skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> I don't find this persuasive at all.

IMHO you have the burden of proof backwards. Gold being a good hedge against inflation has been (hard money) dogma that's been repeated over and over, but what examination of this claim has there been?

> I want an asset that is resistant to devaluation of money and the historical examples of governments leaving the common man as bag-holders when a currency fails. I want something I could bury in the ground and feel confident that it'll be worth more when my grandchildren dig it up.

Is there evidence / supporting documentation that gold is that asset? If you believe that gold is that asset, why do you believe it? Is it just a matter of trust/faith of what you've heard, and the authorities that you heard it from, or did you examine some data to come to this conclusion?
Ask HN: Any (free) Hacker News datasets around?
As the topic says, I'm looking for datasets containing the data from Hacker News, specifically comments. I've found some on BigQuery that are not very well updated (nor free/downloadable), and via other sources but also not updated.

Mostly looking for data for last three years, but having the data from the beginning > today would obviously be the best, but really hard to find.
No that's not right, nor even correct. You can't just disregard their feelings, and put someone else above them no matter the issue. There's no justification for this.

Disabled people have a valuable contribution to make and their voice should be heard. They should have access. But this good cause is often misused by people using it as a fake pretext for abusing others under the delusion they are absolutely right, and persecuting anyone who disagrees as absolutely wrong. This it is correct to prioritize feelings over bullshit is part of this. It's ape brain shit of trying to dominate others with criticism and control, and pretend they're holy warriors. That attitude is a contributor to why I'm so scared to engage with people about this topic. It's also sad for disabled people because these abusive crusaders give the cause a bad name, and generate counter productive resistance all for the sake of their own compensatory ego gyrations.

But separating out how the topic is misused by some looking to criticize or control others...there is a real issue here and and it's an important and good cause. But the solutions posited, often by the same folks, are not I think the best technical solutions, they're not scalable or efficient. Asking every website to provide hints might be OK at a small scale, but at internet scale it doesn't work. I think the right solution is to direct AI at the problem and have these accessibility directives generated automatically. Intelligent accessibility is a feature that should be present in browsers (or screen readers) by way of AI. People who care about the topic and want change should get to work on that.
You could apply a similar argument to many laws. If a jury is convinced you tried to create and distribute a nude of person X, then you get convicted.
Coming soon: America’s own social credit system
That is not my understanding of the law at all.
taxi services, buses and local train services exist in all of those places.
Yes, I think your first language is a big deal.

And not just because of the language features, but also because of the community around it.

JavaScript isn't pretty, but it has a big community.

The Rust community today might be more helpful than the C/C++ community back in the days, so learning Rust might still be easier than an easier language.

I started with C and Java which I both didn't like much, but learning to code was a big wish for me as long as I know computers exist, so I worked through the problems.
To play devil's advocate again:

These companies were providing goods and services demanded by US civil society, industry, and military. Surely US citizens and the US Government enjoyed the benefits of inexpensive fossil energy. Are they also not culpable?
I never understand these "dynamic vs. static" threads. All of the comments saying that types are somehow undesirable. Or trying to appear wise and above it all with some variant of the middle-ground fallacy.

The advantages of a dynamic type system are two-fold:

1. Dynamic typing and a meta-object protocol allow for certain design patterns. Arguably makes it a bit easier to write DSL's.

2. You don't have to spend 500 milliseconds typing the word `string` or `int`.

However, in reality:

1. Virtually no one in these threads are actually writing DSL's, or applying any of those design patterns. They're writing line-of-business CRUD apps, and simply don't feel like reading or typing `string` or `int`.

2. Most static languages are getting more sophisticated with type inference, such that you don't have to type `string` or `int` nearly as often (although we can debate whether this actually makes your code more readable or less).

So in sum, most people aren't even getting much if any purported advantage, and in exchange they are giving up a slew of compile-time checks that must instead be manually implemented in (unreliable) tests.

It's just madness. You don't want to type `string` or `int`. It really is as simple as that.
India's WhiteHat Jr Founder Karan Bajaj Leaves Acquirer BYJU
Fascism has arrived.
Well, in some sense many languages already have gradual typing, it's just not very ergonomic.

To give an example from Haskell:

You can stick everything into IO, or you can be more careful with your effects.

Or to give a more main stream example:

Even in a language like Go, you can do lots of runtime casting (which is essentially dynamic typing), or you can try to cajole the type system into recognizing what your are doing statically. You can do the latter effort incrementally.
Point. People underappreciate how big of a flywheel the ocean is, because it's generally worked "the same" in our recorded history (with regards to climate).

But once it gets going on a feedback loop, you get very serious effects (of magnitudes that dominate any human mitigation) very quickly.
> economically unviable

> You're not reducing labor costs by much

You could make the same argument wrt supermarket self checkout. They still need a worker to manage the machines. Yet you need fewer human workers overall, so productivity still increases per-worker at the right scale. Allow the tech to develop and they may become more viable.

arguing "you still need humans" seems to me to be a straw-man; there no rule that this is useless so long as humans are still involved - if productivity increases, that's enough.

> you're building a convenience tool

Which seems fine to me. Removing the majority of the "labour" part of the job removes the most unskilled part that humans are least appropriate for (repetitive uncreative/boring work) and freeing them up for the "hard/creative decisions" aspect that humans are better at.

> largely unpopular

> workers lose control over their job

This might be unpopular among workers; not sure, other worker might prefer it. At least, if this requires fewer workers to lay brick, either the demand is such that it can still meet worker supply, or workers suffer (from lower wages or unemployment).

But this is irrelevant - barring union influence, it's not the workers that get to decide. If the job is to "babysit machines" you either refuse the job, or you don't - so long as people take the job, they will grow.
The same tech people that are now resposible for the Web having turned into ChromeOS, or the tech people that keep the Web open by advocating Safari and Firefox?
Microsoft to require proof of vaccination from on-site staff
> Maybe we will get yearly shots to strengthen our immune system from [all kinds of infectious pathogens]

I already do.

I have to self-administer subcutaneous immunoglobulin twice per week due to having a rare immune mediated disease affecting my peripheral nervous system. Subcutaneous inmunoglobulin is a blood product, which is administered under the skin, which contains antibodies from tens of thousands of paid donors, as required by law for the each batch.

I have not gotten a cold in about 5 years because of it. It also helps me recover from illnesses (for example food poisoning this year) quicker.

However, the antibodies being infused does not train my immune system to produce them (applies to everyone) as the memory effect from the administration does not exist.
These are temporary job titles since most of the IT work these days comprise of gluing things together. I think these types of jobs will vanish with in the decade due to platforms like Microsoft's power platform or dynamics 365.
I'm guessing that won't help even if it becomes a reality. These days even proper paternity tests are useless if one end up on a birth certificate without his knowledge. You're still liable even if not guilty.

Edit: That being said... this naked faking app can cause of lot of problems in the workplace and home.
Would turning that font rendering into a web service an accidental complexity, or an essential one?
I've been meaning to read this, but I've been struggling with reading since "the virus" came. I think I'll give it another go, it's right there by my bed.
> including those concrete floors which take a while to dry up.

FWIW, the slower concrete dries, the stronger it gets. To the point where critical concrete buildings like bridges are kept moist for days or even weeks with hoses and wet blankets.
> It doesn’t tell me anything about what you do; and it implies that sysadmins never used to code either.

Back when Luke wrote Puppet, he himself admitted that he was a mediocre developer with a good idea. His premise was that most SysAdmins weren't developers and that they would be more effective with a DSL that wrapped a templating engine and an executor then really learning how to code to build their own tools.

This set just an ugly trend. Next came Chef, which was written by someone (Adam Jacobs) who was pissed off at Luke because he felt entitled to 100% of his time. This was an incredibly dramatic exchange, Puppet Issue #1010 (I can't seem to find any of the old tickets anymore). Adam was making bank off of Puppet consulting, Luke was barely scraping by.

So Chef came along, it was supposed to bridge the gap between Puppet and developers. It was also garbage, but after a few years you could sort of kind of do real development on it.

Then we got Ansible, meh. Salt Stack which was more for managing api driven saas infrastructure but had/has a lot of the bad architectural decisions made by Puppet.

Now we have Terraform, which is OK, but also garbage. On top of that there's the Terraform CDK, which sort of lets you code, but is really just a golang-like DSL that generates HCL or Json. We also have Pulumi, which like the TFCDK, is a golang-like DSL that .. generates HCL to be run by Puppet.

All of this garbage because Luke felt that Sysadmins couldn't code.
It is true, though, that ministers and government scientists did express concerns that the situation might have got much worse than it has [...] But there was a reason why the figures were put forward so publicly. It was, in part, to influence behaviour.

Takeaway: government statements are generally not true but instead intended to modify behaviour. End result, no-one believes government health statements, anti-vax fruitcakes thrive.

Very short-sighted approach
If the company involved has been wound up (rather than bought out) I'd guess it would be fairly safe. Who would sue, after all? I am not a lawyer. Or since this is UK, "I am not a solicitor" :)
These techniques (partially) work because this is a somehow selected community. YT has a much more chaotic participation: already downvoting there has little foundation ("classroom: one teacher, thirty pupils...").
This sounds technically interesting but ethically dubious; also requires sign-up - even though free - which (I think?) is discouraged for Show HN.

If you are able to show how this service is administered responsibly with due regard for those running websites and blocking for good reason, best of luck with it.
Ban stupid comments such as "FIRST!!!" or similar shitposts.
Well the folks at Credit Suisse aren’t perfectly rational beings either, it’s totally understandable why they behaved like that, most folks would engage in wishful thinking when staring at a multi billion dollar loss that hasn’t been realized yet (several hundred times their compensation).
I guess you can sort-of use design-by-contract and call it an alternative?
Don't Rush to Adopt QUIC
The American culture may have worked in an in office environment where you have a lot of body language and non verbal cues to recognize that the "confrontational" behavior is actually supposed to lead to positive results. Besides, meeting in an office, and getting lunch with your colleagues nearly every working day and going for happy hour every week or so means that your relationship isn't defined by the confrontational experiences. How well will it work in a "remote first" environment where you rarely/never meet your colleagues outside the work environment and don't have non verbal cues, and your confrontational behavior simply make teammates uncomfortable isn't clear yet.

On the other hand, organizations are well aware of certain cultures being non confrontational, and have done a lot of work in actually helping them speak their mind without being confrontational. Pre-pandemic when I became a manager, my company provided me with a ton of training on structuring meetings and brainstorming sessions in a way that encourages everyone to participate.

There's a very good argument to be made that in a remote first environment the "confrontational" culture would lose out, whereas the "non-confrontational" culture, which can easily be worked around through a variety of management techniques, will work much better.
The techniques work here because downvotes actually work. Downvotes on YouTube don't do anything.
For me, some combination of it, my Mac, and the software my IT organization runs made it so my Mac wouldn't boot, for one side of anecdata. My experience with the app wasn't as bad as some others here, but I'd much rather use something lightweight (and a multitasker) like Hammerspoon over running their app all the time. It also feels way more natural to me to configure it with a script that I can move between machines, where I wasn't able to find a good way to share config between computers with their software (but admittedly didn't try hard). My deck is connected through a KVM, and it's nice for it to work the same way between my two computers.
So... Streisand effect an accident that makes this capability more prevalent and disturbing?

OR

Streisand effect intentional to make this so common that it no longer draws attention
Ready-Made vs. Custom Financial Management Software
Not at all. Things like CFEengine (1993) and even Puppet predates a spread of "devops" term. Not mentioning tools for automated system installations, embedded in distributions like RedHat or Debian.

Creating a tools, that allows us doing a simple, repeatable and - usually - automated tasks, always was an important part of sysadm role. Of course, there were ones that did everything manually and wasn't able to write own code: we called them "operators".

From my point of view: "devop is that hasty one, that doesn't care about long-term support of underlying infrastructure".
> How does a single server protect you against someone in your DC pulling a plug

That’s why you have redundant power supplies with separate power cables.
I mean, for decades you couldn't swear on TV (and still can't), so I feel like there's a "technically legal to possess, but illegal to send on the internet" avenue.
> Because they’re pleasant to look at.

The article mentions cinder blocks ("CMU") -- those are not typically pleasant to look at. Even the ones that are less unpleasant are usually covered, with sidings or paint.
If you're hurting a real person by making naked pictures of them against their wishes, that should be what the law prevents. No matter what tricksy means you do it with. Whether it's photo manipulation, AI, or really skilled photorealistic oil painting, is immaterial.
Those vendors used to have UNIX versions and gave up on them, and some of them still do have a GNU/Linux version, only to keep a bunch of very important customers happy, otherwise they would have given up already.
We are trained to discard certain thoughts and phrases simply by conditioning. If one desires to intellectually stretch oneself a bit, it is often illuminating to take the opposite position.

Can you perhaps think of any argument, any angle where "McCarthy was right"?
Apple is not going anywhere, but they can terminate your account on a whim:

https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/04/20/man-sues-apple-fo...

So has Google, and presumably the other platforms as well.
The bull case for axie infinity and the metaverse
If a real user can access the content then that user should be able to delegate the work to a machine.
Yes, but similarity is not uniquely owned... 2 people may have resemblance and one may have given consent. Does the other have a right to demand consent too?

Hypothetical example: A person who happens to look like Boris Johnson (PM of UK) consents to a nude depiction. Does the image require the consent of all other people who have resemblance to Boris Johnson, including Boris Johnson but also extending to people elsewhere on Earth that don't know him but definitely look like him?

If yes... then you have lost control of right on your appearance because now the rights are collectively owned by anyone with a resemblance.
And yet the economy of the western world is heavily dependent on trading with nations such as China.
Well unfortunately it doesn't get better than that, except when working as remote you can lie on a sofa or bed. After a full day you still have full energy to do optimal amount of physical exercise, just enough (which is relatively little) to stay in optimal condition without destroying your body.
What's the purpose of human observers on either end? Just hook up some measurement devices and let them write the paper and publish it for other measuring devices to read.

Kidding aside, the overall point was putting macroscopic objects in superposition, be it mechanical or biological, might yield opportunity for new experiments.
“Entrepreneurs are not at all like ordinary businessmen. An entrepreneur who is not in trouble closes no avenues, keeps a lot of balls in the air, and will never tell you the whole truth when a half-truth will do. An entrepreneur who is in trouble will lie, cheat, and steal. He will smuggle cocaine or ship bricks. We should never measure an entrepreneur by the standards of a rock-solid businessman.” — attributed to Kenneth Rind[1]

[1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=MQvGc8Ee1SsC&pg=PA137&lpg=...
> should be required to design their products to stop this happening.

How?

How are you going to stop people from sharing images of what your software produced?

There might be more context to this quote but is insane how out of touch lawmakers often appear to be with respect to technology. Just look at all of the cookie banners plastered with dark patterns which completely nullify the idea behind them.

How do we create working legislation for technology?
There are lot of look-alikes in the real world.

I wonder whether saying that you based your nude on Joe Smith who you got consent from, would count as a defense? Even if Joe Smith happens to look like some celebrity that you didn't get permission from.
> If an image is 100% generated, from whom should consent be obtained?

This isn't talking about 100% generated content. It is talking about instances where apps (either automated examples like the one named or photo editing suites) are used to manipulate an image of a real person to make it look like they are naked.

Would you want a convincing an image of yourself in your birthday suit out there?

Or to take it a bit further, if that image that makes it look like you attended a party with Trump & Epstein in such a state?

Even if it were possible to argue no privacy had been invaded because that isn't really the person's naked form, there is the potential reputational damage to consider, both professional and personal.

Obviously fake nudes have been a thing for a long time, even convincing ones, but the issue was limited by an amount of time and/or skill being required. The newer tech available in certain apps today makes it very easy to make truly convincing images.
Yes, you are correct. I am responsible for the messaging on blues.io and I agree with you, we could do a better, more full job explaining.

We are working through the final elements of a website revamp right now. I chose to update the whole site, rather than do it piece by piece so please accept my apology.

If you comment to this thread, I'll circle back and let everyone know when the site is updated and you can tell us what you think about it.
Exposure to smallpox wiped out populations in two continents from no prior exposure. The quoted “not necessarily” isn’t a ringing endorsement. Chickenpox is another example of early exposure/vaccine or very bad things happen.
Are these images 100% generated, or are they generated from a "seed" image with the express intention to emulate a likeness with that original image such that the generated image is intended to be indistinguishable from the original subject of the original image? (Note: art is not under the microscope here, a computer program is.)

I think your second sentence trips back into the distinction the parent comment is making. When people post themselves nude, no one cares (barring some specific contexts); but, if someone posts a picture of you nude without your consent, then you probably care and consider it a violation of your privacy. The question of whether nudity is permitted is not really at question. What is, is whether computer programs that generate nude images for express purposes of making the real or generated image indistinguishable from a self-posted image is a violation of consent and privacy laws.
Identical twins might be another example. What happens if one twin wants to make money selling adult content, and the other twin does not consent?
Hmm. This sounds like a modern day amish :) i guess some sort of tiling window manager could better suit it
Morally? Yes.

Practically? No.

Artificially cheap fossil fuels and active lobbying retarded earlier development of alternative energy sources. Which meant there was no energy alternative for those customers to buy.

Which ultimately unfolds into the "How much is the fossil fuel industry responsible for taking actions to protect itself and increase its profits?" debate.

And while that's certainly a question with a lot of valid answers, the answer definitely isn't "not at all."
That happened pre-pandemic, too. Some people hate going to the doctor, others are trying to avoid paying their deductible for what turns out to be something benign, etc. Confirmation bias may also be at play.

It'll be a while before we know the impact in a data-driven rather than anecdote-driven fashion.
also its a cultural thing. if i make AI that turns political figures into burglars, that's legally okay.

But something about nudity makes it different.
Accidental, of course. There is never a need to introduce latency in text delivery, simply a long line of unmitigated wants.
After he left, all his cups commits to Apple's public CUPS repo stopped[1] and his work continued in the OpenPrinting fork of CUPS[2]. Interestingly though, it seems he resumed committing to the Apple repo in March. I'm glad CUPS on macOS isn't going to be left behind, but I'm curious what happened there.

1. https://github.com/apple/cups/graphs/contributors
2. https://github.com/OpenPrinting/cups/graphs/contributors
That implies the immune system is more like a library.