or rip it out possibly while paying a massive fine.

If you incorporate GPL licensed software into your work you may stop distributing your software, rip it out, OR release your software as GPL. Furthermore while being discovered using someone else's proprietary software in yours will almost certainly result in at best a threat of near instant lawyer assisted corporate suicide using GPL software the same way has historically led to a strongly worded letter and months to years to fix your problem.

This is to say that nearly all copyright is inherently viral and GPL is slightly less so than many because you have additional options. Hearing people, many of whom metaphorical develop software Ebola for a living describe the GPL as viral is in a word, amusing.
I have a Thinkpad T495 which Lenovo supports both Ubuntu and Fedora on and still battery life is much worse using Linux. All the tweaking and playing with tlp settings doesn't help.

The trackpad is smooth enough after I adjust the trackpad speed. It is slow as molasses by default. What is disappointing is the lack of multitouch support. Gnome 40 and the lastest Pop OS have some nice multitouch features for the desktop but support in applications is practically non existent.
Many developers conflate idempotency and purity. It appears stripe is trying for purity, two requests always have the same response. This is likely misguided.

Idempotency would be like the API failed to generate the success response, but the backend did issue the money movement. On subsequent retries what matters is that it doesn’t do a duplicate money movement. The client ought to get a request indicating the money was successfully moved (since it was), perhaps with the earlier timestamp as a way of indicating it was already moved. Or it ought to get a special response that indicates the client can stop retrying

Sending the same error upon success sounds like the client has no way to know when to stop retrying. Sure it makes the API pure, but what problem does it even solve?
Hahahahah! Pure freakin' GENIUS this is! Needs to happen. We'll just replace politicians outright.

————————————————————————————————————————

So, I'm totally okay with this comment gettin' downvoted, but can ya at least like … I dunno … add to the conversation maybe?

Perhaps a small comment on why his idea isn't pure genius? Or why I shouldn't find it amusing? Or how about why replacing politicians with a better system could somehow be a bad thing? Downvote me if you like, but downvotes without context don't help me (or anyone else) understand anything you might be trying to get across.

————————————————————————————————————————

Just for fun, I'll propose another idea; Let's start drafting people into political office.

"Congratulations {random citizen}! You've just been elected President!"

And just like a regular wartime military draft, refusal to do the job to the best of your ability = jail time.
That's because clubs do not interfere with the things we say to one another. Also they are not monopolies, so they can't experiment freely without risking us going to another club.
I'm neither very familiar with unicode collation or zig, but for this line:

19B5 199E ; [.36FC.0020.0002][.370F.0020.0002] # <NEW TAI LUE VOWEL SIGN E, NEW TAI LUE LETTER LOW VA>

You want to store a mapping from (19B5, 199E) to ((36FC, 0020, 0002), (370F, 0020, 0002)). Is that right?
There is no connection between biology and politics save for what meanings currently active politically actors attempt to assert. Such assertions are purely for current political advantage, they are not made in any kind of good faith effort to discover the truth.
There was a recent talk at PyCon US 2021 on this :)

TALK / SangBin Cho / Data Processing on Ray [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNLqvdov_J4]
And something suitable for (non-EDA) CAD would be great. KiCad's surface area is small enough that its rough edges can be worked around. FreeCad's isn't.
Apple Music is missing one major thing: a classic iPod to go with it
> Alcohol never had a history of use that was even remotely close to this

Are you kidding? People used to get drunk and riot all the time in major American and European cities. Have you ever read about the gin craze?

What is banned is certainly affected by the sensationalistic stories and the perceived scariness of it. But IMO the actual result of what does get banned has more to do with the cultural status quo, in group power and out group xenophobia.

The repeal of alcohol prohabition is good evidence of this. Alcohol was traditionally accepted in Western culture for one. It's use was widespread and sometimes even seen as a "right of a
passage" among the enfranchised class. America tolerated all kinds of other policy which lead to violence before, during and since prohibition. What got it repealed was that FDR and a lot of other politicians liked to drink. A lot of their voters liked to drink. They saw it as American to drink. They came from an alcohol tradition. Tobacco and caffeine are both intertwined with American middle and upper class identity, especially in the mid 20th century when these bans are really coming down. And of course, they weren't banned.

Psychedelics may have been used by in-group white kids but they were banned before their use could become wide enough to integrate them to the culture. Native support didn't matter because they are such a tiny population and so thuroughly locked out of power.
But software built from source copied using Copilot is not guaranteed to preserve those freedoms to its users. Which is the whole point of the GPL - preserving these freedoms to subsequent users, as a chain.
No, I was asking if anyone had insight into the results of the leaks. Has it affected change?
These are GUIs,

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

https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/800225.806843

vi might have visual on the name, but only for those in the Bell Labs silo
Safeguards do not just exist at the level of technology but also politics, social structures, policies, design decisions, human interactions, and so on and so forth. "Criticality" in particular is something defined by humans, not a vacuum, and humans are components of all complex systems, as much as any multiplier or hardware unit is. The fact a multiplier can return an error is exactly in line with this: it can only happen after an array of other things allow it to, some of them not computational or computerized at all. And not every failure will also result in catastrophe as it did here. More generally such failures cannot be eliminated, because latent failures exist everywhere even when you have TMR or whatever it is people do these days. Thinking there is any "only real safeguard" like quorums or TMR is exactly part of the problem with this line of thought.

The quote I made is actually very specifically is in reference to this paper, in particular point 2, which is mandatory reading for any systems engineer, IMO, though perhaps the word "safeguard" is too strong for the taste of some here. But focusing on definitions of words is besides the point and falls into the same traps this paper mentions: https://how.complexsystems.fail/

Back to the original point: is ECC the single solution to this catastrophe? No, probably not. Systems are constantly changing and failure is impossible to eliminate. Design decisions and a number of other decisions could have mitigated it and caused this failure to not be catastrophic. Another thing might also cause it to topple. But let's not pretend like we don't know what we're dealing with, either, when we've already built these tools and know they work. We've studied ECC plenty! You don't need to carry water for a corporation trying to keep its purse filled to the brim (by cutting costs) to proclaim that failure is inevitable and most things chug on, regardless. We already know that much.
It's not the same thing. GH Issues firstly requires a GitHub account, whereas anyone can sign up to a mailing list. The model is just worse for general discussion too.
It’s not bad practice. CQRS is just a pattern with pros and cons.
Maybe NYC fees are realistic and everywhere else fees are too low to meet the maintenance debt?
Interesting insight at https://github.com/audacity/audacity/issues/1213#issuecommen...

I quote it:

------

Privacy policy:

> If you are under 13 years old, please do not use the App.

GPLv2:

> The act of running the Program is not restricted

GPLv3:

> This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program.

------

So, are they violating the GPL in an unusual way?
I used Ray to train a massive GPT model by putting each layer on a separate TPU. Ray was able to send all the gradients back and forth as needed.

It scaled fine up to 33 TPUs (i.e. 33 layers).

Ray is impressive as hell.

By the way, I didn't write the code to do any of that. kindiana, aka "the guy that wrote GPT-J", also happened to write this:

https://github.com/kingoflolz/swarm-jax

I just ran it and it worked. Which is extraordinarily unusual for TPUs, historically speaking.

I'm pushing my luck at this point, since it's crossing the line from enthusiasm to spam. But if you want to try out Ray on TPUs like I did here, I posted a (massive) amount of detail on how to get started, and why: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27728225

That's the last I'll be mentioning it for some time, though.

Ray + JAX is such a killer combo.
No fundamental changes to learning are required when you push literacy rates from 10% to 99%, it is simply a matter of including more people into the learning process of a few years that existed for several millenia. If kids had a retention rate of at least 10% after 11 years of schooling and “are you smarter than a 5th grader” couldn’t be a thing, now that would be impressive.
You can estimate your TDEE in a few minutes using a tool such as https://tdeecalculator.net/

And it takes about five mins from your day to track calories. Get a piece of paper, write calorie counts of food you are consuming on it. Stop consuming food when the total exceeds your desired caloric goal ( TDEE - speed of weight loss ).

If that is genuinely too hard for you, there are a number of pre-portioned food programs you can get.
>Any community or mod that doesn't play along is removed

This makes no sense and is completely wrong.

Can you give some examples?
CQRS doesn’t obviate race conditions. Especially if multiple commands can be in flight at the same time (the response can still be received out of order), or if there are multiple clients mutating the same resource.
> I'm not pretending, racism is racism, you don't get to redefine what words mean in order to fit your narrative.

I’m done arguing with a throwaway account if you’re going to be intentionally naive. “It’s not racist because it doesn’t specifically talk about race” is logical cowardice.

The rest of your comment is similarly tortured. That some POC succeed despite racism does not mean racism doesn’t exist.
Hello everyone,
It’s Rohan & i’m the creator of Readyui.

We created 200+ blocks with essential features of the web like header, features, portfolio, team, footer, etc to speed up your website building process faster using our copy-paste tool. Also, we have 12 awesome premade templates to get started quickly.

Readyui Features:
- 200+ Bootstrap 5 UI blocks
- Copy-paste tool
- 12 pre-built templates
- Light & dark version available
- Tailwindcss version coming soon

Anyone can check our code & design via our free access plan, you will get our Figma design file & 10 Bootstrap blocks for free :)
If you like our free version then you can try our lifetime plan which includes all our 200+ Bootstrap blocks, copy-paste tool & access to our upcoming future products.

Currently, we are working on our Tailwind version. We will release every product in Bootstrap & Tailwind version.

Thanks :)
I spent the past year and a half deploying a distributed backend for bert-like models & we ultimately chose a K8s architecture & "precise" affinity mapped out, which is still hard due to cpu pinning issues. On the frontend-api, Golang gives us the ability to distribute & split requests coming in (10-20M / day & batch size averaging ~3K which splits into 50 due to model constraints). Embeddings are stored on those nodes, local ssds. Those nodes are only a handful. Models run on 2 pools, 1 dedicated and one preemptible (most nodes here) which gives us cost optimization and scheduling is simplified due to K8s. We have anywhere from 120-300 of these high compute nodes.

Wondering if anyone has similar deployments and migrated to Ray. We've evaluated it but can't afford a large migration at this point & would also need to test quite a bit & rebuild our whole automation for infra and apps.

Really interested though as the infrastructure isn't cheap and every time the model updates we are basically re-architecting it. Right now we are moving everything away from python (gunicorn/flask, and MKL) to Golang as we can get better efficiencies with data serialization (numpy ops are the biggest time eaters right now ... model input vectors constructed from flatbuffers)
What are SMBs?
I know that my pizza is not dark matter
I think i'd agree. I detest documentation that can't be automated in some form, as it will bitrot so fast it's nearly worthless imo.

As an example, we're a young company with some very old-school devs. Devs that would FTP push directly to prod and never commit to Git. To mitigate friction on transitioning these devs to more mature practices, management went heavy handed with documentation. Step by step instructions on how to commit, how to name your branches, how to hotfix, etc.

Well guess what? Our practices our different now. Our branch names differ, our git host is different and requires different practices. All the screenshots are out of date. The text is littered with old references and old practices, spread across a dozen documents.

In my experience trust in this sort of documentation is _easily_ lost. Lost trust means that a developer won't bother looking, and will end up asking a senior about it anyway.

On the flipside i love documentation that can be automated, filled with tests, etc. I use a Rust framework called Mdbook, which i include tests in to attempt to ensure when the schema or API changes, the tests fail so the dev remembers to update the documentation. Not perfect, but at least the tooling helps humans be better.
Urgent care did a great job when I had kidney stones. They took blood work and an x-ray, made a diagnosis, gave me a shot that took care of the problem, and all of it in an hour.

A friend had a case of a bad virus and the urgent care did a great job with her too.

I'm sure it varies from place to place and need to need, and few of us have the training to tell which. But at least some urgent care centers can do really good work for a lot more than cuts.

In your case the urgent care center did the right thing. A fever of 107 could be a lot of incredibly dangerous things, some of which require surgery, and ASAP. I'm glad your daughter required nothing more, but it was absolutely a situation where the urgent care center was not sufficient.

You and I can't be expected to know that, and it would be great if we lived with a system that didn't draw such sharp lines in order to reduce cost. The urgent and emergency places should be part of the same system and co-located as much as possible. But that requires a complete rebuild of our system from the ground up.
What makes you believe that your experience is representative of others? Or, for that matter, how do you know you aren’t just reinforcing your own presuppositions with how you process information, ie confirmation bias?

Fwiw, it’s not a particularly interesting argument to say “my experience has taught me this so this is the way it is.” What if you’re just wrong, have you considered that? I spend most of my time thinking I’m probably wrong - it’s the best way to become less wrong over time.
You should only ever do things when they're worth it. Which sounds obvious, but a lot of people argue for "correctness" of things in the abstract without tying back to why that correctness matters, how much its worth, and what the cost of getting it is.

In the case of git, I think

a) a good "published" code history can actually be pretty valuable

b) git's UX is bad

The fact that a tidy history is valuable should be totally independent from the fact that git's UI doesn't make it easy to do that.
> Once you git push (or in theory someone pulls from your repo, but people who pull from a working repo often deserve what they get) your changes to the authoritative upstream repository or otherwise make the commits or tags publicly visible, you should ideally consider those commits etched in diamond for all eternity.

I've broken this rule multiple times per day for the past 10 years.

On your own feature branches, rebase your fucking shit and force push. I see so many people creating ungodly messes because they never want to erase the history of PRs that they've submitted and its just a nightmare of merge commits pulled back into their branch from master.

I've watched a decade of git n00bs practice this "never under any circumstances rewrite history" advice and it fucks them up over and over and over again.

Nobody actually cares about the exactly commit process you went through to fix the bug. Squash everything and rebase. Leave a SUMMARY of why you did what you did in the PR and/or commit message. Humans have this amazing ability to write stories about what they did after the fact.

I'll frequently leave my-future-self notes on closed and merged PRs as I think about them post-merge, where I document what approaches were rejected, and what approaches might be worthwhile if the change isn't sufficient. Stuff like "I could not do WWWW because of <great sadness>, so instead we must do XXXX, if this is not sufficient because <unlikely edge condition turns out to be not so unlikely after all> then we must consider that YYYYY will be less preferable due to <stuff i was thinking about hard> and we should consider doing ZZZZZ first". If all you do is capture "what did I change" and don't capture your thinking and what you view to be all the different alternatives while your mind is still fresh with the problem then you're just throwing away useful information, which is what the "preserve your git history" approach does.

In the future, when I read my PRs I just don't care about how I got there. I care about what I was thinking about. So I write down, long-form, what I was thinking about. A git history is about going from A to B, it might document why you bailed on going to C, but it probably doesn't capture the stuff you rejected the whole time like D E and F and why. And really I'd PREFER to read a good note on why C sucked as a solution. I don't need to see the code that went down the route of C until it turned into a mess and then had to be backed out.
> The only real case

which is probably the case in 90% of all my switch'es. Worst use of a time machine ever.
In the ongoing debate between the "lumpers" and the "splitters" the splitters are now looking well justified in their belief that you can't take every fossil and lump into a broad category known as "homo erectus".

Ian Tattersal has been a leader of the splitters for many years now, and the basic arguments of his books are looking fairly good right now:

https://www.amazon.com/Extinct-Humans-Ian-Tattersall/dp/0813...

Mind you, so many discoveries have been made recently that each of these books tends to go obsolete quickly in so far as they try to tell a specific story based on the fossils known in a particular year. However, the overall argument for the splitters, that the "homo" genus has many branches, just like any other successful genus, is a strong argument that is reinforced by these recent finds. I link to one of Ian Tattersal's books where he clearly made the argument for the splitters, and did a good job of it.
Isn't that a good outcome? Water efficiency is a net good outcome for your city. Raising costs to recoup the deficit is ok with me, personally, if objectives like sustainability and efficiency were achieved.