skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Definitely!

But also, apart from tiny nouns (cat, dog) when I was learning words as a kid (not just reading, but speaking) I was often told what its pieces were (not just obvious ones like "skyscraper", but "entrance? We enter through it."). Any other way just seems hard.
Or it will just come from outside of Hollywood. La Casa De Papel (aka Money Heist) is so good I am probably going to cancel Netflix since it's taking away from my nightly reading time and affecting the quality of my sleep.
Scotland has a different legal system than England. It seems unlikely that wouldn’t have an effect on remote work?
There’s an incredibly long history of exactly these type of tactics against Jewish people in America. The same sort of we should just take people in good faith arguments are made. We’re now seeing the exact same rhetorical arguments used to attack Asian Americans.

Tests are tests. If you don’t like the results fix the problems.
Can we apply this game theory to developer salaries ? In other words, ( and as we have seen ) without forcing companies for compete for talent...They will end up under explicit or implicit ( non fighting ) a.k.a non salary compete agreements.
Fauci wants to make vaccines for the next pandemic before it hits
The only reason it should be a "jank interface" is because the browser makers haven't been doing all they can to make browsers capable, which is basically what you are arguing against. That's circular logic.

I don't see browser apps being janky. Certainly not mine, and it is an intensely graphical app that also takes full advantage of the web audio api. (it also does several things that native apps can't do, such as it's ability to synchronize and layer graphics on top of youtube music videos)

Some of them are indeed janky, but plenty of native apps are too. Do you do apps? I'd be happy to compare mine side by side to any native app.

But the main point is, why would you want to invest all your development efforts into a proprietary API that locks you in and is under the control of a single company?
Human Genomes Are Surprisingly Cat-Like
You can't realistically have lockdowns for unvaccinated people. People who don't get vaccinated are the same people who have the biggest problem with lockdowns. They simply won't do it.
How does encryption not completely thwart this attack vector?
Er, C did not invent libraries by any measure whatsoever, and is completely appropriate to call a function available to code without imports “in the standard library”. It is a library function. You did not write it. Simple as that.

This is one of the more unnecessary pedantries I’ve ever seen, and that’s saying something on HN.
There is still gold and ceramics. But both are of course more expensive.
strncpy() isn't dangerous. People have their heads so twisted around muh security that they don't even know what the function was intended to do. The purpose of strncpy() is to prepare a static search buffer so you can do things like perform binary search:

static const struct People {
char name[8];
int age;
} kPeople[] = {
{"alice", 29}, //
{"bob", 42}, //
};

int GetAge(const char *name) {
char k[8];
int m, l, r;
l = 0;
r = ARRAYLEN(kPeople) - 1;
strncpy(k, s, 8);
while (l <= r) {
m = (l + r) >> 1;
if (READ64BE(kPeople[m].s) < READ64BE(k)) {
l = m + 1;
} else if (READ64BE(kPeople[m].s) > READ64BE(k)) {
r = m - 1;
} else {
return kPeople[m].age;
}
}
return -1;
}

It was a really common practice back in the 70's and 80's when the function was designed for databases to use string fields of a specific fixed length.
Brave and Vivaldi outsourced the browser engine of the browser part to Google, though. That's the most expensive and work intensive part.

They are also not part of any standardisation committee, as far as I know.
> The two together have brought the company $3M in worth, minus $130k that they cost. Exactly how much esch contributed to the $2.8M is harder to say, but certainly each only contributed a portion of the $2.8M - even though the salesperson actually caused the revenue to flow in, they are not solely responsible; and neither is the programmer, even though they single-handedly created the product.

This would be a rare occurrence, but let's run with it. I don't think anywhere I have alluded to anything which could be considered as making such judgement on whom is worth more but rather the idea that businesses are systems with many actors.

But I think we are running around the obvious question, out of $2.8m, and ignoring any other costs and expenses like taxes for example (21% in the US), how much should the programmer get paid, how much should the sales person be paid?

If I had a company and I had 1 person sewing t-shirts which sold for $5, and another person sewing the same amount of t-shirts, same skill level, same quality of work but they were supreme t-shirts selling for $38. Should I pay the second work many times more, since they make me 7+ times more doing the same job. I don't think the market would say I would. Unless you have a unique skill or go beyond the level of the second employee, the rate would be the same. Even your software selling for 3m is set by the market, you cannot stick a price on it and say it is worth 50m and it's worth 50m.

The same argument goes for developers, it's a generic pool of skilled workers. While there maybe an argument for paying a high profit generating developer more, the majority of developers are likely to be the lower end. Maybe some people just get lucky, for example it is probably easier generating 1m of revenue working at Facebook (developer A), than it would be working at a small boutique development firm (developer B), developer A being no different than developer B, should developer A get paid more just because of the opportunity they have.

> Well, a worker who, through their time and expertise, is adding $1M to the company's value is almost precisely equivalent to the investor investing $1M. However, you believe that the worker should get back 10% of what they invested, while the investor should get back 110% of what they invested. Do you see the double standard?

There is no double standard, and they are not equivalent. The employee earns a salary, the invest earns via capital gains (excluding cases of dividends and profit shares). An investor can lose everything, while an employee gets paid.

If you think an employee == investor then you should not expect a salary at all, you getting paid depends on whether the company makes a profit and if there are capital gains to be had.

I think you should consider that employees are more like businesses, you are selling you product/services (aka skills) to a customer.
How to Tap Memory Systems to Deepen Learning
I think inference isn't the right term either. I think current ML is more like automated inductive reasoning.
It doesn't pay off if it was stolen because it's a chemical easily converted into more bombs.
Random guess: Maybe because domains normally end with a dot, i.e. google.com. and maybe some termination character NULL string? 253+ 1+ 1 ?
> FBI say blast consistent with 552 tonnes of chemicals

Seems unlikely that this estimate can have three digits of precision, which begs the question what the real margin of error is.
"do you want to have one taxonomy for your entire company? Do I care about that I have a uniform description of every business object in my company? What is a customer? What is a credit card? What is a charge on the credit card? What is a business line?”"

Let me suggest Clay Shirky's "Ontology is Overrated" https://digitalcuration.umaine.edu/resources/shirky_ontology...

Also available in a slightly different form at https://web.archive.org/web/20130729231420id_/http://itc.con...
Micasatucasa – Special villas, exclusively managed
I can feel you. But for slightly different reasons :-)

It so happened that I could read fluently way before Kindergarden. (Older sister taught me)

While I've been spared from Kindergarden because deemed 'too playful' this longhand thing never made any sense to me, because almost anything I've read was print, block letters, while anything longhand usually took more time to read, even if it was written nicely.

So why should I write in that complicated way?

I denied that stubbornly, scratching out block letters as fast or faster than the others did. Absolutely readable as I might add. Even today.

This is one of the things/conventions/traditions I don't get, and probably never will.
> Yeah but a key value system lacks all the really good things about SQL.

IndexedDB lacks SQL support natively, but there is nothing about key value systems in general that preclude the use of SQL. CockroachDB comes to mind as a key value store that depends on SQL. SQL support could be built atop IndexedDB by a willing developer. JsStore is in that vein, although the approach is a little bit different.
Are we working on a delta vaccine? I just assumed we were but nobody has mentioned anything about a delta vaccine.
Would you say the same about iFixit backing right to repair, or the FSF/EFF etc fighting for privacy and software freedoms while also developing their core products? I feel like "politics" has a very selective definition in this forum.
> It's irrational to go with the chain that has less power, because the entities that created the chain with more power can easily overwrite the chain with less power by virtue of having more power.

This basically means the entire bitcoin network depends on the entities that have the most computer power behaving correctly, am I wrong?
I've seen manager using the physical board to lock people in a room at their mercy... or to create busy work for them, to justify their existence. That's seriously messed up.

The whiteboard was good to move forward a discussion, explain concept and other niceties. To organize work ? Hell no.
> they should have just added an ad blocker out of the box (preinstall uBlock Origin for example).

Yeah, that’s not gonna happen. They would antagonize their biggest “donor” google.

And god knows they really need that huge yearly money influx to whatever the heck they do with that money.
I'm on desktop and HN still crops the domain name. Here it is with spaces added to it wraps:

http://a.b.c.d.e.f.g. h.i.j.k.l.m.n.oo.pp. qqq.rrrr.ssssss.tttttttt.uuuuuuuuuuu. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv.wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.me
Making Things Hard on Yourself: Desirable Difficulties to Enhance Learning [pdf]
> The black and white couple with only gay Asian children under 10 with a Latino teenager makes everything into a farce.

That doesn't happen. No one is writing movies where people who aren't Latino just have Latino children to score "progressive points" or whatever.

Interracial couples do exist. Asians and Latinos exist, and their portrayal in media isn't any more "progressive" than portraying any other race or ethnicity, it's just realistic. And anyone of any race, including interracial couples, can have gay children. Most of the "farce" you've described is perfectly normal.

>It's labelled as progressive but it's regressive and mocks each minority group along the way.

I doubt there is anyone in any minority group who feels mocked by greater representation. But, as a Gay Black Asian Latino yourself, you can probably tell us what it's like.
> general cultural norms really can't handle the idea that smart, important, useful people can provide the most value sometimes by not doing anything until they are needed.

Thank you for this comment. I have had this is mind for quite some time but I never could phrase it in such a clear, articulate, phrasing.
> I'm arguing that animal or lesser intelligence is built around hundreds of thousands of parlor tricks operating in a complex ensemble.

Until ML/AI can perform a single one of those parlor tricks without the constant direction of human intelligence, there’s no reason to stop marveling.
And even that assumes rights and wrongs are a sort of fungible screwup-based currency where one can in fact cancel the other out.

An interesting concept to play around with though: You'd essentially need currency that has both negative & positive denominations. In addition, you couldn't have a "100 Wrong Bill" because wrongs aren't fungible. A single wrong will differ in magnitude than another. To accurately denominate wrongs, you'd probably have to ditch quantity bills in favor of magnitude bills, and likely on a logarithmic scale too because the magnitude can vary so widely. "Oops I got into a fender bender" is too far away from "Oops I accidentally cause the largest non-nuclear explosion"

Unfortunately it seems like it's easier for a single wrong to have an outsized impact than it is for a single right, so the negative denominations of this right/wrong currency would need to be logarithmic while the positive end would still probably need to be linear, and a sum of the two would still almost always come up negative.
I didn't see a paywall, but there was a video that autoplayed partway down the page.

(Interesting article though.)
Numbers implies you can do mathematical operations on them that makes sense.

So how would you quantify "good" or "bad"? You can't unless you also answer what "good" + "bad" should be. In psychology they just assume that mapping those onto 1 and 5 makes sense, so "good" + "bad" = 5 + 1 = 6, but that doesn't make sense since it would imply that "good" is the same as "bad" + "bad" + "bad" + "bad" + "bad". You get similar but different issues if you start including negative numbers, or if you just use relative measures and don't have a proper zero, no matter what you do numbers doesn't properly represent feelings as we know them.
See also puddling:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mud-puddling
Isn't that what's meant by "admittedly impressive"?
The ruling that has been linked in another comment and if you read that you can see that in this case neither side disputed the lawful nature of the restrictive order. In other words noone involved claimed the judge didn't have the legal right to tell Murray not to allow identification of the complainers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_crystal
Someone should make a new digital currency based on this idea.
I think many people are uncomfortable with the idea that a chemical or unknown environmental change can cause such marked changes in human behavior.
He's being jailed for 8 months for his writing. Hardly escaping legal liability. I don't find that funny, no.

As for Jonathan Cook's piece, the double standard he writes about is the fact that those who claim they learned of the identities of the individuals claim they did so not from Craig Murray's writing but from other reporters. That's been completely ignored by this ruling. Do you think we'll see a court case targeting BBC reporters or the writer Dani Garavelli, cited by most respondants as the main source? Isn't it a double standard if they escape jail but Murray doesn't? Certainly looks to me like someone's got an axe to grind when they fixate on the ways Murray may have let readers learn about identities but gives other reporters a pass - especially when public surveys reveal those other reporters to be even more culpable than Murray.
Those Virus Sequences That Were Suddenly Deleted? They’re Back
The odds of you losing the master data at the same time as being locked out of your account are astronomically low, and if they don't coincide, then you're not in any trouble (e.g. if you get locked out of your account, then you immediately make another backup e.g. on a USB, and if your main copy has something happen to it, you immediately restore).

I definitely agree that getting locked out of your Google account is a massive risk in general (as well as morally bankrupt on their part), but I don't think it's a problem for the specific case of backups).
Yup, looks like that. The whole thing (flask + rabbitMQ + sqlite3) was a on a t2.micro.
Damn! What a fantastic read ! And of course brilliant coding/thinking :)
Well done sir !
> > especially after an opener of "have you been to any beaches recently"
I didn't write that, please check the thread. That was someone else.

Sorry I was confused about this, but the context to which you seemed showed up in defense of; namely a personal "observable"ism as a sufficient means to define the nature of a global phenomena, makes the point stand.

> There is a different, meta-level dialog embedded in our dialog, but this terribly ironic juxtaposition is exactly the kind of distracting, subtractive, thing I meant.

I've been following that meta dialogue very closely and here's what I wish we can agree on. Distraction and subtraction hinges on our personal formulation to solve the problem at hand.

My formulation strongly presupposes that rational argumentation can scale through time and people better than an emotional and personal appeal, at least in forums similar to this. Your formulation seems to presuppose that concentrating on the emotionality of your personal experience and impressing the audience to action through that is a better way to get results. You seem to feel any poking holes in the logic is a disservice because it takes away from that concentration of emotions and impressions.

To the extent these approaches are at odds (and I don't think they necessarily are) any one could accuse the opponent formulation of being subtractive, distracting, action stopping etc.

My plea is for you to see that you're willfully asserting a supremacy of your particular formulation in this meta-dialogue, without clear evidence that it is the case, and with a desire to evacuate alternative formulations out of an open forum.

> I'll go back to picking up garbage, since in my experience, that is the only activity that reliably has impact.

Since you've shared this, it is fair game to ask about it, and I know it might piss you off but bear with me because it has a point; is it an impact to the environment or impact to your conscience? One could cut their arm to feed the hungry, but how far could that go for making a change?

I'm bringing this up because it ties back to my original point of taking time to make sure we have the right formulation. The observable, the immediate, the emotional is super-salient to us but that doesn't automatically mean more true, more effective and ultimately the best thing to follow.
What is it that you think defines "activism"? I too don't want to just be another wannabe influencer type, but I also want the space to have critical discussions with other people and not simply do as I'm told by upper management.
That’s harsh. They cute as cute can be. Right up until feeding time. Terrible terrible table manners.
Prove it to whom? For what purpose?

It seems like it would simply be easier to stop using Tinder if you don't like the service.
Don't rely on browser implementation details and a hope that they won't break in the future. Add a small supplementary file to your published data which has a known pattern at a fixed offset, then make a request for that offset and check the response.
>If it's true that lead exposure motivates crime, but at the same time causes people to feel too depressed and fatigued to act on their motivation

But people seem more sedentary and depressed than ever before. Animal studies show the same - the controls are less active than the exposed group.

Maybe you only made people too weak to be capable of any violent crime.
I believe you are onto something here. See all those inner city neighborhoods, ghettos, and other slum areas? Nine times out of then, what are surrounding them? Highways? There couldn't be a connection, could there?! And let's not talk about all the racists who blame crime on immigration. What are they gonna do if it turns out violent crime often is caused by pollution-induced brain damage rather than defective genes of foreigners?
I'm tired of the Norvig vs. Chomsky style debates about what is cognition/intelligence/learning. I think this piece does rehash that debate somewhat, but it's not at all the focus.

It's key contributions are about the mainstream domination of quantitative vs. qualitative methods, especially in this paragraph:

> Quantitative disciplines are notorious for incinerating the qualitative ele­ments on the basis that they can’t be subjected to mathematical analysis. What’s left behind is a quantitative residue of dubious value… but at least you can do math with it. It’s the statistical equivalent to looking for your keys under a streetlight because it’s too dark where you dropped them.

and also of note is the "veneer of empirical facewash that provides plausible deniability", for discrimination, and for doing a poor job but continuing to be rewarded for it.

If I had to summarize it would be:

- The ML/AI community, which includes the researchers, practitioners, and the evangelists, are broadly utopian in what they think they can achieve. They are overconfident even in the domain of detecting the face of potential burglars in a home security camera, never mind in terms of creating new life with AGI. I think Doctorow's critique equally applies to "algorithms" even only as complex as a fancy Excel sheet, but he focuses on ML/AI as the most common source of this excess of optimism, that recording data and running it through a model is almost certainly the _most sensible thing to do_ for any given problem.

- If there is a manufactured consensus that the almost purely quantitative approach is the _most sensible thing to do_, then any failures or short-comings can be hand-waved away. Say sorry, "the model/algorithm did it", and just ignore the issue or apply a minor manual fix. This is a huge benefit for decision-makers wishing to maintain their status/livelihoods in both the public and private sector. Crucially, this excuse works if you're just ineffective, or if you're a bad actor.

Note that this is a critique of CEOs and government officials, more than of engineers -- we would only be complicit by association. If there is a critique for engineers, it's that we provide fodder for the excess of optimism in summary point 1 because we love playing with our tools, and that we allow ourselves to be the scapegoat for summary point 2.
Pretty nifty :)

May I suggest you try with a twisted, "moebius" version of the torus? By having the loop spiraling up one or more cell every turn. That could be fun.
Apparently the Rust compiler saw a 5% improvement (on average) when they enabled automatic aliasing information (they are now working with LLVM to get it back on).

Note that it is very program dependent, a friend got a 30% improvement on a very specialized numerical simulation.
There are several movie theaters that serve alcohol. The Alamo Drafthouse is the only place that tries to make the movie going experience a genuine blast.
Elevator effect: https://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/elevator-eff...
> This thread was about their legal issues with IE.

Perhaps. I view threads more like human conversations.

> People complain about a lot of things, but that doesn't make them illegal.

Microsoft did a lot of illegal things in the nineties, which many people complained about. Some were litigated, most were not. Lack of litigation doesn't make it legal.

Google seems to be doing a few illegal things right now, although not nearly as many as nineties-era Microsoft.
>For the mid level position (2-3 years, had done web development, we prefer .Net but will take Java, Rube, Node, etc) we had 150 applicants. 140 of them were fresh grad school grad with no work experience, all needed visa help. OK, threw those out, now down to 10, found 1 of those with decent web development. Hired.

Mind sharing the reasons why you refuse applicants who need visa help? I live a in third world country (It's been the worst, especially with Covid) and I'm 30 now and I'm planning to grind interviews to land a a job in tech in the US, so i was curious why is it so hard to get a work visa.

Thanks!
Kind of a weird question to ask with how slowly the sea level is rising and how ephemeral relevancy in tech can be. Remember that Facebook and Google are in old Sun and SGI buildings.