skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
So is Thomism(/forms of Neo-Thomism) the be-all-and-end-all of philosophical enquiry then? If an argument is based on unexamined prior positions how can it be considered sound? (I suppose there is a problem of infinite regress here/some form of ‘Russell’s teapot’ or something! :) Thomas Aquinas was/is an extremely influential and interesting thinker (especially for his time!), but I find that sadly I don’t necessarily see proof of/share his revelatory faith in the existence of a traditional Catholic God. When I try and boil down various arguments into comment form I cannot definitively argue against those ideas because, for all I know, they may be true, at least on some level... The problem is rather that, as I understand him at least, I see that equally they may not be true and that they derive in part from hefty presuppositions about the existence of god, denial of possible kinds of physical/metaphysical infinite regression (not sure I’m using that term entirely correctly, but what the hey…) /infinite universes/multiverses/even voidist/illusory universes, various other theisms (pantheism, panpsychism or ‘idealism’ for example), atheism and probably a lot more -isms that I can’t think of right now or am just not aware of… If your argument is that philosophy based on formal logic is devalued somehow because it is merely relative/can only express relations between ‘things’ and not ‘things’ in themselves, well, what’s to say that the universe isn’t entirely informationally constituted/‘mathematical’ and therefore able to be defined solely relationally in some form? (not putting that very well - but along the lines of: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Mathematical_Universe ). I don’t immediately see how ordinary language is any more potentially categorical than formal logic in such a context - though the power and beauty of words/mathematics is undeniable in a human context, is it not potentially dangerous arrogance to think that we currently/could ever hope to understand God/universal meaning on any definitive, ethically actionable or universally communicable level? Doesn’t the unchallenged adoption of such concretized beliefs invite inevitable abuse and corruption when flawed humans distort them and undesirable actions arise from calcified dogmatism/extremism/literal interpretations?
Here’s some Kant, for
good measure:
“Thinking for one's self is to seek the chief touchstone of truth in one's self (id est, in one's own reason); and the maxim, to think for one's self at all times is Enlightening. Thereto belongs not just so much, as those may imagine who take knowledge, to be enlightening; as it is rather a negative principle in the use of one's cognoscitive faculty, and he, who is very rich in knowledge, is often the least enlightened in the use of it. To exercise one's own reason, means nothing more, than, relatively to every thing which one is to suppose, to question one's self.”
— from ‘What it Means to Orient One's Self in Thinking’ ((& Monty Python’s Philosophical Football Match: https://vimeo.com/84600758 )
I think you're arguing a strawman and didn't really address anything I said.

Of course, my point is seemingly unpopular in very partisan websites where it's seen as a rep/dem or left/right issue (US centric) but the fact that we see more and more of these types of articles (today an EFF one) shows there's more of us, concerned by this arbitrating of truth by a certain group of ideologes and the people who agree with them where they leverage their power to prescribe what speech is worth transmitting and which is worth censoring.
Show HN: Quantel – A Financial Data API with Google Sheets Support
Do you know of any examples of a climate scientist or biologist predicting this and being labeled a climate denier for stating this prediction? I would be very much surprised if it wasn't common knowledge amongst climate scientists that this is one result of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.
To some degree at that young age they may still experience all actors with agency as being themselves (the whole universe is me). Even after that discovery they often don't separate empathic simulation of other's emotions from their own - if someone else is angry or sad they are angry or sad.

A later trick that we often fail to master as adults is the cause-effect relationship with emotions. When we're hungry we are more likely to snap at others or be rude. When we're stressed about something we're more likely to start fights/arguments. After a tasty meal, a piece of good news, or even intimacy we are more likely to be agreeable. When questioned in the moment both kids and adults will strongly attribute these feelings to the actions of others or simply fabricate a reason on the spot, completely failing to identify the true source of the feeling.
(Pedantic note: emotional states are much more complex than I can describe here so we can obviously come up with counter-examples from specific situations. This also doesn't account for personality disorders, eg narcissism).
1) "fragility and cost of repairs" are not an inherent quality of a manufactured product. When gas appliances were new, they were also fragile and expensive to repair. The process by which they became sturdy and cheap to repair was that they became widely used, which lead to an incentive structure where the companies that manufacture them were rewarded for making them sturdier and easier to repair. If we can make induction stoves a widely used appliance, their fragility and cost of repairs will improve due to the natural improvements during a products lifecycle.

2) No, we are not running out of copper.
This seems like a false equivalency between a given individual and the state: I can ask what weapons I'm allowed to have without asking what weapons the state is allowed to have.
How can you tell that GitHub is behind tree-sitter? I don't see anything of the sort from that repository link. Is Max employed by GitHub?
It's the classic "look at the coarsest metric and use it to make some kind of a judgement" that basically everyone does. Not getting eaten by a lion is way, way more valuable than occasionally running away from nothing for no reason so human animals can't help themselves. It's in the firmware or hardware. You have to recognize it's happening in your software and decide to look for better clues to overcome what the firmware is doing.

It's the same kind of thing that causes a person who has been robbed to conclude that anyone who matches some kind of obvious characteristics of the person who robbed them to be the same kind of "other" and to diligently avoid them. You can't blame them! They got robbed! That's traumatic.

What's too bad is when the person never examines their beliefs for where they're wrong and to try and update their model of the world. Not every female engineer is amazing and not every male one has too much bravado. Not everyone who is wearing the same clothes as the mugger is a mugger. Not everyone who is wearing different clothes is not a mugger.

But also life is short and the heuristics we all use every day serve us well enough that to examine every single one would mean you couldn't do much at all with your life. It's too bad but try not to take it personally. We all do it and we rarely know in what ways we are.
A hacker stealing photos while I’m using my phone is not the same as sending nude photos from that phone to your significant other.

One is an crime.
Awesome recommendation thank you! Looks like New York 2140 is a perfect embodiment of what they were talking about in this manifesto.
How many white supremacists do you think there are? How many people who fully denounce white supremacy do you think there are?
This should have (2008), but is still well worth reading. This was lampshaded in Silicon Valley but I can’t seem to find a clip.
> The most abhorrent idea of all to me is that there are stupid, weak people that are worse than "us" that we need to shield from bad ideas because they are not smart enough (like we are) to handle them.

Gullible people exist. I mean, it's such a well-known phenomenon that the term "gullible" exists to describe people who fall for what should be obviously false information and lies. We all have our instances of gullibility, and we all have domains that we know nothing about, and there are countless people who prey on people with lack of knowledge in some area.

If people go around in real life deceiving people, someone might step in and tell them to watch out for the scam. There'll be signs in tourist areas where scammers frequent. Banks will send out notices on how to help their customers avoid financial traps. Schools teach kids to look out for bad information and misleading conclusions. Signs are posted in parks warning people not to venture out to certain areas because they're likely unprepared and could die (and people still die anyways).

This is all generally accepted as good.

But flag a post on some social networking site with a "This might be fake. Be careful", and people go wild saying the elite are trying to police us and they're destroying our freedoms.
It's about the time constants of communication that cause this. Given time, the truth wins out. But when you accelerate communication beyond human capacitor to process it, you get what we have today.
A little community of programmers talking about tech projects
Have you watched the talk? Greg talks a lot about the flaws with CVEs.
You don't wear pants in the bath?
That's correct from a "spiritual" point of view, but pragmatically it is possible to define a spectrum from tyranny to democracy based only on the structure of power. More precisely you can look at the number of people the ruler needs to benefit to get their way. Religion and belief are important, no doubt, but they can be separated a bit from each other with this kind of analysis. In this respect modern democracies with universal suffrage, equal rights, legal protection from state violence are a big deal. It's not necessary for them to represent "progress" to be very very valuable.

Also, "belief" has a propensity to produce circular logic (I believe in X because X is true), non-escapable rational traps (you don't believe in anything, so you believe in non believing, so you believe...), tribalism (we should convert the nonbelievers), righteousness (how can't they see it? It is the truth), wishful thinking (I believe that X is good and Y is bad so of course I will ascribe every good event to X and every bad one to Y), insincere debates, existential crisis caused by the lack of it, and so on... So as much as it's possible I in favor of leaving beliefs and religions out of the analysis.
KVM? Virt-Manager? It might take an hour to learn virt-manager and some of its quirks, but it absolutely can do everything you request here, I do so very regularly.

If you want a low-maintenance version, you could just snag someone's NixOS config - you'd have an easy to reproduce environment that just ensures virt-manager and a really light-weight window manager are installed and then you're done.

Virt-Manager does shared directories (9p anyway; there's no UI for virtio-fs, but you can still use it by editting XML). It handles USB2 and USB3 forwarding. It does snapshots, it does clones, you can even leverage Linux filesystems to do far fancier things than possible on HyperV hosts. Etc. (Plus KVM won't trash your plain ole EXT4 partitions like countless people keep reporting under HyperV [and I've personally experienced twice]). It can even do graphics accceleration/virtualization for Linux guests.

Virt-Manager is so under-known and under-appreciated, but then again, it's got its rough-edges. With some polish there is really no reason to ever mess with VBox under Linux.
IRC: https://dailybuild.org/chat.html (#dailybuild on rizon.net)
Online is forever when you want something gone, and ephemeral when you want it preserved.

Kinda like how conceiving a child is hard if you want one and easy if you don't.
While I agree that the item is ordinarily called a "three-ring binder", and that it always has three rings, I would not call one with a strange number of rings a "three-ring binder". The name hasn't become that opaque.
Ask HN: How to communicate voting button state for screenreaders?
I'm working on several pages with "items", and each item has a "voting button". When the button is pressed, it adds one vote to the item's score, and reflects this to the user by incrementing the counter by one. So "like(1)" becomes "like(2)" and then "like(2)".

However, it seems to me like to someone using a screen-reader, it may not be accessible, meaning they won't understand what happened.

Does anyone know the proper way to handle this? Should I insert an aria alert element to the page, next to the voting button?
Congress can help by allowing no DRM for archival use.

> the audiophiles will need to understand the physical media and performance conditions,

They really don't :-)

> and the researchers/archivists want everything because it's a snapshot of a particular work at a particular place in time via particular means

Phooey. There are far more interesting things that need archiving.
You are correct. It is indeed possible to use dynamic programming. For more info check out [0]. OP’s project probably takes too long on nontrivial merges in its current state.

[0] https://thume.ca/2017/06/17/tree-diffing/
I have a desktop dev machine that I ssh into via zerotier and it has been a fantastic dev experience. As a result my entire world needs to be in the terminal, which for me, was pretty easy (tmux+neovim). `tmux a` and I'm right back where I left off and it doesn't matter what front-end computer I use. I can now use my ipad as my front-end cpu which is a great in-the-bed machine.

The only catch is I need to make sure my dev machine is online.

Now with neovim 0.5 with support for LSP and treesitter, neovim is on par with visual studio code.
Reading just the article and going out on a limb, it sounds like they are exploiting the window of valid sequence numbers in a session to enable out of order delivery.

I'd speculate the basic problem in the protocol is that session sequence numbers (counters) can be incremented by sending invalid messages, and there is a window of n plus or minus x, where x is how much the counter/sequence number on a valid message can be off-by and still be processed.

Flooding the session to increment the counter above the valid window would yield undefined behavior in a few ways. When a peer gets desynched, either the client or server may kill the session and require a new negotiation handshake with the peer (a DoS vulnerability) - or it attempts to recalculate the window of counter values it will accept based on its last known good message, which sounds like it effectively causes the valid messages in that chain to "fold" back on themselves in their order.

I'd suspect this was a design decision and understood by the protocol architects.

If you aren't using an CMAC, a ratchet function (or a kdf based on hashing) which proves deterministically what the current sequence of messages is, instead of using a sliding window, you are going to have a similar or analogous sequence number "window" problems in your protocol.

Some message sequence schemes use an obfuscated counter where instead of say, integers, you use some function over a field. (hence GCM, as I loosely apprehend it) But even the seed for that function just becomes another secret to manage (imo), so protocols that depend on counters earn extra scrutiny.

The reason to use sequence numbers (counters) instead of ratcheting or hashing is because sometimes you're just substituting the managability of a sequence number counter window problem with another key management problem that has has a different set of known vulnerabilities, and you make the call based on your threat model.

Perhaps the researchers' actual findings are more complex than this, and it isn't just a gotcha criticism of a design decision that had clear trade offs, which few are equipped to object to.
Understanding Early Arc Lamps
I thought this would finally help many rabid anti Trump people realize giving so much power to the gov was a bad idea but since the major media outlets and tech companies seemed to be part of the "resistance" this association of "limiting power" for the WCS never actually transpired.

I don't expect people to be persuaded by your argument. They'll just demand and increase of power to further their idelogies that they deemed objective and righteouss truth.
You could have a little key printed on peripherals near the female socket that details what kind of cables they recommend and accept.
You are correct. I was conflating the lower battery capacity of the 4a with the age of the s10e, which are independent issues I got mixed up in my head. I'll fix the post tomorrow. Thank you for pointing that out.
This is nonsense. More CO2 === faster plant growth is not some suppressed secret, this is basic science that people have known about for ages, and nobody is going to get labelled anything unless they're mentioning it as part of some bad faith argument.

Climate change deniers love stuff like this though, you can bring it up in a bullet point list of "why climate change isn't a big deal" or whatever and push your false narrative without any of the individual points being false. People who bring this fact up and are subsequently labelled climate change deniers are being labelled that because of the context and content of their whole argument, not because one specific true fact was mentioned.

It's also a bit disingenuous to talk about Patrick Moore as a Greenpeace Co-founder without any context about what he's been up to since 1986 when he left the organization. This is just an appeal to authority that's only tenuously linked to reality.

Stop being disingenuous just so you can feed your persecution complex with strangers on the internet.
I dont understand why they sell the pro. The touchbar is rubbish and the air has 99% the same performance. Yeah the pro can go faster for longer without throttle but its heavier and doesnt have those physical f-keys.

Its more expensive too… not sure why anyone would buy it over the air. Two more usb-c but you can only hook in one external monitor! Also 200 more nits on screen but… is it really that important?

I cant wait for the 14/16 with the m1x. These are already barn burners.
> Now I'm looking for a better remote access solution so I can consider sticking with a desktop at home and then maybe just an iPad for travel with good remote access and file sync.

This is my solution. I don't really need to do any file syncing as rsync or scp works fine for my purposes. It has been a fantastic dev experience. I remote in, bring up my last tmux session and pick up exactly where I left off, regardless of the front-end machine. I use an ipad pro for a ton of development now and it really is fantastic for it.

I've got a overkill desktop dev machine (previous gaming rig) that can make all the noise it wants in my basement and my front-end shell remains quiet.

I set up zerotier so I can constant access to it whether I'm on my local network or remote.
Good for plants, but not necessarily for humans. Human mental performance seems to reduce at higher CO2 levels, which makes sense as humans (by any definition... behaviorally modern humans ~50,000 years ago, anatomically modern humans 300,000 years ago, the overall genus homo within about 2 million years) have never experienced CO2 levels near the current level, let alone what they may be by the end of the century. Perhaps CO2 levels will be higher than ever experienced by great apes since we first evolved 14 million years ago: https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/
This quiz will let you test how accurate you are at predicting which psych papers replicated or not. Last time I took it, I think I was at 8 or 9 out of 10. I think something close to 50% of such papers don't replicate - so it's probably a reasonable prior to just assume any given social psychology study won't replicate.

https://80000hours.org/psychology-replication-quiz/
This is even a worse reason to change names. Someone who has no stake in it at all then takes it open themselves to represent someone else as an aggrieved entity.

And, to be clear, I'm okay with presenting evidence one way or another, but I object to willy-nilly claims and crusades.
> The thing macOS on M1 does very cleverly is scheduling threads on cores. IIRC all UI threads run on high-power cores, while all background tasks run on low-power ones. So they never interfere with each other. iOS probably does the same; Android probably does none of this.

This feature has been in the Linux kernel for ages[1]. Android and ChromeOS are based on the Linux kernel, and have had this feature for quite some time. This is nothing new.

[1] https://community.arm.com/developer/ip-products/processors/b...
I don't have an M1, but on my computers I find Chrome to be memory heavy and rather slow.

It's worth trying out Firefox and seeing if that works better for you.
I've made a incremental parser, and solved it by only re-parsing the changed code block. And the diff would then be the entire branch, but you could compare the old branch with the new branch and get a more fine detailed diff. It's hard to know beforehand what will get better performance, I found that for small files < 100 LOC it was faster to re-parse the entire file.
X-15 (1961)
And even then, it would all be for naught as soon as the user opens a message, which is a pretty normal thing to do.

(I do think they should be more cautious though. For example, under no circumstances should Apple Mail ever auto-extract an attached zip file from a stranger.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-15_(film)
But if it's actually better for cooking (eg. response time), why should we care?
Are there less neonazis now than the 1980-90s? Are there more people now than ever who totally disavow white supremacy?

What is the population the KKK right now? What percentage of America is that?

Don't get lost in the narratives.
This isn't mental telepathy, this is using voluntary attempts to activate the vocal cords to produce text using an implanted device.
So you think we should completely ignore anyone who has said anything of substance before any arbitrary technology was invented or if they have any other opinion that you disagree with? We can safely cast theses people's opinions out as invalid? Is that not exactly what you are implying? Do you not see how absurd those implicit arguments are?

That's not to mention the fact that you are ignoring the amount of influence that man had on our political and economic systems which benefit your life in ways you probably haven't considered...
You're correct, I conflated the lower battery size of the 4a with the age of the s10e in my head. Both were independent issues.
>First, the IT software development profession largely lacks — or fails to put into place — automated, objective and repeatable metrics that can measure progress and predict project completion with any reasonable degree of accuracy

In order to have automated metrics you would have to have a complete and accurate specification that never changes. Something that doesn't exist.

>Second, IT engineers by nature tend to be optimists

No, Management tends to demand more than can be delivered, as pressured by sales.

>Female IT engineers in my experience are generally far more conservative and realistic

Women aren't as stupid as men, and actually want something approaching work/life balance. You might want to consider older men, who have less testosterone poisoning as an additional source of wisdom.

I agree with points 3 and 4.

Management that doesn't actually understand how "the sausage is made" will always face a thermocline/impedance mismatch. The effect of a good working relationship with trust in both directions can greatly help address the obstacles it imposes.

It might help to offer some education as to how things work at the top, the pressures upper management faces, and how it drives their decision making, to the lower ranks of the org chart.