skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The comments in this whole thread point on a severe lack of understanding around labor laws and ethics. At the same time it attracts the archetypal free-market laissez faire pseudo intellectual.
Hmm maybe "positive view" is the wrong approach. I think "impossible to not have a negative view" is better wording.

Indiffernce is generally how I feel about a lot of companies.

My perspective on Amazon is negative.
Sandstorm itself is updated at least once a month:

https://github.com/sandstorm-io/sandstorm/blob/master/CHANGE...

A few of the apps get regular updates, but admittedly a lot of them have gone stale. Sandstorm's security model makes it so that this isn't a security risk in the way it would be on other platforms, but it's certainly disappointing if you're looking for the latest versions of apps.
I would challenge the need to track partial completion. A well-crafted item in a checklist is either done or it is not.

If your concern is about indicating that you started something and are now waiting on results, then I would argue that there are actually 2 separate items there ("do the thing" and "receive the results").

The problem with a "partial completion" indicator is that it doesn't really tell you anything about how much of the thing is still left to do. You'll have to think about it when you come back to it, which you will do anyway if you simply leave the item unchecked.
People here forget another big problem with far-future oriented thinking is that's it's almost impossible to predict anything about the future, especially the fat future. We don't know if there could be a superintelligent evil Ai. We don't know if there could be 10^54 humans
If you see slave labor, then you have an obligation to report it to your local authorities, but we all know your claim is baseless.

The argument is a nice collection of words that unfortunately might buy you some "street cred" or should I say give a "woke" status with your liberal college associates. This type of carefully constructed dog whistle of a comment will “level up” your points here on this echo chamber that has become Hacker news. What is amusing is when placing those words in a sentence they fail to make a valid argument. The sheer fact you used the word “immutable” clearly shows the limitation of your vocabulary. “Immutable” in a conversation about race? Somebody learned a new vocabulary word and took a break from their (python) code and posted a comment on Hacker News.

Now that I have successfully wasted my time getting drawn into a senseless debate, admittedly of my own creation. I should probably check on my AWS servers and maybe later today I will order something on Amazon, well because it allows me to spend more time with my family instead of tracking down some sprinkler parts at 5 different Home Depot burning up a bunch of fossil fuels. But as will nobody reading this comment, thread or Vice article, I won’t be canceling my AWS account or prime account because of the terrible injustices of one NLBR violation that a security officer committed at an Amazon warehouse.

Wasn’t it Kennedy, who said: “Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death”.
I'm not sure who wrote this, but....ohhh boy:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homomorphic_encryption

I'm not sure how the author jumped to the conclusions they did, but they show a severe misunderstanding of the applications of homomorphic encryption
The alternative is having formal employment contracts. I work for the employer for a fixed term. If I choose to leave before that term is up, I have to pay a penalty to the employer. If the employer chooses to fire me they have to pay me a penalty. The exact amount conditions of the penalty are specified in the buy-out clause of the contract.

This is universally how people with actual leverage (i.e. high performing athletes, Fortune 500 C-level execs, etc) get paid.
Point of order, that would likely be offensive pass interference.

A more common scenario is the defensive team commits an offsides penalty. This is essentially a free play for the offense since they can take the penalty if anything goes wrong, but if they're able to advance the ball a significant amount, they can decline the penalty.
I find it weird that this attitude change might be recent. As early as 2015 people were writing about what a pressure cooker Amazon's white-collar workplace is[1]. I also had acquaintances who worked there and reported that it's a pretty punishing environment as early as 2008. I guess it takes 10+ years for this kind of perception to permeate?

[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/mgbzbx/at-amazon-employees-t...
I like a lot of the ideas, even though they are a little disorganized.

Thought #1: I like the distinct recognition of benefits from "Building for yourself" and "Build for the margins".

But I don't think they are disjoint. No matter how "majority" someone is on some dimensions, we all have frustrations we share with smaller groups.

Thought #2: I liked the thought of designing for the ALL the marginalized in a given product area.

Designing for any small underserved market is a great place to start. But keeping in mind all the underserved around an existing market is a good way to narrow down initial solutions to ones that could eventually serve the maximum underserved people.

It is a good way to develop branding as the solution for everyone, despite starting with the few.

From a competitive standpoint, surrounding a big market from many underserved territories not only results in a Moore versatile product, but also sets up victory against incumbents before they see it coming.

Thought #3: I also like the idea of consciously serving traditionally sidelined groups or other minority groups with frustrations besides those that you are initially aiming to address.

For starters, almost any focus is good focus when starting out.

But beyond that, society is transitioning from one majority vs. many minorities, to a collection of a great many minorities. So thinking about market segmentation beyond obvious product segmentation will serve any company (and its prospective customers) into the future.
Worth noting that this tactic is risky, especially at smaller companies. A lot of managers might get you the raise to avoid immediate disruption, while assuming you're out the door in a few months and acting accordingly. You might suddenly find yourself frozen out of desirable projects.
I like your view. The thing is people are constantly resume building these days. And that resume is never done. You get a good job? Wouldn’t it be great if you got your name on a couple of cool things in your new place? After that returns start diminishing and people are quick to leverage and move on.

I came to CA hoping to find mad coders lost in thought of their projects. All I see are career athletes
NYC to Require Proof of at Least 1 Dose Indoors at Restaurants, Gyms and More
>I talked mostly to startups between 10 and 400 people, but the problem I heard from most leaders was "if they are thinking about leaving, fuck em, they are dead to me already". I tried to reason with them, but it was fought as if held like religious belief. I mean if it's your baby they are unhappy with, I guess you can get defensive and maybe you are still in a scrappy mindset, but it was a bit frustrating for me as my idea was not hitting very well :/

I've seen HR on several places referring employee changing companies as "treason", not only casually but on internal communication. So with that framing, and the expectancy of employee loyalty, I wouldn't expect retention to be a high priority.
Thank you for the reply! It is appreciated.
Envy runs very high on the internet.

You will now see "psychiatrists", "judges", "moral priests", condemning Elon's behavior. They are mostly driven by envy and greed.

Elon is a driven person that can be temperamental when things don't get done. If that's not your style you don't have to work with him. He didn't cross any lines and at the end his company has been extremely successful to everybody's benefit.
I worked for a company where devs would rebel because teams were partly re-shuffled at the beginning of a new year! I guess people are different.
He was trying to get a job done and Musk was interfering for attention. His response was warranted.
> Where are the actual counter-arguments in the article?

It doesn't appear to attempt to make actual arguments.

I think the article's mostly just an emotional appeal. I'd speculate that the argument-like content is meant as flavoring, to make the raw emotionalism less unpalatable.
I was referring mostly to the suggestions that attempted to justify this behavior by saying the targets are "bad companies."
Yes but in most circumstances, quick security is better than linear security; not sure about bubble security though.
They may suck at building containers, but this also sounds like a release management issue. Both the producers and consumers of the release need a test suite to validate the new artifacts before they can make it into a pipeline to eventually deliver to a customer use case. (But also they should 100% not be copying random binaries)

For what it's worth I've seen worse from corporations. Bad hires lead to bad systems.
GaN is a type of MOSFET, which is the high power transistor at the core of all modern power supplies.

By choosing GaN, the MOSFET can be switched quicker without wasting too much energy as heat. That in turn means all other components (capacitors, inductors) can be made smaller in the same ratio.

The end result is modern GaN technologies allow someone to make a 30 watt power supply in the same physical space that a 5 watt power supply from 2005 took.
I've been using Excel on and off for years and had no idea that tables were a thing. I just assumed the entire sheet was a "table".
This is probably very dependent on the exact role and field, but o see your point.
They are attacked because they are committing blasphemy against the church of climate change.

There is no threshold for blasphemy, even the tiniest one must be punished and made an example of so that others don't get any ideas that blasphemy will be tolerated.
Hence, they point out that focusing on superintelligence gets you a way bigger bang for your buck than, say, preventing people who exist right now from contracting malaria by distributing mosquito nets.

The article seems to push for a narrative that effective altruism encourages ignoring current problems in favor of Super Science Future Hooey, but this quote brings up something important.

Mosquito nets are one of the most often suggested effective interventions in EA circles. Highly rated organizations like the Against Malaria Foundation focus on them. It's been one of GiveWell's top charities for a long time: https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities

There are people who consider themselves effective altruists concerned with existential risks, however the article focuses on one logical extreme of analysis:

Well, just crunch the numbers: 0.00000000001 percent of 1023 people is 10 billion people, which is ten times greater than 1 billion people.

While you do sometimes see analyses like these, they're more often used as intuition pumps and in stress testing ethical frameworks than anything else. If someone were to try to use something like the above in an argument, it would likely just become an unpersuasive Pascal's Mugging.

In reality, you can make an overwhelming case for paying attention to existential risk while valuing 'potential' lives at precisely zero. It turns out that 'everyone who exists now, dies' is pretty bad, and many of the potential existential threats have nonnegligible probability. Civilizational threats are even more likely, and still extremely bad.

Articles like this would make sense to me if the government was preparing to throw trillions of dollars at speculative 'longtermist' problems based on low probability/high impact arguments, but they're not. Instead, we see massive underinvestment even given a valuation of potential humans at zero.

I want to avoid a path where effective altruism- which, at its core, is just people trying to do a better job of doing good, through many different paths- becomes some political football or ammunition in a culture war. This kind of article seems to be really trying to do that.
> if you’re careful it’s absolutely fine and it’s no worse than the other cables out there

That's clearly false, and feeling the need to include "if you're careful" in your statement exposes its falseness. No other major manufacturer makes power cables that chronically disintegrate like this so much that it has become a meme specifically about Apple's cables: https://imgur.com/AVP6riy

Not unsleeved. Disintegrated. It's because the material they use is soft and extremely undurable, unlike literally every other major cable manufacturer.

Apple's cables, and _nobody_ else's, do this when even the slightest amount of angle is applied: https://i.imgur.com/seu0xh8.jpg

Look closely at the circled part. That bulge is caused by extremely soft sleeve material that isn't bonded to the internal wires combined with inappropriately abrupt strain relief. That bulge is why Apple cables disintegrate so often, and even just the downward force of gravity from a laptop being on the edge of a table with the power cord dangling off the side onto the floor is enough to cause it over time.
The only cables that ever broke for me with less than 12 month use has been Apples, which I subject to same treatment as other devices, frequently Apple devices weren't even used as primary. I've since switched over to universal magnetic adapter heads and braided, magnetic charging cables with 90 degree heads.
Great work! I'm a big fan of this idea, and as others have mentioned, it's a little reminiscent of the promise of VRML back in the day. Or even of PlayStation Home or Second Life, but more accessible, since it's right there in your browser.

I've seen some comments about the performance, and I just wanted to comment that I just tried the site out on an old Chromebook Acer R11 (Celeron N3150) and while the perf on the opening environment is a little bit hitchy, the Balloonski room for example ran perfectly well. Little machines are capable of a whole heck of a lot these days! Even in the browser!

Nice work!
> 90% of their assets are tied up in stocks that they're not gonna sell soon.

How is that at all relevant? Name one thing any of them cannot buy just because the vast majority of their wealth is invested. Bezos was putting a billion a quarter into Blue Origin - yes that's a small percentage of his wealth but there's no reason to assume more money would have gone faster.
As soon as somebody from the upper crust person seems likely to be guilty of breaking a law, they law stops being one that is criminal to break. Historically, most laws were to protect the aristocracy from unhappy and desperate commoners. Even the bail system is based on keeping the poor locked up but letting the affluent go home, since the poor are considered the dangerous ones

Steal a chocolate bar? Jail. Poaching in the kings forest? Death. Caught with drugs without a lawyer? Jail and possible death depending on the jail conditions

Manipulate an election via gerrymandering or lose a million peoples life savings in crooked finance deals? Dumping dangerous chemicals in the local river/lake? Editorial in that weeks paper about how that person should feel bad, plus a bonus
I disagree. The article argues that putting things in term of the "existential" distracts from immediate problems - for example, if climate change can be terrible risk but still not an existential risk. And more broadly, you see the argument extrapolate to an almost purely hypothetical future evades discussion of real risks in the present.
The progressive young Americans behind the Occupy Wall Street movement in 2011 have now become artists, journalists, marketing people etc.

They now wield enormous social and cultural power and judging by twitter most of them still hold very anti-capitalist and anti-billionaire views.

Maybe it's time for Musk and Bezos to leave America. Buying a dying newspaper will not undo a whole generation of Americans' hatred for capitalism and billionaires. A hatred that has now reached almost comically hysterical levels.
And how is that air moving from the upper surface to the lower surface of the wing? is it magically permeating the wing surface? Keep in mind that the vast majority of the pressure differential comes from upper surface suction rather than a pressure increase on the lower surface. At shallow angles of attack there is often little or no increase in pressure on the lower surface; nevertheless lift is produced. Your simplification does not adequately explain this, as addressed in the section of the article subtitled: "Turning on the Reciprocity of Lift"

> Nevertheless, there are at this point only a few outstanding matters that require explanation. Lift, as you will recall, is the result of the pressure differences between the top and bottom parts of an airfoil. We already have an acceptable explanation for what happens at the bottom part of an airfoil: the oncoming air pushes on the wing both vertically (producing lift) and horizontally (producing drag). The upward push exists in the form of higher pressure below the wing, and this higher pressure is a result of simple Newtonian action and reaction.

> Things are quite different at the top of the wing, however. A region of lower pressure exists there that is also part of the aerodynamic lifting force. But if neither Bernoulli’s principle nor Newton’s third law explains it, what does? We know from streamlines that the air above the wing adheres closely to the downward curvature of the airfoil. But why must the parcels of air moving across the wing’s top surface follow its downward curvature? Why can’t they separate from it and fly straight back?
But HR sees it as a way to prevent a subpar employee from escaping the natural HR process. The fact that you have not been informed yet is just a failure of current management to follow process, but does not obsolve you of your subpar performance. HR is there for the company, not for you.
At my company the head of security is also the chief programmer. Not sure if that's a good thing but he's got 30 years experience and likes to tell war stories.
I found that over the years, the primary problem with Golden Delicious in my area is that in the stores, they are always still partially green. They pick them too soon, ship them green, and they never fully ripen properly.
Can someone give an example of why it's bad? I sincerely don't understand.

Even though the model may know, it doesn't have to tell the radiologist.

Furthermore, isn't this just a symptom of 'we're all sick, but different ethnic/social groups have different bodies/manifestations of diseases'?

The only thing I can readily understand to be dangerous is for these models to be trained only on white men, and subsequently used on everyone else, but this is a classic problem (train on X, apply on Y which is actually completely different) , not only in medical science.

Edit:I have read the blog post, and paper. I really don't understand the panic/urgency.
This just isn't true. Find me any data that any level of performance results in better compensation than changing jobs every 2-4 years and I'd be willing to at least consider the idea, but it just doesn't exist.
> Maybe that 'driver' shouldn't be behind the wheel in the first place

That particular driver, no. What about a medical condition?

The moon thing is funny but was that unsafe? There's also the truck that was carrying traffic lights.

Edge cases. Humans make even worse decisions daily, nobody cares but people still die.
It would be interesting to get a real expert's explanation of how the ways the Nintendo Switch violates the USB specifications leads to third party docks sometimes frying consoles, or maybe an explanation of how phone manufacturers can charge batteries at absurd C rates without killing them.
Only film I ever shot was disposable 35mm and the older 110mm. Nothing to be adjusted to get your Cloudy 11 or Sunny 16. The one I do use in dslr world is Rule of 500 for astro stuffs. I'd say now to just ensure shooting RAW so you can adjust the white balance in post. Camera defaults for cloudy are just too cool to me.

(I'm never one to shy away from answering obvious rhetorical questions in a joke)
Yes and no. There are certainly people who want to work at FAANG companies no matter what. However it isn't close to the same degree as a company like Blizzard.

A simple way to look at it is whether people would do that job for free. Lots of people make video games, act in local productions, or play sports for free. Doing that as a career is a dream. Not very many people have a hobby writing adtech software. This leads to better compensation and treatment for FAANG workers when compared to the video game industry because the job is inherently not as desirable.
> So people whose roles are limited to providing products (such as software developers) are not affected by this rule.

If you can classify software development as providing a product and not a service then miners can certainly make the same argument regarding the data they produce. More easily, in fact, since they have no particular business relationship with the entities blindly submitting transactions to the network. Software developers are routinely involved in maintenance and support contracts, or producing new software to spec, which is more of a service than a product.

The exchanges will be covered, of course, but they're so buried in onerous KYC/AML requirements already that they may not notice any difference.
That’s the goal. You want them to end up as trash. It’s not cost effective to recycle it, and if it were, that would lower costs and create more pollution.
> So what you are saying is, they are holding it wrong?

People love to dunk on that Jobs quote, but he was right. If you took the iPhone 4, wrapped your whole hand around it, and squeezed hard, you could make the bars drop. If you held like a regular cell phone, it worked fine.

As proof I offer the fact that the iPhone 4 sold very well for years, even after Apple ended their free bumper program. I had one (sans bumper) and the reception was fine.
> Everyone knows it's not actually full self driving.

So "FSD" doesn't actually mean "Full Self Driving" then? So this is not deceptive advertising then by Tesla Inc.? I'm assuming that you also have known that FSD was also advertised as 'Full Level 5 Autonomy' by Tesla Inc. as well which was due for completion in 2020 or early 2021? [0]

Where are the 'robotaxis' that was advertised and due for 2020 then? [0] So you are admitting that Tesla Inc. deliberately mislead its customers then?

[0] https://www.motortrend.com/news/tesla-autonomous-driving-lev...
Radio Direction Finding came up the other day, and that's one of the uses for something like this. Along the same lines, there is a project out there to provide an "off the shelf" coherent RTL-SDR receiver array:

https://www.crowdsupply.com/krakenrf/krakensdr

That being the successor to KerberosSDR:

https://www.rtl-sdr.com/ksdr/

Looking forward to getting my hands on a KrakenSDR later this year, hopefully.
Color Fonts
Do you know if varnish's request coalescing allows it to send partial responses to every client? For example, if an origin server sends headers immediately then takes 10 minutes to send the response body at a constant rate, will every client have half of the response body after 5 minutes?

Thanks!
HTTP/2 prioritization is a lot of hype for a theoretical feature that yields little real world performance. When a client is rendering a page, it knows what it needs in what order to minimize blocking. The server doesn't.
>> This aerial acrobatic resembles a falling leaf and may be used to avoid avian predators or a long, slow descent over an area where hunters for sport or food are present.

Reminds me of a description I heard from a DEA pilot of the combat landings they would pull in Colombia.

https://www.businessinsider.com/a-c-130-pilots-view-of-a-com...