skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>I was baffled by the reaction to the Brexit vote. The people who lost seemed just ... miffed that somehow everyone else had "voted wrong." Who are all of these people, going around, voting wrong? It wasn't supposed to be like this! We were supposed to win!

The weeping and wailing began the night of the referendum. By the next morning we were confidently told by the press, Reddit, and Twitter that millions of Leave voters were already regretting their vote, and that another referendum was thus the only fair/democratic/correct thing to do. (That even if such millions of Regretters actually existed that does not mean that a revote would occur is a minor technicality.)

People also forget how anger on Leavers' part against delay on Brexit did not become significant until 2019. The Supreme Court agreed that there was reasonable basis for the Miller case, and (more controversially) unexpectedly ruled for her in the second Miller case. But Leavers understandably came to see both lawsuits as part and parcel of an unrelenting attempt on Remainers' part to stop Brexit by any and all means, whether legitimate or not. The fact that Miller actively campaigned for revoking Article 50 didn't help the Remain cause, and discredited her claim during the first case that she wanted to protect parliamentary sovereignty.

It's pretty clear in retrospect that what drove the Labour collapse in 2019 (In some Red Wall seats—seats that Labour had held with massive majorities for 50-100 years—the Tories didn't have to gain a single vote to win) is both Labour Leavers unhappy about their party not continuing its 2017 acceptance of Brexit coming, and Remainers who disliked the idea (whether explicit among Lib Dems, or implicit among much of Labour) of ignoring a democratic vote in 2016. That's why another referendum was so unpopular, because no one believes that it would not be rigged against Leave.[1]

Those who in other circumstances might have supported a "People's Vote" didn't, because they saw it as yet another attempt to delay and prevent Brexit via Neverendums. I think Leave would have won another referendum conducted under the circumstances of the first one, but Leavers understandably didn't trust the People's Vote folks to implement another referendum in any way that Leave can again win. Not after 3.5 years and counting of shenanigans such as the Miller case.

[1] Even supporters of same, no matter what they said. That's why they were for it.
It really was that clear cut. The US surgeon general:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200303020926/https://twitter.c...

"Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS!

They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!"
Maybe you should look at what was actually done for JWST.

The ignorance is really getting on my nerves. The mirror required a primary mirror segment assembly capable of surviving a rocket launch and still being able to be deployed in space at precision. This technology didn't exist back when JWST was approved and had to be developed from scratch, which was (successfully!) done by NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.

The prime contractor for the telescope (that includes building flight hardware) is Northrop Grumman, which, last time I checked, is not government owned.

ESA's main contribution is the launch vehicle, built and operated by Arianespace - also a private company. The other contribution from ESA is MIRI, a scientific instrument designed, tested, and built by a consortium also including some private companies like RUAG and EADS.

CSA contributes the Fine Guidance Sensor and the NIRISS instrument, both built by Honeywell, which, again is a private company. [0]

So while a ton of research and design work was done in government run labs, universities and NASA facilities, most of the actual construction was done by private companies.

So I really don't understand what you are trying to imply here. JWST was overambitious and pioneered way too many ground-breaking technologies at once while requiring absolute precision and "getting things right" due to its non-serviceability.

That's why all the delays and cost overruns happened and there was very little (of course not none) management and bureaucracy errors/overhead at fault here. NASA had simply bitten off more than they could chew with this one and there's absolutely no indication that any one company could've done better.

So you seem to have absolutely no clue what the heck you're even on about and what actually went into making of JWST and why it took so long.

[0] https://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/satellites/jwst/canada-role.as...
There's several news articles on the main page of HN right now which are examples of how we are continuing to lose said war.
Wrong. Nicotine and THC are two completely different substances which can not be compared like you do.
In the 1960s the US was rich and had huge manufacturing capacity and skills, like China has today.

The US of today is not the US of the 1960s. Much like Britain imagined it could compete in the space race of the 1960s, the US is imagining that it is capable enough and rich enough to reach the Moon again.

Just as Germany passed the baton of its space technology of the 30s and 40s to the US and Soviets of the 50s and 60s, it's time that the Russians and Americans of the 2020s passed the baton on to the Chinese. Humanity moves ever forward, individual nations can rest satisfied with their own contributions to the whole.
The Maintainers
> Or, your OS kernel has a bug. These are all unlikely, but they do happen.

For fun, here's an example of the Rust stdlib itself working around such things: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/74ef0c3e404cc72c08b2d...
What? How does third party Reddit clients still exists on the App Store then?
that's the most it's enforceable to, in the worst possible case, for high-level employees. The vast majority of employees should ignore non-competes.
I don't see a problem. It's art. Enough with the faux outrage of "Tony would have hated it"; well, Tony ain't here.
But it's not hard. Look at the mormon exodus. Look at how minority religions have pooled money to buy large tracts of land and large temples. It's fairly easy for a group of people to do this.
Even though people love to hate PHP, people have been able to achieve that dream of only writing code and a hosting provider takes care of the rest for almost 20 years now.

I recall in thr early 2000s having a personal VPS account with Dreamhost and doing just that since they managed the OS, Database and Apache/nginx.

It’s amazing how in many ways - deploying code over the years has only become radically harder than simpler.
This was my experience as well. No social media or gaming for 4 years now. I’m so much happier now.
If you can find a majority to agree you can change the laws. It seems unlikely though. I’m not even sure what you would change the law to be. Current reading of the US constitution says that Google has the same free speech rights that you do.
Probably they read HN then. Wonder if any of them ever commented something on HN.
I spent a lot of time thinking about this during my PhD. If you think about it analogies are at the heart of kernels and other similarity based methods.

You can totally difference embedding vectors to represent relations. The canonical example from word2vec is basically solving an analogy. The big problem that you run into when applying this stuff more broadly is context, particularly how much context relating the subject and object you want, and which features encode that context. So the problem of abstraction she is talking about maps onto a regularization / feature selection problem.
You've been flagged, and likely shadow banned. Thanks for flushing yourself.
Maybe it would be a fun blog project. Take popular crates.io crates which have safety wrappers (unsafe code, wrapped in a safe function, we aren't interested in crates that just expose an unsafe function, or are purely safe) and:

Each week pick a safety wrapper at random, and take it to pieces. Is the safety rationale convincing? Missing altogether? Bogus for some reason?

This seems like it's potentially an interesting exercise, it's educational, and if you find any bugs this way you improve the ecosystem for everybody. Mmm. Am I missing a reason this would be a terrible idea?
looking forward to the clip-guided images that comes from this, once the model is released.
Many poor precedents are grounded in strong emotional reactions at odds with basic principles, and in my opinion obscenity cases are a good example of that. Still, the classification as obscenity is more about the form of the speech than its content. In fact the more content there is, in the form of either expression or artistic value, and the more the form contributes to accurately conveying the content of the speech, the more likely it is that the speech is considered protected, even if the form would otherwise be considered obscene. I'd rather the courts didn't get involved in trying to decide whether a controversial turn of phrase has enough merit to warrant protection, but in any case I don't think you can extend the principles underlying prohibition of obscenity to exercising control over which information can be conveyed.
More YouTube crypto giveaway scams
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WalyuWDFGVg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzv--HRmZsU

The new trick is to have the first hour of the video play gibberish in order to fool YouTube's scam detection algo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w99gDOGLmpg

I wonder why it is so hard to law enforcement to do anything given how long this scam has been running and how much $ stolen.

Unlike ransomware, these scams get much less media attention, no law enforcement involvement, and no tainted crypto. Ransomware can have bigger payouts but is worse in every other way compared to giveaway scam. Giveaway scams fly under radar of the media , law enforcement , chain analytic companies. But if the scammers are in Russia, then nothing can be done anyway.

Given how much money these ppl make and the inability of anyone to do anything, and the endless stream of victims, it is obvious why the scams persist.

The total mount stolen from YouTube scams is probably around $40 million at current prices over the past few year from a combination of XRP, BTC, DOGE, and ETH, which is less than ransomware but divided among far fewer people, so it's more lucrative.
I haven't seen many (any?) online systems that seem particularly well-suited to arguments.

Nevertheless I like it when sites try to call out clear statements of position, supporting and opposing arguments, citations for evidence for claims, and rebuttals, while trying to reduce logical fallacies such as ad hominem arguments, guilt by association, etc..

It also seems hard to have a productive discussion of controversial ideas without some degree of third-party oversight and moderation, but moderation usually favors the biases of the moderators and usually generates animosity among those whose comments are suppressed.
The comment provokes a thought however, ugliness aside.

Most of us here are presuming (I presume) that we are immune from misinformation, disinformation etc. Why is that? What quality distinguishes we,the observers,from they,the victims?

It seems obvious that education might be the decider. But I'd like to know. What quality of the HN reader distinguishes him from the victim of misinformation?
> The Paxos, paxosdb, and related libraries (despite the name, all are multi-paxos) are solid and integrated directly into a number of products (Borg, Chubby, CFS, Spanner, etc.).

Maybe things have changed, but I thought the bottom turtle for pretty much any infrastructure system at Google was Chubby. I didn't realize Borg now directly does Paxos.
I've worked with almost all Gen Z and Millennials.

I'm pretty old now.

I find that there is zero difference between workers of any age group, from when I was young until now.

There have always been gold brickers, way before my time. There have always been slackers. There have always been people who let companies take advantage of them, and there are always been those who don't.

It's not about others, it's about oneself. If someone gives you an actual sh-t sandwich, you're the only one that decides to take a bite or not. Nobody is making you eat it, except yourself. If you don't like what's being served, quit. There have always and forever been shitty employers and great employers. If you choose to stay with a shit employer, you must love that sandwich.
“You” is everybody who has travelled pretty much. If you travel today you most likely are taking advantage of Airbnb
Yeah, I had to immediately think of "The Subtlety of Sameness" by Robert French.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._French
>but I can almost guarantee you that it's a team of people using evidence, data and analysis to determine what they believe is best for their population, in co-operation (rather than collusion) with a business.

That you can't guarantee this is reason enough to not permit this activity.
Don't NBC and ABC and CBS ban lots of candidates?

If you don't have a big enough chance at winning, you don't go to debates

Mind you, news networks recently had a very strong preference towards the incumbent president, aligning their news to match the president's talking points, and having nightly calls to align their messages
EIP 1559 is a substantial change to the handling of gas fees on the network. In addition to making gas fees be 2 parts (base and "priority" fees), this includes a provision for "burning" the base fee, reducing the overall ETH supply. From the code itself:

# miner only receives the priority fee; note that the base fee is not given to anyone (it is burned)

Models i have seen suggest this will not make ETH deflationary, as the expected burn rates are outpaced by expected mining rates, but the proposal does specifically make note of this[1].

1: https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-1559#eth-burn-precludes-f...
From what I recall the mirror was built to spec, it was the spec that was wrong not the mirror. Do I have that backwards?
> the economic costs out weight the benifits

That feels very subjective. I’d rather live in lively city than a ghost town.
We don't have the technology to deflect a planet-killer.
I can't imagine a single wealthy person that wouldn't take a cold call from Gates and probably at least agree to a sit down meeting on the spot. Epstein was virtually anonymous relative to Gates.
I’m actually surprised they haven’t gone the other route: allow using iCloud as a time machine destination. I think they could make some serious money having people pay $3 a month or whatever for the 200 GB of space.
Check out how doggosphere conducts himself, and how dishonest he is.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27843693
And what are real wages for restaurant workers and other minimum wage tier jobs? If you take a look at SF, Oakland, NYC, or even mid-west cities like Chicago, they're higher than minimum wage by 20-25%, even at large chain restaurants.
Why do you ask? Oh, for purposes of helpful demonstration. Seems like a question that is stupid by letter but not by spirit.

I do concede that there are dumb questions, of course. Although typically I like to say, there are no dumb questions but there are dumb times to ask questions.
Short answer, as I'm on mobile: this is structured pruning, which is hardly comparable to unstructured methods like IMP (algorithm for lottery tickets)
But the statement in question was not "all experts agree that covid comes from a wuhan lab", it is "all experts agree that covid could come from a wuhan lab". That's still unlikely to be 100% accurate, but your version A is a complete misrepresentation.
That’s not an apples to apples test because of how greyscale is computed. Try swapping the blue and green channels rather than converting to greyscale.
> has started to weigh heavier and heavier on me

But not enough to have stopped you from joining in the first place or contributing your time in exchange for salary.
You can always try the Amazon App Store :P
That's kinda outrageous.

I know this is unrelated to reviews, but I got a product shipped by and from Amazon 2 weeks ago that was missing its original box but instead was in an unmarked box that still had a shipping label addressed to Amazon returns on it.

Amazon gives so few shits about product quality it's baffling
"unauthorized": reddit has an official API for third-party clients.
At least public evidence seems to indicate that Gates actually likes older women.
This article is false. Try this out Photoshop and not even close.

Here are my results, with a 22px Gaussian Blur on the Channels

https://imgur.com/a/AS0LAyk

IMO The only reason the blue appears a little less blurry is that most of that color is in the water & clouds.

Not in the land masses, with the sharp borders
The narrative that you can perform some sort of binary classification into "good people" and "shitty people", and the the latter is who shows up nearly exclusively in the justice system (and, critically that the converse might be true) falls apart under any real scrutiny.

> but I wasn't talking about pulling people over for speeding.

Neither was I. I was talking about the majority of all the work they do.

Everyone can identify clearly horrible behavior, and often it is police who have to deal with this as part of their job. This is difficult and unfortunate, but it is not the defining characteristic of the work. Pretending that it is in order to somehow excuse bad behavior on their part doesn't do anyone favors.
The deflationary aspect isn't speculated to kick in until after the merge to PoS when the issuance drops significantly.

Regardless, I don't believe it will be deflationary long term. It will likely just last a year before it reaches an equilibrium.
I'm not sure why the burden is on me, but here is the first Google result when plugging in both case names[1]:

>The Court began by noting the decisions in its previous cases concerning the denial of the Holocaust and other statements relating to Nazi crimes. Previous statements have been held to be inadmissible, either as being ill-founded under Article 10(2) when read with Article 17 (citing Williamson v. Germany ECtHR [2019] 64496/17), or otherwise as having incompatible subject matter jurisdiction under Article 17 (Perinçek v. Switzerland ECtHR [2015] 27510/08). The Court reiterated that Article 17 is reserved for extreme cases and on exceptional bases, and should only be used in Article 10 cases if it is “immediately clear” that the statements in issue seek to employ the right to freedom of expression “for ends clearly contrary to the values of the Convention” (para 37) – such as inciting hatred or violence or aiming to destroy the rights and freedoms listed in the Convention. Any case concerning Holocaust denial must be taken on a case-by-case basis and depends on all the circumstances of that particular case, when it comes to the Court’s decision to either apply Article 17 directly to the applicant’s Article 10 application and declare it incompatible with the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court, or instead to apply the general law principles under Article 10 and invoke Article 17 at a later stage as an interpretive aid when examining the necessity of any alleged interference by the domestic courts.

[1] - https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/pasto%C...
GnuPG smartcard support is intentionally unable to coexist with other software
These days it seems Apple is begging to be regulated. So much stuff where they either let through scams or boot off legitimate apps on a whim. If anyone followed the news in the EU, Vestager is openly discussing to do so. They should rather make a halfhearted step themselves to open up their platform or they will be forced to do a full step themselves. That's my prediction, as states start to realize the abusive practices Apple is currently using.
I very nearly said this myself!

I think the mistake of this quote is in the application of the expertise. The bitter lesson is that data + compute can outperform inductive biases but that doesn't mean you don't need domain expertise to get the right data.
What are “simulators” in this context?
Fork => Modify => Merge.

Suppose you have a 100 page gdoc. You start editing one paragraph per page, and voila, everything is fine. Casual edits are consistent "in context".

However, if you start editing on page 1, then skip to page 100 and go back to page 50, then it's possible that while "there was no conflict" (people weren't editing the same section of the doc at the same time), however, the document was in a "semantically inconsistent state" while you were making your edits (ie: someone trying to "compile" your doc in between the beginning and conclusion of your changes would have had a logic error until you'd made that final edit).

Git (and branching, as you're suggesting) allows you to select the next "actual" future from many "plausible" futures.

Think of A.C.I.D. You want your changes to be atomic (gdoc edits are not atomic across multiple "pages"), you want your changes to be durable (gdocs may/may not hit your definition for durability if changes can be made to the lines arbitrarily), consistency and isolation are also compromised with the free-flowing editing style you're describing.

Imagine dumping a python script into gdocs, pulling down the contents, and running it through a local python interpreter.

You could get pretty far with low amounts of edits and using the "comment" feature liberally, but once you try and "propose a refactor" you immediately need to "fork the universe" and have two (or more) semantically distinct representations of the document, or some way of queuing "multi-page edits" such that each could come in ... some sort of "merge queue" .... ;-)
> Some people feel like looking at cryptocurrencies and blockchain purely from technology perspective, advocating for them, brings more harm than good. And I can understand this position of the author well.

This is assigning a valence, that's what I mean. We can well debate and choose to ban the mining of PoW energy-heavy cryptocurrencies, but to tar the entire field as harmful is assigning a valence.

> Do you agree that atomic bomb is political? At which sate atomic bomb development stops being science and starts being political? At theory level? Experiments? First device? First use of device?

Fission can be both beneficial (fusion power reactors) or it can be a weapon (nuclear weapons). Should we ban the research of nuclear altogether because of its potential to be used for a weapon? Then comes the question of where to draw the line. Should fission research be banned but fusion research be allowed to continue? Should we stop researching atoms altogether? What if banning research into fission stops us from understanding a key way to generate cleaner energy and overcome climate change and non-renewable energy usage?

This is exactly what happened with the Soviet Union and genetics. Remember that at the time the Soviet Union placed a ban on genetics research, genetics in the West was heavily associated with eugenics. By banning genetic research altogether, the Soviet Union missed out on the chance to derive many drugs beneficial to human health, though their heart came from the right place (banning the idea of eugenics and social darwinism altogether).
Call me old fashioned, but in my day spies, subversives, and criminals kept their communications secret instead of hosting them in plaintext on the servers of a megacorporation almost certainly hellbent against their cause and ready to turn them over to the feds.
Yeah I suppose I would've been inclined to just throw out any deps that are built atop unsafe. It seems to kind of totally ruin the intended purpose of Rust as a language (to me, who is uninvolved).