skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I tend to bang on about software not as engineering but as literacy. It makes some sense even here - that bad code is as common as bad law - and often for the same reasons, politics, money, and hard questions

"Engineering" is a wide subject - the big stuff is carefully built and highly regulated - bridges and buildings. But as we go down the scale we see engineering give way to the problems of politics and money - tower blocks collapse for example, and then we see human level engineering - factory tools that try to meet inflicting goals, dangerous toys and so much more.

The software world should not beat itself up for not being like all those engineers - when lives are not on the line engineers get tied up just the same as the rest. And when lives are on the line, software and hardware engineering have learnt a few things - reduce the scope to the barest possible essentials - have a lot of redundancy and stick to well known designs.
Right. They did the BARE minimum. Then let the guy soon his tale without pushback.

How many students attended during the shooting, and still attend now?

How many of those hundreds want to push a narrative, but also want to remain anonymous and protect heir story from scrutiny by not allowing anyone to go back in the past and verify ANY of the chain of events? (I haven't told anyone)

The story involves one single person, and their father. All other persons at all other times have been removed from the story.

So there is exactly noone to refute this story, except the father. Which Vice news would never ask.
Australian move on Digicel sale contradicts its policy on Huawei
You're getting into the weeds.

Imagine all the iPhones that aren't on Wi-Fi when they get such an emergency update request: they'll melt the mobile networks trying to download 2 GB each.

The idea doesn't work.

This is why Apple devices check for updates once a week, staggered. The load is therefore mostly constant, other than the hardcore ones who manually check for an update once they hear one is available.
So he is getting the relevance and attention he seeks, without throwing his father under the bus in real life?
N=1, but I had my most successful group project ever with someone who was dealing with bipolar disorder.

The solution? He was a master communicator. He would tell me when he was having a manic streak and took on more work. When he was going back down, he communicated that and I took on more. If he started going unresponsive, I reached out and asked, and he told me where he was and what support he needed.

Now he's doing better and found the right medication, but crivens, I've been in a lot of other group projects, and I really miss him.
And still, the Toyota breaking microcontroller code showed that coding practices in Real Engineering are somehow even worse. I hope that improved since then.
> By this reasoning, "I'm tired because I didn't sleep" is fundamentally different from "I'm tired because I exercised a lot".

Well, they are different because they propose different causes. Either of these statements (and the so-called counterfactuals in the article) might be true, depending on the actual cause.

The distinction that matters here is that statements of causes are not solutions, and solutions are elicited by different questions than are causes ("what can we do about it?", rather than "why did it happen?") It does not really have anything to do with counterfactuals vs. causes, and the author's actual point seems to be about how to present solutions.
The headline is kind of beautiful, even if wrong. In a /r/BrandNewSentence kind of way, but also subtle commentary about cognition and our place in the consciousness landscape.

"Mammals dream about the world they are about to experience before they are born"

Wow, those are some evocative feels in those words.

I immediately thought about Google's "DeepDream" and how reversed back propagation gives us a projection of the network. Growing brains similarly fire before they're trained on real world perceptual inputs. Maybe these have shapes that evolved to be world-like and give babies an advantage in the fitness landscape.

My next thought: what if what we're collectively doing now -- all of our neural connectomes growing, dying, forming new connections, evolving understandings. Society, basically -- is the same shape of an AGI before birth? Maybe alien worlds tend towards this path too. A bad analogy, sure, but maybe it's the shape of the universe's consciousness being bootstrapped, before it awakens. Not getting into metaphysical garbage -- just thinking about what's to come.
I know that you can have the most beautifully polished and edited bullshit text, BUT if the ideas are not coming out in an orderly fashion, can I trust that they were generated in a sound mind?

If the author reads it again can they understand it?
One of HR's principal responsibilities is risk mitigation, and different/novel situations present unknown risks, so it is rational to avoid those situations. Most people are not mean (or even inconsiderate, just wary.
> a highwayhash is only cryptographically strong (but not cryptographically secure)

Can you let me know what you mean by strong vs. secure? When would you use one vs. the other? I've heard both of these terms used but they seem almost interchangeable[1].

I've also heard things like "this would be suitable for encrypting a password which is stored at rest" vs. "this could be suitable for a short lived one-time key", but I don't know what the correct terminology is there.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_cryptography
The gp is arguing that companies should be held liable for the harm that they can and do cause. You are countering that argument by claiming that doing so would require all companies to adopt onerous measures. However, that counter argument is only valid if we assume that all companies can cause the same amount of harm and thus have equal liability, and that doing so is unavoidable.

That assumption is deeply flawed. We do not hold toy car manufacturers to the same standards as actual car manufacturers. We do not hold every manufacturer of screws to the same standards as the manufacturers of screws on airplanes. Or rather, we do hold them to the same standards, just we know that certain use cases basically can not cause too much harm in the event of failure and thus in practice the standards needed to mitigate the worst case are much lower.

Software liability does not mean that everybody suddenly needs to take the same care as safety-critical industries. It only means that if you are making safety-critical software and you are incapable of separating the safety of the critical components from the non-critical components. What it really means is the repudiation of the one-size-fits-all lowest common denominator expectation of quality.
>Calment had correctly answered questions about things that her daughter could not have known first hand.

Does anybody know the primary source for this? What did she know?
"Given that after age 100 the annual probability of dying is about 1/2, the chances of a centenarian living to 122 are incredibly small."

Small rant about this statement.

The annual probability of dying is not determined by a fair coin flip.
(at over 100 years)
It is determined by the physical world.

That number, .5 chance of dying is the result of a model to predict
the chance that someone over 100 will die.

So, to say that "the chances of a centenarian living to 122 are incredibly small.", is to say, the chances of living beyond one hundred are determined by a model's output, and not the physical world.

You certainly could say that based on empirical evidence, people hitting over 120 is very unlikely.
Pretty sure he isn't an outspoken white supremacist. He married someone without white blood.
> If you're so distrustful of your police that you feel the need to place cams on them, then you need to go back to the drawing board and address the root problem - the trustworthiness of your police force.

I think we definitely should do that, agreed, but when we're talking about people who are empowered to deprive others of their freedom -- or even their lives -- I want more than just "we've fixed our hiring practices and training to ensure our officers are trustworthy". Sure, ok, great, but I want more than just your word on it. I want controls put in place to reduce the possibility of abuses, and when there are abuses, I want it to be difficult for there to be no record of those abuses.

> There's no reason to treat cops as second-class citizens.

This sort of verification and monitoring would not be unique to a police force. The whole "second-class citizens" thing is just FUD and an attempt to distract from the problem at hand. Any government agency that deals with sensitive information has controls in place to try to stop bad employees from doing bad things. Some companies do that too, depending on the kind of stuff they deal with. That extends to other sorts of controls, like at most tech companies, most employees should not have access to billing information, or even deployment permissions for services not owned by their teams. Some of this is just to prevent mistakes, but these controls are also there to prevent malicious employees from doing bad things. I believe some of the ISO and security certifications my company has requires controls like this, even.
> The jury is out to where they take this. I would bet on their competitors at this point.

that's a completely uninformed take on the topic. This is like betting on Airbus because Boeing has problems with the 737 - when the reality is there is no circumstance whatsoever where the federal government would allow Boeing to go under.

Intel is already being propped up with some sweet gigs doing supercomputer stuff for the National Labs (that their actual hardware probably does not justify on the merits - much like the national labs throw AMD a bone with CDNA in the GPU compute market) and a bunch of R&D tax cuts. The US also negotiated their way into a TSMC gigafab as a fallback strategy but they very much would prefer the American fab company makes it through as well, and they'll spend the cash to make it happen.

It's far cheaper and faster to get the existing competitor back up to speed, than to build a new foundry company from scratch, or even to just build a TSMC gigafab.

Their competitors also aren't american companies. GloFo is controlled by UAE investors. TSMC is controlled by Taiwan. Samsung is controlled by a Korean chaebol. AMD and Apple are fabless companies. Intel is the only US company still designing chips and producing them at a US foundry on any kind of a competitive level in the performance computing market.
> It's easy to read, isn't?

No, it's verbose and ugly. Easy to read would be something like:

fn try_join(a:A:Future<E||AR>,b:B:Future<E||BR>) -> impl Future<E||(AR,BR)>

(Rounding to the nearest Rust-like syntax where appropriate and borrowing `type (||) = Either` from Haskell.)
Fidelity and Vanguard for best execution—which is the most important aspect for me.
Self-clearing, sufficiently capitalized and don’t accept PFOF. They are improving their trading UI and I think they’re definitely headed in the right direction on that front. I don’t yet trade options on either, so no comment on that.
That's an interesting idea. Cross game cosmetics would be especially interesting if certain items were not made available for sale by the developers, but had to be earned via in-game accomplishments.

Ex. if you kill the final boss in the game, you get a hat that you can sell, but every copy of this hat was earned by someone who beat the game.

Could be an interesting way for game studios to cross promote - if player of Game B wants that fancy hat, they have to either beat Game A or trade with someone who did, incentivizing more people to play Game A. Some number of people would be swayed in which games they chose to play if they could 'cash out' once they were done with it - even if it's only ~$20 for dozens of hours.

So this could be used to not only bring in revenue, it could alternately be structured to build audience.
I bet aoftware that is so secure to be compared to products of other engineering fields does exist (e.g. avionic systems), but you will have to pay a much higher cost to use it, luke hundreds of thousands dollars since the cost of acheieved the guaranteed security level would also be much higher. Given the low cost of modern consumer software, you really have to understand that you get what you paid for. And if you want security guarantees you don't just need that particular piece of software being secure, you need qualified people to operate it, the hardware running it being secure (probably propietry and cost hundreds of thousands), and the whole software stack being secure as well, from firmware to OS to networking code. This is simply not somehow that your general consumer can afford, and if you enforce that level of security in consumer software like smartphones, it is safe to bet that almost everyone that has a smartphone would be protesting since they would have no Software aviliable on there phone anymore.

Like one comment above said, there do exist ways to enforce that level of software security, (like railway traffic lights) but the cost would be ridiculously high, and those systems are probably not running any consumer kind of software stack, probably without an OS since Linux would has it own vulnerability as well. Those systems are probably made for custom hardware that the software vendor has total control of it as well.
Huh, I didn't know that.

https://github.com/BLAKE3-team/BLAKE3/blob/b404c851c284ed01f...

I peeked at the reference impl (380 lines of safe Rust) and found this. It has a 1,728-byte array for tree state, which is enough for 2 ^ 64 bytes.

So in practice it's also fixed.
I wonder if that's because more recent periods are considered in more detail - both for granularity and as a complex period. Whereas the further back you go, the more they get grouped together and simplified into stories.

"The 80s" (1 decade) is considered in more detail than "the interwar period" (20ish years), which is considered in more detail than "The victorian era" (70 years) which is considered in more detail than the Renaissance (200 years) which is considered in more detail than "Late antiquity" (500 years).

I suspect in 2100, not very many people will be talking about the 1980s in great detail, and if the term 20s is used will refer to the current decade
There’s very convincing evidence that the average intelligence is the same for man and women, but the variance is slightly higher for men.

This means that you’ll find more males at the tails of the distribution, and guess where the chess champions are.

Speaking of scientific evidence, it is also well documented that men and women have different preferences in activities they like, since the very first few weeks of life. This might also play a role!
Plato grinning ear-to-ear somewhere right now

Freud also predicted this in that he postulated that hallucination was more primordial than actual sense-experience
https://www.verizon.com/business/resources/reports/dbir/2021...

If we're quibbling, they likely meant plurality as opposed to majority. It's close to an outright majority though.
I was hoping for a dot map with a dot for each of the power plants in question. Did the article really only need to include a single example? Where is their list of power generating facilities?

Seems like there's a chart here,

https://www.colorado.edu/rasei/2021/02/17/super-polluters-do...
Light-to-moderate drinking tied to lower risk of heart attack and death
I very much agree with you that there are drawbacks to increasing density, but SF isn't exactly going to look like Tokyo just because you let people in the Sunset and Richmond Districts convert some single family homes into fourplexes.
> Are these innate patterns of activity priming mammalian brains in a similar way?

A newborn foal can stand within 55 minutes of being born and can walk or run within 90 minutes. That is crazy fast training speed. Is it training initialization or is it a form of transfer learning?

Most human babies take 9-18 months to walk, and this is commonly attributed to the fact that human babies have immature brains that cannot mature due to birth canal constraints, which is constrained by pelvis size which is constrained by the need to walk upright.

I have wondered about how true this is. Maybe our brains are just so much more powerful, or capable of much deeper understanding, that we require a much lower initial learning rate.

The lottery ticket could explain why some children learn to walk at 6 months, while others are closer to 24 months, with no different in intelligence or motor skills in later life.

Edit: As some people below have correctly pointed out, human babies could not walk within an hour for physiological reasons, but nor do they exhibit the basic motor skills, spatial reasoning or image processing required for walking. Many human babies even struggle to feed for the first 24-48 hours or longer.

Meanwhile baboon babies can hold onto their mother from birth while the mother climbs trees.
This printing technique would be absolutely stunning for electron micrographs, astrophotography, or terrain of other planets!
Please build more housing in SF!
I'd draw a distinction between interpreted and compiled languages. It's good to know what an interpreted language does under the hood, and I'd say "look as often as you hit an unexpected performance issue." With compilers, I don't care how the sausage is made... but you'd better believe I'm going over the generated assembly for hotspots.
how does linux fare in this scenario? few things are as critical in terms of infrastructure
Amazon posted a crypto job. Bitcoin surged 14%
It's doing almost literally the same thing as the Python code upthread. Just, with less code.
There were (or are) many workers work overtime without salary paid, they would be won't displayed in statistics.
That’s because the human body can metabolise a small quantity of cyanide. Going by Wikipedia sweet apricot kernels produce ~0.3mg of cyanide when eaten, but the toxic threshold is around 100mg for acute effects.

Still, chronic cyanide exposure isn’t good for you.
Yes for the most part it is. One reason being that it's just a lot easier to code and cleaner when everything is on-chain and tracked the same way.

But that's starting to change (https://centrifuge.io/) - still a long way to go ofc. I also know people who have done non-crypto collateral or just completely unsecured lending, but it does involve trust that is off-chain (legal contract, know the person, etc). I think that's a fine stepping stone (and may end up being necessary) as people figure out how to do everything on-chain and in decentralized ways (ex. using on-chain reputation)
If they are giving you the milk, don’t buy the cow. Fix and move on. Someday you can hire a SecOps team or vendor.
Whatever your use case, a chatbot is not the answer. Please reconsider what you are doing and make an FAQ for easy questions then pay for real support for interactions that need it. Chatbots solve nothing, and are about as hostile as you can get toward your users. If you're trying to build a system that closes the blinds or plays music on command, fine. But any kind of pawning of actual support on a chatbot is basically just saying fuck you to your customers.
There are real precedents now, I have no doubt others will follow. Cryptocurrencies are real currencies, there's no reason not to accept them as such.
> Because having a car is nice and convenient?

But it's not convenient if you have to park on the street... because there's nowhere to charge. That's the point.
On my side projects I compile everything myself, but I do not completely agree with this post because Redis is one of easiest/fastest mainstream databases to compile, it can get very time consuming and the returns are not always there.
There's a talk[1] by Anand Ghiridharadas about his book[2] - ironically, given at Google - which has many excellent insights, among them that local news has been hollowed out and destroyed by Google and the bigger fish are struggling, leading to this race to the bottom for clicks.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winners_Take_All:_The_Elite_Ch...
That defensive without evidence thing happens even in physics and mathematics. If they were right, we wouldn't have set theory or elementary particles. Emotions, pride and incentives don't conform to science's venerable image.
Last I checked, all DeFi activity could be measured in billions of USD. That's not "mega deep". It's barely a blip in the global financial system. It's not even enough for a few months of Amazon revenue.
You should probably go re-examine the summary of findings chart. It's number one as a cause, although not strictly speaking a majority. Also, more to the point, ~85% of breaches were human-involved.

https://www.verizon.com/business/dam/img/resources/reports/2...

https://www.verizon.com/business/dam/img/resources/reports/2...

This is a very widely discussed trend in the industry and has been for literally almost a decade. It has lead to the tired trope of the number one hardening recommendation being "get rid of the users" as well as the much more helpful "users can't be expected to participate in their own security, it needs to be done for them transparently".
I wonder how x86-64-v3 for Arch/v2 for fedora in the near future will change this calculus. Currently you're basically compiling for a Core 2/Athlon 64 era chip, so there's clear wins to be had, but I wonder how much of the benefit can be had just by using software requiring Haswell/Zen1 at minimum
> And they are building a gigantic factory specifically for that product, a factory that cost billions.

Are you talking about Austin? Thats not specifically for Cybertruck, it is also building Model 3, Y, and the Semi according to wikipedia.
I am not sure that is a good analogy.

In abstract terms you can think of the inertia as the time constant of a linear ODE. For the same perturbation of the state, the larger the inertia the slowest the variation.

In a grid with low inertia changes in demand (wether increase or decrease demand) are very sudden and thus difficult to control.
You linked to the income Gini where Germany is 126th - so pretty far from being the most unequal. But if you look at the wealth Gini then Germany comes in as 20th: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_in...