skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Sorry, web developer, but you are wrong. Half of this is backed by libvirt/kvm/hyper-v and protocols like RDP and VNC/Spice.

The Web it's just reimplementing the clients, badly, requiring twice the requeriments.
NRKbeta, the tech vertical of the Norwegian public broadcaster NRK, actually did the manual version of this a few years back [0-1], but found it hard to conclude with success or failure based on the evidence they gathered.

[0]: https://nrkbeta.no/2017/08/10/with-a-quiz-to-comment-readers...

[1]: https://www.niemanlab.org/2017/03/this-site-is-taking-the-ed...
They're playing the ref - and they're doing a fantastic job of it.
It's the same order of magnitude, but aviation fuel is more expensive than motor vehicle fuel (standards are higher for one thing).

https://www.globalair.com/airport/region.aspx

The chart linked above does not include additives which may be required such as anti-icing/anti-gel.
The problem is rural areas are not cities by definition. So you'll drive out 30 minutes to a rural airstrip, fly out to another rural area in a 30 minute flight, then presumably rent a car in the rural area (build an Avis there I suppose), and drive 30 minutes to the other city. Including time for transitions, checking in, and paperwork, it's maybe 2-2.5 hours for 100 km of travel. You could maybe take rideshare, but if this is truly "rural" that might not be an option. Have you ever tried getting an Uber to take you 30 minutes outside of a city? I regularly drive such distances on the weekend in 1 hour. The overall idea of travel between cities is what air taxis were for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_taxi but it was for distances of 200-500 miles.

The energy would probably be better spent on a bus, with even a gas-powered bus being more efficient per passenger-mile than a 4 pax aircraft. It could also go city to city and skip the rural areas altogether.
oh, sweet!
Recipe for chilli sauce may cause harm. It's not a good argument.
...I didn't make any claims at all about fairness. What?
I mean, the whole argument is based on two anecdotes, which show that both systems can be excessively unfair. We'd need at least some numbers to talk about "everyday occurrences" or not.
LE publishes all issued certs so you might as well just keep it public anyway in that case.
Yes, I'm aware of that and it's hardly being reported on. It's very disturbing.

>Though the goal in this case is seemingly well-intentioned

I'm not even sure it's well intentioned, that is just the excuse they are giving. "For the children," was often the reason given for constantly ramping up the drug war and mass incarceration. It makes a good headline.
But you can anonymously edit your messages on HN?
The law is also subjective, there is no fixed law. There is ever-updating case law and dynamic precedence, and it differs by county<state<country.
but the government isn't paying YouTube to host videos. eminent domain and related takings require compensation
Dentist warns why you should never use mouthwash after brushing teeth
According to the article these are lithium-ion. Everyone is tweaking the chemistries within that space. LFP already has most of those advantages but lower density. We're in for some fast paced improvement over the next 10 years.
> Then why is the number of people who believe the earth is flat on the rise?

Why do you say it's on the rise? Have you considered that there's lot more people, or that that the internet and various "communities" on the web just gave extra amplification to all sort of ideas? This is exactly why nothing should be banned. If you want wrong ideas to be corrected, you let them be discussed in the open. If you start pulling down videos that talk about flat earth you're gonna end up with grouping all people who think like that in a community where they only get exposed to ideas that affirm their erroneous belief.

> and already it seems as though cracks are starting to form.

again, provide examples or evidence for how and where you see this.
It's religion not politics that makes church-attendance undesirable for most non-church-goers. Having said that, I agree that we are missing something that modern secular society is missing something that used to take place in churches.

I'm not so convinced as you that the religious aspect is required to make it work. Shared purpose maybe, but there are lots of ways of creating that. In another comment you mentioned "might as well be a community centre", which I think is interesting because community centres are one of the other places I've this sense of well... community.

One thing that churches have other than religion which I think often gets overlooked is money (in particular they generally own the building they use). I've seen more than one excellent community centre closed down because they ran out of funding and couldn't afford to keep paying the rent. I would love to see a concerted effort at government funded secular churches designed to serve a parish-sized community.
I appreciate each win condition has a default case of "have fun"
I fail to see the relevance of this. As a publisher exerting editorial control, you also assume some liability for your content as that editorial control is a form of speech.

Printers who exert no editorial control are not engaging in speech and are thus not liable for the content they print (same with the ink, paper and printing press manufacturers.)
That seems fine, as long as I can just not subscribe to them.
Not all hardworking people are successful, but all successful people are hardworking. Success is not guaranteed, it has an element of randomness. Attempting to be successful involves risk, and "survivorship bias" should be accounted as part of that risk. But still success is not entirely random, because only playing video games or watching TV will not result in it.

It's not that you should think that consistent engineering effort alone will have any payoff, it's that you should think consistent engineering effort might have any payoff.
How does “staying neutral” prevent people from pressuring you? Is there any doubt that YouTube et al have and always had the ability to remove anything they wanted from their platforms?
I’d say I’d find a new telecom. Or I’d start or invest in a competitor. At what size and revenue does one lose the ability to remove speech they don’t agree with? If someone posts publicly viewable speech, is it my rite to bear that speech forever?
Then people would build a solution to automatically solve the verification-process...
>What about telling advertisers that if they want to boycott, go ahead, find another Youtube to advertise on.

Yeah, it's called Facebook. Regardless these weren't some no names who were boycotting, it was pretty much the whales like P&G and CocaCola who were complaining. (Just those 2 spend $8BN/year). At the very least having any of them pull out would cratered at least one exec's bonus.
> If Amazon has leaned too far in the direction of automation without oversight, then we'll see other firms fail to adopt these same practices.

What utter nonsense. What will happen in reality: business "thought leaders" of all types will say "Amazon does it, Amazon is successful, therefore we should do it" regardless of whether it's actually a good idea. And they'll be praised by their peers for doing so.

Just like Jack Welch's leadership philosophy (and stack ranking) in the 2000s and Google style interviews for every low-level tech job in the 2010s.
None of the above?

Places like Patreon, OnlyFans, Fansly etc are on the right track. There's other platforms like Steem, Minds and Brave (the browser) allowing direct payment to creators through crypto.

None of the innovation is coming from the established players.
This could really be either Amazon
> How hard would it be to ban trade with China?

Very easy. That doesn't mean the rest of the world will play ball.
They are probably utterly incapable of doing so effectively. In truth they would probably have to contract out to another player to effectively provide a government sponsored Facebook at a cost of billions of dollars per year.

Anything you posted on facebook.gov would be instantly available to advertisers AND the government so a huge segment of the population would refuse to use it especially young people. It would probably end up with a mixture of a minority of socially minded people and people so odious they would be censored anywhere else. See the kind of folks you have on the conservative reddit clone. As soon as people conspiring on facebook.gov are guilty of something really terrible like say a mass shooting there will be calls to implement some sort of additional content controls and we now have 2 facebooks one paid for by ads another by our tax money.
But that doesn't solve the problem, as the "political wars" the person I was responding to described all work in the world of increasingly tight laws; you have to avoid being a target in the first place by correctly navigating the space of solutions for how content is distributed in the first place. Take the Apple iPhone example: if Apple is forced to remove an app from their app store by China, it doesn't matter if the user can install it on the side... and somehow China has not managed to force companies to not provide that functionality: Apple going out of their way to centralize both app distribution and even API access (VPN functionality, as a specific example, is hidden behind an entitlement that they don't give to casual developers) is work they chose to do that directly enables the ability to even make "legal requests" quickly and easily.

I maintain the moral equivalent of this for platforms like Twitter and YouTube is to stop conflating their centralized recommendation systems (which should be considered "their speech") with the functionality to publish at all (which should be considered "someone else's speech"): it is going to be way less controversial to stop recommending something that someone else likes if it is still accessible to people who know about it (as they externally discovered the content or author and were directly linked to it/them), and it is also going to be way less controversial to allow people to publish something that someone else doesn't like to their own audience if it isn't being actively recommended to third parties. These recommendation systems have started to conflate "being able to say what you want" with "being able to be granted a large audience" so well that the feature set for moderation fails to separate them, and that's bad for everyone: there is a reason why we talk about "the right to free speech" instead of "the right to be heard".
Well, that's pretty easy to do.

1. Get a job on a social media site.

2. Join the bot detection team.

3. Create algorithms that measure if a user is a bot.

4. Create daily reports on the number of bots detected.
Only because we haven't priced in the externalized costs of ICE (anywhere in the world).
Yes, working on a problem daily means your subconscious is daily prodded to "think about the problem". As you do other things, your brain is 'working on it' so when you do get those few minutes or maybe an hour to work on it, you almost always know what to do - you've been thinking about it all day!

There is an apocryphal story of what Newton said when he was asked, "How did you come up with the theory of gravity?" replying: "By thinking about it all the time."
That's a few decimal places down from the point. Stewart was sentenced to five months of prison for what was a $45,673 crime which she then later had to repay with interest. She was worth 100s of millions at the time.

The point was that it's not impossible, merely because Ghosn was rich, that he didn't do the deed.
Precisely none of “climate change, nuclear war, biological warfare” constitute a natural disaster, nor has this quasi-neo-confucian conception of societal cohesion via filial piety historically triumphed over anything worse than any of these modern extinction scenarios.
No, whitelists vs blacklists. A store blacklists some customers from entering, but in general most can enter. A store doesn't let most people put wares on its shelves, that is a whitelist. Youtube blacklists video uploads and otherwise allows everything, so it follows the same logic as customers entering a store.
It also might be a reversion to the mean.

E.g. One reason ancient Christianity was such a big deal according to historians (and resulted in billions of followers, etc.) was their profoundly different family structure when compared to what was happening in the roman culture and throughout the world.

They brought Jewish traditional family structure to the ‘gentiles’ (read: everyone else who wasn’t omitted by blood line).

It’s possible that a more secular materialistic society will have completely different relationship structures because there is no objective truth saying ‘hey, respect your elders’
I'm genuinely curious to know how you think about that line. What is the transgression here in your mind? Merely mentioning that genes affect behavior is not allowed (even though it's true, or maybe it doesn't matter if it's true), or you actually believe the claim "genes affect behavior within the human species" is false?

I agree with you that we can't tell from a single gene whether someone is likely to be a criminal or not. I'd like you to consider this example, where hopefully I only use premises you already believe:

Some people are predisposed to becoming addicted to drugs. We can make better-than-chance bets about who these people are based on their genomes. We also know that people who are addicted to drugs are more likely to be on the wrong side of the law (and, sadly, are often by definition on the wrong side of the law). So, we conclude that, given someone's genome, we can make better-than-chance bets about that person's likelihood of being on the wrong side of the law.

It's a simplistic example, but hopefully that helps get the idea across. Doing this sort of thing isn't super practical right now, but it will be soon! [oh boy.]
Was that cartoon made by free software? Looks like it ha ha!

On a more serious note, very thankful that orgs like FSF exist. I hate using a lot of free and open software but without it there would be no hope.
Can you please list some of this "far worse situations" than nuclear war and climate change as we are currently facing?

"Societal cohesion" doesn't do too much to help us survive crop failures and wet bulb temperatures over 35C.

Aside from that, I think you might misunderstand your causal arrows a bit. It is fair more likely that massive industrialization and late state capitalism led to a society that valued the individual over the social unit, rather than that a sudden desire to be individuals sprung up in people's hearts and made a mess of the world.
I went to a state school (undergrad and grad), worked for FAANG, and have interviewed at DE Shaw.
I am sure Australian restrictions on freedom of speech would not override the US constitution for a US company.
Track gauge is the same all over western and central Europe. And Europe is slowly but surely moving towards ERTMS/ETCS() for train control. Different voltages and frequencies are a problem but less than in the past thanks to modern electronics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Train_Control_System
Earlier on I had hopes that Facebook would implement "random friends" or "guest friends" in order to make the social graph denser and more diverse, thus making the world a better place. Not the direction things went I guess...
Ah, yes, dumb terminals. They are like 50 years late.
You are not welcome here. Get out.
I thought something like this would find it, but I didn't see anything that jumped out at me

https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anews.ycombinator.com+...
Yeah. And he also hasn't beaten the market in over a decade.
Anathem by Neal Stephenson also touches on that topic.
> Is this same energy needed to recycle the oxide from the batteries?

The energy delivered by the battery in flight, is what you need to use to restore it back to fresh. The more energy you need the better your battery.

Why does it need to be specifically solar? Use electric from the grid, and as the entire grid changes over to other power sources so will this.
Agreed- I learned to cook at first by just doing some recipes, and also just making some basic dishes like pasta with sauce (from a jar) but then jazzing it up by adding additional freshly chopped garlic, or oregano, basil, whatever.

If you start making enough dishes, you will start to see the similarities. You start realizing that making something like chicken marsala is just like cooking almost any other protein and making a "pan sauce"- First you brown the meat with some oil (causing Maillard reactions) in a pan, then take the protein out and brown some onions, and maybe soften some garlic, then throw some liquid in the pan, typically chicken stock and/or wine, to get all the brown bits stuck to the pan up and unlock that flavor (called deglazing), then throw in other things to make it flavorful, whether it be herbs, mushrooms, veggies, whatever, and then you let that reduce down to a much thicker consistency, and then thicken with a fat like butter or cream, or maybe even mustard or roux- butter and flour mixed together and cooked briefly (finishing).

This is the basic process for making a pan sauce, and you can start experimenting from there.

For more specific advice, after cooking a bit, you can read a book like How to Cook Everything by Mark Bitman or Ratio by Michael Ruhlman that goes over some of the fundamental ideas of cooking. One interesting thing I have learned as I have gotten more adventurous is that many ingredients are often thrown together because of climate, geography and history- Tomato and Basil are like peas and carrots because they thrive in the same climates and are naturally harvested at the same time. Thyme rosemary and tarragon are heavily used in French cooking because they grow like weeds there, particularly in the south. With our modern supermarkets, you can get a lot more creative. But that's for later and you have to prepare yourself for a lot of failure in that process :)
I think where you'll run into trouble is approaching the problem of inventing a new building material/foodsource from the 100,000-foot level of abstraction that is "use technology."
The USCG Wants Your Ideas on How to Keep Survivors Afloat
Good news we can make much better color e-paper! Bad news, your epaper is made out of platinum and gold.

Looking through the paper it looks like an excellent advancement in terms of multi-color reflective paper displays. My hope is that the authors can continue the work to perhaps uncover some more economical mirror substrates and node combinations that give good results while not being precious metals.
GPT-3 is neat, but I definitely get "2+2=5" vibes when reading some of its output. There's a lot of content that's statistically plausible but not logically rigorous. The last thing I want is for this species of algorithm to then screen what I post for intellectual rigor.
I lived in a rural area in Germany. My experience was that grocery shopping and just getting around using public transport is much less convenient than in a big city. I almost felt handicapped without a car, and the majority of people around me drived one. Having children completely tips the scale.

And yes, there’s biking, but doing that while it’s raining is a complete different story.
It is that simple.

Neither a pizza place nor a startup exist in for very long without revenue exceeding expenses.

Even in your own examples, both businesses work. It doesn’t matter whether it’s from low revenue and low expenses or high expenses and high capital injection.

Show me a business where revenue was ahead of expenses, had no debt, and it went out of business because it couldn’t pay its bills.

There’s no amount of surprise gotcha clever but-actuallys that can argue with you’re either making money or you aren’t.
One of the more “hn” comments I’ve seen lately. Assuming every person in the world is an ivy league graduate, with a high IQ, and A+ coding talent is a little bit out of touch with reality.
doesnt appear so
I mean, I want to read the abridged proverbial blog posts of Rhododendron of Pathos in 2000BCE, child of the local blacksmith, and their experiments with building a hotter forge and measuring the temperature and how they identified iron compared to other materials and so on.

I can imagine over the centuries, a lot of people dedicated many years of their lives to pursuits like this, most of which went nowhere, and probably some were based on interesting models of the world such as phlogiston or etc.
Genetic Postgresql.conf Generator
Many well regarded distributed platforms are like that too (the web and blogosphere, email, mastodon, xmpp&matrix). The common feature is federated islands that can somewhat form filtered views of the global system.
You put sanctions on China, China puts sanctions on you. Then may small asian/eastern countries will be forced to choose sides, and you'll have fewer allies/footholds when China doesn't step down.
I don't see the contradiction there, it's pretty much the thing that saying is talking about.

A community full of emotionally damaged, unhappy people is also generally full of tough, no-nonsense people who know the dangers from personal experience, know how to avoid or eliminate them, do what needs to be done, no matter the cost and then afterwards perhaps drink themselves to death while abusing their family, but many of them also ensuring that their kids have a much better life than they did - slowly creating the good times.

And a few generations later a community of happy, emotionally well-adjusted people haven't had horror in their childhood, and they don't know how to handle real adversity and recognize abusive evil because they don't have the skill and experience for that, and spend their struggle/effort over meaningless trifles and status games; are emotionally principled and don't let ends justify the means - so when eventually push comes to shove (often due to some external circumstance or an interaction with another, exploitative community) they are unwilling or unable to take decisive action and sacrifices (including moral sacrifices) to prevent someone much more violent and unprincipled from taking over and causing hard times for you (and perhaps better times for themselves at your expense).

It's essentially about a cyclic change in the tradeoff between the qualities required to be happy, satisfied and cooperative versus the (very different and often incompatible) qualities required to be effective in the face of brutal adversity. Warrior mindset is harmful in peacetime, and pacifist mindset is ineffective in wartime. And perhaps it makes sense to raise "weak" men - friendly, open-minded, forgiving, sharing, optimistic and perhaps just naively expecting the best in others - whenever we can afford to, because it's just better and more sane, and we raise disproportionally strong, brutal, ruthless, efficient (and also damaged and abusive) men and women when we're forced to by circumstances that would just grind down people like those described in the previous sentence; damaging them until they either become "strong" or just break down.

Perhaps a bit related is the issue of parenting styles. Maximizing potential of kids is often quite abusive and results in unhappy and perhaps "damaged" kids; when looking at biographies of e.g. olympic champions it often (but not always - there certainly are exceptions) seems clear that they would have been much more emotionally healthy without as much early age pressure; but they also wouldn't be champions then, they would be outcompeted by someone just as lucky in the genetic lottery but willing (or, more likely, pressured) to sacrifice more and live a less balanced life.
Maybe it is:

Humans have moral worth; to remove suffering of humans, make sure they don’t exist to experience suffering.
This is so true it hurts. I've wasted so much time on shitty books like this.