skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Historically, there have always nearly always been negative consequences for doing things that infringe the rights of others.

If someone else telling the truth about one's actions on their webpage is a threat, perhaps people should be more measured in the actions they undertake.

What I'm describing is reporting, not cancellation.
You're exactly the kind of person we're hoping to help with this. I'd love to get your feedback given your experience with other venues. If you choose to try YC co-founder matching, feel free to send me feedback on what did/didn't work and how we can make it better! kyle@ycombinator.com

That goes for anyone else reading this thread as well, of course.
Digitizers for Embroidery
> Bee being a comedian already makes her a different proposition

That's a bit of a cop-out in some ways, especially depending on how it's meant.

If it's meant to indicate that Samantha Bee uses humor, that's fine. But by the same token, Rush Limbaugh used humor. Ben Shapiro and Stephen Crowder use humor. None of those people do a show with their primary intention being to get a laugh, though. They do a show with their primary intention being to express a point of view, and if they can use humor to do that, all the better.

If it's meant to indicate that we shouldn't take Samantha Bee too seriously, don't worry; I don't. I also don't take Rachel Maddow or Tucker Carlson too seriously, either.

But usually, it's meant to deflect criticism. Jon Stewart did the same thing. He would make serious criticisms of commentators (including a much younger Tucker Carlson) as if he was trying to be taken seriously, but as soon as anyone criticized him he would immediately fall back to, "I'm a comedian!"

To his credit though, John Oliver (who was on the Daily Show along with Samantha Bee and Stephen Colbert back in the day) doesn't seem to hide behind the "I'm a comedian" shield anymore.
> I've made a sport (a demented sport admittedly) out of asking folks with them what "Rubicon" means. I've not yet found a correct answer.

Did any of the "incorrect" answers include "it's named after an off-roading trail"? Because it's named after an off-roading trail used by Jeep as a testing/proving ground[0].

Most of their trail rated / trailhawk models contain some sort of nod to off roading trails. E.g., their "Renegade" contains maps of popular trails embossed into various bits of plastic.[1]

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubicon_Trail

[1] https://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2016/06/jeep-renegade-ea...
Bringing back my old argument, the appeal of the console for many is striking a balance between portability and power. Yeah, there can be performance issues, but you can play Zelda/Witcher/Dark Souls/DOOM/Skyrim/etc on the go, and you can't get that anywhere else. Certainly things could be improved on the technical side, but the sales numbers indicate that enough people are happy with it.
You're right, it's a very difficult problem. Having co-founders at all is risky. If you've never worked with them before, the risk is quite high, I would say. Trial projects are the only way to build some type of trust.
I wish this existed for every philosopher. This is marvelous and an example of what I love about the Internet!
Well, I'm pretty sure the people dismissing this for lack of certification are the same people (like myself) who also dismiss the dismissal of all other forms of credentials (licensing, certification, advanced degrees).
I was mainly referring to their apps on Mac and Android.. They crash a LOT. Especially Teams for Mac and Outlook on Android. And both use lots and lots of telemetry. Lots and lots of traffic to hockeyapp.com (which is a MS telemetry platform) and various telemetry URLs at microsoft.com.
Given that most people don't know that the Y2K bug was real, I feel that this is a category of bug that will plague us forever. And it's already happening more often than once per century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem
This mostly matters for code contributions, correct? Does dynamically linking to libgccjit.so trigger the GPL requirements for the linking code?
"the consensus"

I don't agree that there is consensus on this definition. It has been around since at least the 1960s and has always been controversial.
This contract is not related to DARPA.
Of course, but they can't just copy&paste their favorite files from the linux kernel sources and call it FancyOs without releasing the sources to that.
I think you got my point, I don't really see the benefit in arguing semantics.
Who is this author and as the lay public, can we trust the authoritative tone she takes? Basic clicking around shows she's a journalist, not a scientist, and has written articles e.g., highlighting the medical struggles of Jordan Peterson with statements about him like:

> His stern ethos of self-help and bootstrapping has made him a darling of the so-called intellectual dark web, and a gateway drug for countless budding right-wingers who have stumbled upon one of his lectures on YouTube. (https://newrepublic.com/article/156829/happened-jordan-peter...)

It seems too much of a coincidence that another member of "the so-called intellectual dark web" is perhaps the most recognizable proponent of the Lab Leak Theory. She also writes for The Nation, which is unapologetically leaning pretty hard to the left.

In other words, I question both her motives and authority.
Even with deep technical knowledge and severely pared down telemetry, PII embedded in side-channel like outlets could be missed. Think a simple stack trace with no data is PII-free? Probably. But are you sure that the stack of functions called doesn't depend on the bytes in your name?
> there is a point of view which says that you make good products through thoughtful and rigorous design, rather than pouring over databases of events to try and reverse engineer how people are actually using your product

There are two problems with this view.

The first is that it's generally user-hostile. If you're meaning your software to be useful to users, then you need to see what your users' needs are, and how they're actually using your software - not how you think they should be. There are people who design pieces of software that are meant to be opinionated, beautiful gems that are not meant to be used by others (which includes software that pays lip-service to users but is so user-hostile that it's effectively not for them anyway) - and telemetry, crash reports, auto-updates, and more generally a feedback loop from user to developer are not for them.

The second is that it requires a lot of discipline. Look at how user-hostile most applications (both open-source and proprietary) are anyway - do you really think that their developers are going to have the discipline to carefully engineer a good user experience? As an idealist, I wish that they did, but as a realist, I know that in most cases that will never happen, and so telemetry and crash reports (crashing is part of a bad user experience) will get you a slightly better piece of software than nothing at all.
The problem is people accepting not having root on things they own. It's absolutely absurd that someone would accept having mission-critical devices without root access.

The problem is fake, it shouldn't exist. I don't feel bad because the choice to be in the situation where your phone can be messed in a serious way without an easy way out is 100% self inflicted. Allowing the proliferation of devices that you don't control is FAR FAR FAR worse for society than me bricking some iPhones. If even one person thinks critically about the situation they've allowed themselves to exist in as a result of having their phone bricked by something so silly I consider myself to be doing a moral good.

This is hacker news after all.
Is the performance gain huge if you remove the virtual DOM completely?
Many of Dreyfuss' and other similar arguments reduce do dualism when you start digging into them. I don't have the time to dig into the specific article, but here's some immediate questions:

1. What is special about a body that makes it impossible to have intelligence without it? (a) Is it possible for a quadriplegic person to be intelligent? (b) A blind and deaf person? ((c)What about that guy from Johnny Got His Gun?)

2. What is special about a childhood such that a machine cannot have it?

3. Would a person transplanted into a completely alien culture not be intelligent?

What is fundamentally being argued is the definition of "intelligence", and there are many fixed points of those arguments. Unfortunately, most of them (such as those that answer "no", "probably not", and "definitely not" to 1a, 1b, and 1c) don't really satisfy the intuitive meaning of "intelligence". That, and the general tone of the arguments, seem to imply the only acceptable meaning is dualism.

For example, "...there is always consciousness, information and math...": without a tight, and very technical, definition of consciousness, that seems to be assuming the conclusion. With a tight, and very technical, definition of consciousness, what is the problem with a machine demonstrating it?

Information? Check out knowledge, "justified true belief", and the Gettier problem (https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2019/Gettier....).

Math? Me, I'm a formalist. It's all a game that we've made up the rules to.
>you can't even provide a bootloader unlock? How is this reasonable?

We lost that chance when we didn't treat smartphones like computers when it started performing functions of a computer, Then Appstore/Playstore happend and now they are literally the first computer for majority of world population but rather than bringing regulations to treat phones like computers, Manufacturers are now allowed to make computers like phones.
This is a pleasant surprise. Thanks for posting!

Hi HN! Founder of Quadzig here. If you have any questions/feedback, I would love to hear it.
If "related" was a typo, it was a happy one. The root problem is that we're getting more and more connected, but those connections have low security. It's too easy for bad stuff to flow across those connections. We're getting related to death.

Much as developers in the past couple of years have really started to grapple with the fact that as wonderful as software libraries are, dependencies have non-zero costs that come with their benefits, connections need to be seen as being having non-zero costs as well. I work in a similar situation myself and I know my philosophy over the past 10 years has very much gone from a permissive "well maybe I'll need this later" open-ended protocol design to a super-strict "this connection moves exactly this set of strongly-typed, verified messages over it and if anybody tries any funny business we slam it shut and scream bloody murder on the monitoring" philosophy. Especially challenging with the Web's support for messaging, which is great for being a web page but is flabby and bloated for a messaging solution, what with all these headers that do magical things in the web servers or anything in between.

As our systems get more and more complicated, biological metaphors seems to be ever more useful, and I think we need to look to nature's highly defensive "programming" a bit more for inspiration. Chemistry has some different characteristics from our programming environment, some to nature's advantage and some to its disadvantage, so we can't blindly copy it, but living things take 'message security' very seriously. You don't last long if you just blindly trust everything out there.
> Longest running prime time show?

I'm not sure it's our job to keep adding qualifiers to the OP's bold statement that "Simpsons is not considered a sitcom, but it is the longest running show, period." until it's finally accurate.

In any case... PBS' Nova is 47 years old. Frontline is 37. I believe those are aired in prime time. And they are "not considered a sitcom" either.
That some business guys are amazed by the "lone wolf dev skills" might be explainable, but on HN we should know better.

I'm less cynical than you are about the parent comment, largely because I'm watching the same scenario unfold within my own company.

We're on year two of the million-dollar team turning out nothing. I'm in a different department, but my position means I liaise with lots of different people throughout the organization, so I also know that a single dev in a third department is half-way through solving the problem because a ultra-high-level manager doesn't want to wait anymore and will use it as an excuse to can the other team and that department's director.

And this was of course very maintainable, up to todays standards, easy to onboard new hires in, not falling apart in edge cases that weren't part of the demo, code that was audited by multiple developers, it didn't make any shortcuts in terms of security, etc. etc. etc.

Unless you've seen the person's codebase, it's uncharitable for you to assume that it's deficient, perhaps based on your own experiences.

If this scenario can happen in two companies, it might be more common that any of us realize.
Yeah that was one (of many) indicators the English wasn't an original from Aquinas. I was just confused because normally a translation will be marked as such, with the translator's name.
You're conflating the evolution of the strategy with the idea of the evolution of the actor being controlled by the agent. To give an obvious example, if dying gave 100 points instead of subtracting 10, even the dumbest evolutionary algo would learn to commit suicide asap. The survival of the actor has no intrinsic relevance to how the evolution develops.
The thing with Markdown is that it does most of what you need to do with it, until it doesn't, when you can bring Pandoc to bear and put full-on LaTeX in your Markdown and it will render it however you want. I wrote a dissertation this way with inlined Rmarkdown code. It was great.
I think it takes a fairly narrow, USA_centric, unaware of actual variety and detail of the world outside perspective, to think Washington Post is either "Far Left" (hint: it goes a lot further than WaPo;) or like Pravda.

While I think it does have somewhat progressive slant, especially in more opinion pieces; you only have to go to our mainstream Canadian party to go WAAAAY further left than WaPo - and that's nothing to say of other continents, countries, parties and newspapers.

Similar to Pravda comparison.
How could climate change possibly not cause anything good? There will be some positive outcomes associated with climate change.
I gravitate towards self help because expert help has almost always resulted in very large expenses and my actual problem not being solved.

Every experience I've had with a doctor that was less severe than "I am actively dying" has just been "Take pain killers for a couple weeks and come back if it isn't fixed by then, also here is a $200 bill."

The one time I hired someone to fix something on my house (to fix some water damage), I had a literal stream of water coming in to my house above the repair the next time it rained.

In most cases, it seems you need to know the answer to the problem yourself before you can trust someone else to diagnose and fix the problem correctly.
> The only place to actually use is a currency is in criminal activity.

There's actually less illicit activity in cryptocurrency than in USD.

> The amount of environmental damage caused by proof of work is massive.

Not even 1% of global energy consumption. When is this FUD gonna stop?
Obviously it crashed exactly on the 71st call. Just bad timing.
170USD first year then 70 per year.
$MOO 'cause (1) population is increasing, (2) people need to eat, (3) everybody wants to eat "better" however they define better.
ever since I read this article titled "Clouds May Be the Key to a Climate Modeling Mystery"[0], I've come to understand that all climate models are basically useless for predicting anything. anyone who claims such-and-such will happen as a result of climate change, because a model said so, is speaking nonsense. the planet is massive and its climate is an infinitely fractally complex system. if we can't even model clouds with anything remotely resembling accuracy, then why do we put any stock in predictive climate models at all?

basically everyone agrees that the climate is changing, has always changed, and will always change. there is debate over how much of climate change is anthropogenic, but this is irrelevant to the point that predictive climate models are functionally useless, due to the complexity of the thing it's modeling.

[0] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/clouds-may-be-the...

downvoters: I would appreciate an explanation as to how my understanding of this situation is inaccurate. my views are never set in stone, I'm always open to learn new things. I just don't see how, short of a complete holistic Matrix-style simulation of the planet, one can obtain meaningful predictions from a data-driven climate model. I'm wrong about a lot of stuff all the time and I'd like to know where my understanding of this situation is incomplete or inaccurate.
This is a different thing, but it actually is possible for larger JPEGs to be faster (smaller file size) than smaller JPEGs.

Back when 4x "retina" resolution displays first hit the market, someone observed that you could take a 4x sized image, crank up the JPEG compression (from say 80% quality to 40%), and the resulting JPEG artifacts would visually disappear. The file size of larger, compressed images are frequently smaller than that of smaller, less-compressed images. And the render quality of "squishing" a 4x image down to 1x on a lower-resolution display similarly looks fine.

The images on the article in question are ironically broken, of course, but anyway I've been sampling images this way for years now.
https://alidark.com/responsive-retina-image-mobile/
What you need is qualified metrics. Like asking your users what is important.

Also relevant is: Is there a maintenance cost or is that code that rarely needs attention and doesn't compete with important new work.
The flip is an emergent property of the 1 Million to 1 student teacher ratio.
I was being tongue and cheek about it. I know that most programmers will benefit from the material in this book; I teach and train juniors in some of these techniques. I’ve been making games and simulations for 10 years. I’m only able to work on stuff I find interesting. I have a ton of techniques that work for me but they don’t tend to translate to other programmers. I’ve mentored a lot of engineers and I’ve had to learn how “normal” programmers approach problems so that I can guide them and help them when needed. I’m to the point where I’m confident in leading teams and building solid fun games, but I’m still always aware that I am very different from the people I work with. Still to this day the hardest problem for me is taking dozens of concurrent thoughts and converse them in a singular idea. I do not think like that at all; my mind is approaching an idea or problem from ever direction at once. Then technique I use in this case is I speak I a very controlled way (west coast news voice and cadence) this give me time to think about what I’m going to say while I’m currently speaking. It gives me time to judge how what I’m saying is being received and adjust as needed. I’m both writing and refining what I’m saying, this is in tandem with my mind in constant bombardment of thoughts completely unrelated.
I mean Pentagon, edited
even better: they're now remastered and upscaled, with an extra "behind the scenes" segment at the end!

Lovely, wonderful, inspiring stuff.
That's a reasonable source. My list was what I could recall from the Baltimore Catechism. I went to find a link, and it looks like I missed a few.

Q 1170: http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson30.htm
I can build a Twitter clone in a couple of hours. I’ll email my demo to the CEO and tell him he’s wasting millions of dollars on his engineering division.
That requires bouncing sounds off of things though. With gravity waves I guess you would have to measure how objects deflect gravity waves produced by other sources. May be useful to try to measure properties about black holes or other invisible objects.
I’ve used starthawk and found good potential matches.
Compared to what? They lost at most what a few million in litigation costs compared the F35 project which is 1.7 trillion.
Use the framework you know.

Don't use MongoDB. Use PostgreSQL or something.

Don't worry about scaling yet, just get an MVP out.
>- Youtube (cloud computing). The target audience seem to be way too small to payoff the efforts.

this is not true. just search for the topics your could make videos about and I bet the top results all have over 500k views. Also look at guys like NetworkChuck, he has 1.29M subscribers. Will your stuff reach that many people? Probably not, it all depends on how good you are at it but it proves the market is there for you to make a lot of money.
The state should procure an entirely open source / public domain cloud stack that would commeditize the "cloud" space allowing any org to run data centers with a standardized interface. The state should then run their own data centers in-house with the stock design rather than outsourcing those operational costs

This would be far better for society. Compute-for-all.
> is just a restatement of the fact that everything enjoyable tends to give diminishing returns. I don't actually think literature, or music, or video games, or porn, or walking through nature is any different.

I disagree - maybe passive-type entertainment like movies have diminishing returns. But lots of genres of books certainly don't. Maybe reading fantasy has diminishing returns, but some genres of books aren't written purely to entertain, but to inform and educate. Reading biographies won't burn you out on biographies due to overused biographical tropes or other mechanisms that cause "diminishing returns" - because biographies aren't made to entertain, though entertainment is often a side effect. They are made to educate you on a person's life and accomplishments.
But government regulation very often is preferring short-term profits to doing the right thing. Just the profits are political.

Think of all the security theater in airports, for instance. Think of all the to and fro in many policies as different officials get elected every few years.
Turtles all the way down.

The only way to get secure software is to increase liability of parties involved.

My suggestion: Start with the ability of any customer to return any purchase (hardware/software) which contains software with a disclosed but unfixed CVE after 90 days without a patch. If this doesn't get rid of the Internet of Shit, I don't know what will.

Next, set a minimum damage rate of 100 USD per user for each data-breach that involves personal information and 1000 USD for any special kinds of personal information (credit cards, etc) and 10000 USD for any protected health information breach.
Network access and bitcoins. :-)
Joint War-fighter?

I guess the DoD is no longer shy about its intentions for US' permanent state of war...

Next up: DoD's name change to DoW?
This looks fantastic and I'll dive into this more when work abates. Meanwhile, I'm curious if the visual/diagramming framework for the Enso language (on this page: https://enso.org/language ) is open source as well somewhere?
This is by far the most likely reason for what's being seen, but it's not going to get views like this sensationalist video claiming that TikTok is anti-black.