skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
And if you solve the general problem, you solve the specific problem.

Is this a story if there is a carbon tax and as a result the profit-maximizing activity is to mine Bitcoin by building wind turbines?
Sure, and whilst I used them as main examples, it's not just about hardware and load times.

What's important to me at the end of the day is a great game, not technical metrics which aren't meaningless but less meaningful ... e.g. Donkey Kong Country on a SNES emulator is still a better, more enjoyable game than 2020's Crash Bandicoot 4 which fits into the same platforming category.

PS4 had plenty of chances to release a "great" critically acclaimed game given the hardware, even 4 years in yet they still didn't manage to beat BOTW according to gamers/critics. Looking at metacritic, the best PS4 games of all time (RDR2, GTAV) are at 97, which is the same as BOTW.

As for PS5/XSX. Do they even have any truly "great" games yet? All their best games are remakes/remasters which are limited to better graphics. Truly great games are exactly why Nintendo can afford to barely update their console 5 years after release.
I would love to chat about the cases you have in your mind! We really want Enso to redefine the data analysis environment and thus, we also want it to be accessible to the wide audience of customers. That's why we have the free Open Source version and we are trying to have a very flexible pricing that suits wide range of companies. I'd love to talk more about it too! If that works for you, please ping me via our chat (https://discord.gg/enso) or via email (wojciech.danilo@enso.org)! :)
I'm aware enough to know that it's not the computing platform that I want. Some reasons that come to mind include:

- UX of interacting with/running code. This isn't users going to a website or downloading an app from an app store. Until it is, it's a non-starter.

- Unsolved side-effects/data input. While "blockchains" are good at reducing the amount of trust needed in a system, for smart contracts to interact with the real world, they still need trust for data input/output. This all seems like it's in very early development.

- Inflexibility of contracts. "Paper" contracts, T&Cs, etc, have an advantage that they work 99% of the time, but that when you hit an edge case that no one has figured out before you can email someone and come to a resolution, or at worst, go to court to have a (hopefully unbiased) third party decide. This is often better for both parties, but is not an option with smart contracts.

- Development risks. Last time I checked smart contracts were written in a language that seemed to be inspired by a combination of C and Javascript. I'm not sure there's a worse way to write code that is so critical. Software engineering is decades ahead of this, safety-critical software engineering is many more decades ahead of that, and contract law is centuries ahead.
>The BJP leader claimed that cow dung does not cure covid19.

Source?

>The one sentence post was a PSA that cow dung cures covid19. Nobody was mocked

Now that is just dishonest. Both the posts are available on this link https://theprint.in/india/journalist-activist-jailed-under-n...

How is saying "Cow dung, cow urine didn’t work, oh!!! RIP" after someone's death not mocking them?
Yes, but centralization is a symptom of something deeper: incumbent business interests with top-down power structures actively disincentivize the holistic, creative, critical thinking required to mount a meaningful distributed cyber-defense, and incentivize CYA approaches which leads to weaker centralized solutions. "Well, we spent $10M on defense - put some appliances in a NOC, paid contractors, gave our CTO a bonus - what more could we do?" Ultimately the legal system will accept this as a valid excuse. Whereas, if you take more holistic steps, embrace distributed responsibility and action, incentivize awareness of threats and threat-modeling, and get sued as liable, a judge could very well say, "But you didn't spend a significant chunk of your revenue to build [out the same kind of solutions I'm used to seeing in cases like this]? Negligence!"

When ignorance becomes so widespread that it is enforced by law, and wise action is actively punished, and one cannot really blame rational actors for taking the CYA approach. One can hope that some of them take a principled stand and the risk of punishment to do more; alternatively, we can expect to collapse and be replaced by a smarter, if more brutal regime. One way or another, the bleeding always stops.
to my mind, what sucks about Microsoft's 'hardware upgrade' is that it will drive the entire PC industry to build hardware that has a proprietary Microsoft lock on it. Secure Boot is not an open standard, it is a Microsoft owned and controlled lock. I have already run into enterprise grade machines that forced secure boot, making them useless in our organization. I haven't found any info on the 11 logo certification, but for 8.1 they required it and required that it not be able to be turned off. I'm all for increased security, but I'm also for general purpose computing. If I buy a machine with a particular instruction set, I should be able to some way execute any code I want on that computer. Same goes for Apple, though to be fair, it is possible to execute any code I want on an M1 Mac, I would just have to essentially reverse engineer the hell out of everything. And yes Apple should provide at least a basic level of documentation for targeting their hardware and they do not. I am a slightly more charitable to their position because they brought brand new capability to market-- Microsoft is just corralling the vendors into tacking their propriety firmware lock onto the same technology stack. If this was a chip manufacturer initiative, say AMD wants to bring new capabilities and security by only accepting signed OS builds I would be far more receptive to that position, so long as there was a reasonable, accessible and equitable path for getting your builds signed.
Time for this again: https://xkcd.com/463/

What's the alternative?

http://habitatchronicles.com/2017/05/what-are-capabilities/

for example (outdated but shows the principle): http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~seaborn/plash/html/
Good software starts and ends with the people who are using it.

Concrete technologies, software architecture and design, algorithms, cryptography etc. are all means to an end. Start with what you want to achieve, what real world problem you want to solve and the people you want to solve it for.

And then work backwards from there.
Headline should be US firms CEOs, want the tax payer to fix this too.

Its hard work cutting budgets and outsourcing whatever possible to the jamaican bobsled team. So now the govt has to hire, train, feed and stable yet another army to protect these helpless overfed crybabies.
June 2021 Hacker News Hiring Trends
I think there's a serious misunderstanding about definitions. This study is looking at fatalities. Justifiable homicide is not the only thing included in the estimates of defensive gun use. In fact, the claim is that most defensive gun use does not involve shots being fired.

I see that you are just posting more studies that support your own view. Do you have anything that refutes the CDC's findings posted earlier?

I also stated two different concerns with studies from your Harvard links. Would you care to address those, or continue ignoring valid conversation?

You ask why old data should be called into question. It is well known that violent crime rates have been falling for decades. This could drastically affect the number of people being threatened and the number of people using a gun defensively. Also, a number of prior restrictions on the carrying of firearms have been reduced in many states. If you have more people with the ability/access to use a firearm, that could also affect both sides of the equation. Yes, I do see one study in that list from 2015. I wonder why that one conflicts with the CDC's finding.

I believe there have been peer reviewed and published studies by Kleck and Lott that you can look up if you are truly interested. I'm sure these can be questioned along the same lines as the other comments concerning the author of those other studies and Bloomberg money. American Homicide is supposed to be a good read too.

The main issue with just regurgitating studies like this is that studies can be misinterpreted and misapplied. The way the study is designed can make it a valid study, but at the same time it can limit the scope. Then we end up comparing defensive gun use to justifiable homicide, which are not the same thing.
Poverty wage.
Actually it is well known:

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#Fuels

Deuterium + Tritium is the most common fusion reaction to be implemented because it's easiest one, all the others need more energy to initiate.
I see. I did some additional googling and I think you're basically right: the family exemption was already in the original bill, and it was merely kept, not introduced, in the amendment. Row 5 in this quite thorough article [0] shows the similarity/difference.

So I'd wager the reason there was backlash against the bill was that it did not close the exemption, not (as mentioned in the article I posted originally) that it introduced the exemption.

[0]: https://www.right-to-education.org/es/node/850
>The bottom line is that the evidence we have at this time points to nature as the most probable origin,

Highly tendentious claim...

>and it's not unusual for it to take many years to figure these things out.

Is that the case?
Are you well-versed in this field?
It is my understanding that previous epidemics of this sort in Asia in recent decades a host animal was identified in a matter of months. Are you privy to some valuable knowledge that is not widely dispersed in the literature? Because what you’re saying would seem to contradict it.
cf. 般諾波羅心經 which is, in fact, thought to have been first composed in Chinese, and later to be translated to Sanskrit. Also Aquinas was a 13th c Italian who ended up in Paris, so not altogether unreasonable that he did write in England, in English, given his conventionalized first name. I only say this to safeguard against comments along the lines that were my first impulse.
The notion that the simple Laplace solver can scale to grids of arbitrary size, without modification, is a bit misleading for practical purposes. Computational performance will tank or zero out if memory hierarchy constraints are not considered. The author does mention high-performance solutions like multigrid. However, even a basic successive overrelaxation algorithm like the one shown can be partitioned and parallelized, and it is a very good programming exercise to implement a partitioning scheme using MPI or even a low-performance messaging library (or even just optimize for cache sizes on a single device, with no network transport).

Like the transition from the elegant, 5-character Laplace equation to the relatively verbose and complex numerical Julia solver, there is an additional and necessary step in making the numerical solution further scalable with present technology. In particular, the notion that the computational boundaries map nicely to the physical boundaries must be thrown out, because now we must respect the layer of "virtual boundaries" between the partitions.
Because, though they claimed that, we see little sense in which they were in fact the "legal successor" of the Roman Empire.
context: bitcoiner. it is the hardest money and every other attempt to build a digital store of value pales in comparison to it.

Smart contracts! Its all absolutely revolutionary -- but also kinda sketchy.
I have been playing with various defi protocols on various EVM based chains, and while it makes money (ideally, you are gaining more value by locking up funds in farms, vaults and pools.)

The reality is you are probably either holding a decreasing in value position in a liquidity pool (impermanent loss -- your apples and oranges are worth less in a month, but you end up with more apples and oranges with you withdraw), being issued inflation reward points from a vault (they are printed out of nothing as a reward for locking up funds) or being screwed on deposit, withdraw or 'performance' fees in a pool/farm.
Dont get me wrong, there is actual value being created, the trade fees on the Automated Market Making contracts is actually good (eg: ~0.2% per trade * many trades!) It can be much higher than centralized finance can provide at a much highest risk.

While the savvy can use this system to buy more bitcoin (which is happily tokenized on EVM chains and convertible back to good ol' [bitcoin] UTXOs), most will probably just lose fiat value equivalency while increasing their holdings in shittokens, all the while thinking they are growing value.

The most promising value extract routine at the moment looks to be:

* Borrow fiat at low interest rates from cefi (banks)

* Convert fiat into stablecoins

* Deposit stablecoins into lending platforms

* Use stablecoin collateral to borrow at a slightly higher rate (but lower than the bank in step 1)

* Deposit borrowed funds as collateral in more lending platforms

* Repeat borrow until all collateral is consumed (to your own leverage/risk level).

* Deposit in pool/vault and collect 'interest', ideally higher than you are borrowing at.

* Last step probably earns the most of all, and will pay for the rest of the steps

* Profit!

My take on this is that this is just more Wall street fiat money shenanigans, reinvented on public blockchains.
Or we could just have hard money -- 21 million coins. No yield, No interest, No inflation of the monetary base, No bs.
Unless I missed something, you've not left contact info anywhere. Would love to chat about legal tech!
Fair enough - can be hard to tell here, I've learned to not so easily assume a ridiculous comment is made in jest.
Most small businesses probably don’t have an IT department at all.
This feels like FUD. What laptop from a major OEM ships with Windows in $CURRENTYEAR without a webcam?
Most of those situations you listed can be solved, and solved better, in a normal centralized way with often the same experience to the end user. And they don’t really care if you’re using block chain or AI or magic as long as it’s solving their problem so why would you choose Blockchain for the heck of it?

I see blockchain being useful in two areas, finance and transport/delivery logistics. Environments where no one trusts each other outside of financial contracts and you need to share information publicly to address faults and concerns without other parties being able to change anything.
Really? It used to be pretty common for people to go to work sick. The flu is serious for many people.

There are numerous other instances of near willful infection of others.
Well I don't think we will ever uncover the truth about the origin of the outbreak, I'm interested in the fact that China (seemingly) and East Asia managed to contain the virus, in Europe their was initially a huge outbreak, then some level of containment, and in the US and Americas there was a huge outbreak with no respite. That's three different responses to the same thing.
The fact that quality of life improved for the average person after Rome fell, and the fact that the average person probably knew that would happen, is likely to have contributed to the fall.
And there are a lot of people around which don't "believe" in climate change.
A blockchain is triple entry accounting, which has advantages over double.

http://www.warrenhenke.com/writing/essays/triple-entry-accou...

https://iang.org/papers/triple_entry.html

I find it odd to say "thats a human problem" as if technical invention over centuries isnt specifically to abstract away human inefficiency.

A group of somewhat trusting firms doesnt need crazy PoW/PoS. The idea of companies sharing a collaborative ledger when working together shouldnt be dismissed so flippantly. Everyone keeping their own (unreconciled automatically with each others) book may be the status quo, but it doesnt make it optimal.
Are you implying that even a microphone is too much of an invasion of privacy? There’s a trade off between security and usability, and while that balance is different for every user, this one seems a bit of an outlier.

How would this even work in practice? I’m assuming a switch to disable the mic isn’t viable since if you can’t trust the mic, you can’t trust a switch. I’m not even sure a mic cover would actually work. The only solution seems to be to create a laptop without a microphone and just use an external mic. Is there a market for that? It seems inconvenient enough to lose the mainstream market. Video chatting is a common enough use case for the corporate market that this just seems infeasible.
ASUS Zephyrus G14 has no webcam and I like it like that.
I agree it's a hyperbolic piece, but at the same time Windows11 as an OS demanding an auxiliary hardware isn't looking very good.
Or plastic camera sliders that stick perfectly within the black part of a macbook pro screen (or similar I'm guessing). Only a few dollars on Amazon.

Putting tape on camera's leaves residue and we all get stuck in Zoom calls these days.
To me it means that the main motivator is maximizing financial success (by the perps). That means do it at a time where you get the best return.

On the other hand, if they would try to make an administration look bad, then they would pick other times and targets.

It’s like when people attack old ladies and other people known to carry cash and instead of looking first at criminal opportunism attribute it to people hating old ladies going to the ATM.
Workspace Trust in VS Code
I kind of agree. Cynically I see Windows 11 as a big leap for Microsoft in terms of getting to their own ChromeOS. Mandatory online accounts, integrated Teams, very dark patterns to force Edge usage (with all the associated tracking), pushing One Drive hard... all to get a totally surveilled, locked-in user dependent on their cloud services who is a rich source of data for advertising and a target for monthly service charges.
> - UX of interacting with/running code. This isn't users going to a website or downloading an app from an app store. Until it is, it's a non-starter.

I don't know which projects you've used, but in my experience, the DeFi projects I've used have much better UX than any bank I've ever had.

Most of them just have a simple "Connect wallet" button you click and you're in, no need for a password, whatsoever [1]. There are some easy to use wallets like MetaMask, just have to set it up once.

1: For example, https://oasis.app/borrow.
At the scale these data centers operate at, I would imagine that google / FB / AWS gets these storage devices custom built to whatever spec and tolerances they need.
How Biden won, how Trump kept the race close
I can imagine the flak Microsoft would be getting for letting weaker machines unsecured.
How this article draw a conclusion that front facing webcam is a mandatory requirement for Windows 11?
Except that these banks aren't connected to the payment rails of the world's consumers. Most all of the Blockchain claims will never materialize, because the entire industry rests on hyperbole that social media amplifies, but which is not realized. (or realizable). It's a mirror. There's no depth to the claims.
Thats where the "sour grapes" come from. When another person takes a valuable thing that someone else made and turns it into monetary gain they feel like that is "stealing."

It is less obvious because its not as directly and easily measurable when a direct dollar sign is put on a product. The same feeling happens when big tech builds huge profit machines using something a person made and gave away as a cog without contributing back. Or when AWS takes something like Elasticsearch and hosts it for profit - Elastic co. sure thought they were stealing.

You call it sour grapes and then describe how someone is stealing something of value. Was Elastic's response to AWS also sour grapes?
> There’s no point using latex if your book has almost no formulas...

In a book one often needs to keep track of local references (to figures, tables, sections, etc). How this could be reasonably done in markdown flavors?
>Democracy Dies In Darkness

In this case, Democracy Dies Behind Paywall. Adding WashingtonPost.com to my [manual] filtering process
Pentagon scraps Jedi award to Microsoft, will rebid
"Google's stupid system reminded us to propagate a change we'd already made on another site for pure usability reasons" is not at all a bad thing but I think the general tenor of the responses here makes it clear that the blog post didn't make it obvious that was a reasonable tl;dr.

(I thought I'd read to the end but hadn't realised that was the tl;dr until I read your comments, FWIW)
I'm using markdown for 90 percent, then for the 10 percent use HTML
UK reports highest number of new Covid cases since Jan. 29
Simple. Things asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
We also have a lot of graph-theory and optimization algorithms that get labeled AI by actual AI people. But the press is, almost to a man, always talking about machine learning and expert systems.
Amazon shifts Lumberyard to open source 3D game engine supported by 20 companies
Flintlock pistols are simple, do you think they are more reliable or easier to use than an AK-47?

Which one would you rather defend yourself with?
Death by Closure
It hasn't changed, and while it may not be common in high-security, but unclassified facilities, in classified facilities you're not allowed to even bring in any sort of recording devices, audio or video, nor anything radio-enabled. Exceptions are made for secure teleconferencing, obviously, but that is never enabled in a general-purpose computer. To participate in a meeting remotely, you either need to use a secure phone or a single-purpose teleconferencing device in a dedicated meeting room, not a video and voice recorder at your personal workstation.

Disabling and removing any recording capability at the hardware level is a requirement before you can even bring a laptop into the facility. Microsoft is well aware of this, and whatever this requirement actually is will definitely not apply to enterprise versions of Windows for this reason.

It is possible to get some exceptions to policy. My wife has hearing aids with radio capability, for instance. But they needed to be audited, and she had to prove they were 1) medically necessary for her job, and 2) the radio protocol only worked with the vendor's own devices and couldn't call out to something like a Bluetooth or WiFi receiver.
Would this have scope to be added to the XDG Desktop spec, at least on POSIX systems?

Except of course, changed to opt-in: XDG_TELEMETRY_ON

I'd never set it but at least it be an option for some.