skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I’m an American ADHD patient. My doctor made me (and his other patients) come in on random weekends for drug tests. He said the DEA made him report his records.
Security Holes in Deere, Case IH Shine Spotlight on Agriculture Cyber Risk
I can.

In most ecosystems, I can share package sources between a VM and a host.

npm shares mutable content (eg compiled artifacts) with package sources in `node_modules`. That breaks a ton of workflows that are common in other ecosystems.

For instance, in ruby apps using bundler, I can commit my dependencies in vendor/cache; there are no network dependencies other than fetching the source code. That makes turning code into a running server faster and more reliable.

Go supported the same thing from v1 via GOPATH (because that's how google runs their repo). Commit your dependencies and carry on (go had different shortcomings in dependency management in those days).

This feature turns things like `left-pad` from a fiasco into a non-event.

Also, it took npm years to implement a lockfile, only for most npm commands to disregard it. I used to frequently get versions other than the one I wanted. It's been ~6 years since I switched away so it may have improved since then. After my experience using npm I fundamentally do not trust the brand, and until yarn screws up I have no reason to give npm another chance.
Bolt-on forks and trailer ball receiver for front loader bucket. I use these just about everyday, to lift, move, and position stuff. Would not be able to live where I live at my age without them.

Wood door shim to scrape food cooked onto pans. Free and gets off stuff scrubbies won't, without scratching the s** out of a pan using a metal one. Saves ruining wooden spoons doing the same thing.

Battery powered, brushless motor chain saw: i'm worn out before using up two lithium batteries, and get a lot more done with not expending energy pulling on a 2 cycle engine. Same for weedwacker, brush cutter and pole saw. Keep it sharp, works fine for this semi retired farmer, even after sitting idle all winter.
I have some with Apple 30-pin, micro-USB, and mini-USB.
Yes. You check out a book in Libby and tap “read with kindle.” Then it shows up in your kindle library like any other book.
Honestly, I'm not sure what you expected, given the intersection of the venue, the topic at hand, and the inescapable stereotypical nature of the adherents of both. You're lucky your karma is still a positive value with no imaginary component...
They're not invading the users' privacy. They have to comply with a lawful government order. This is allowing them to do that without violating users' privacy.
Arguing against zero cost abstractions should use as a counter argument an abstraction that is advertised as zero cost.

I do not think wrapped types are so advertised.
I got one too and love it. CANARY Corrugated Cardboard Cutter from Amazon.
I stand by it too, as someone who drives a manual car that's older than I am and uses a film camera that's older than either of my parents. There's no point if it's not emotional.
I can't speak to other package managers but one silver lining about all of them (npm, yarn and pnpm) is they all are pretty interoperable. Between yarn and npm for example, I'm pretty sure they have virtually the same API so migrating from one to the other is a simple matter of using `yarn <command>` instead of `npm <command>`
Is there some issue with the cold water? If you live in a cold climate? Asking for a friend :D
Microsoft Sculpt Keyboard, Amazon Basics monitor arm, Electric Kettle, insulated coffee tumbler thing, leather jacket, coiled springy keychain to affix my house key to my pants.
As anyone who uses such a language could tell you, you get used to the symbols quite quickly, and commit their meaning into memory. For that reason I mostly view the heavy use of symbols in a programming language as a negative only insofar as it makes it intimidating to newcomers.

The only other thing can I find can be an issue with the heavy use of symbols in a language is that it can lead to a certain degree of inflexibility in the language. There are only so many symbols that can be used, and once they're all used up your options are either use normal variable names (and reduce the number of ideas that can be expressed concisely), or make symbols context dependent.

The designers of k went to some lengths to avoid the use of variable names, so some symbols are better than others in terms of clarity. Some mean the same thing everywhere, but others are heavily context dependent in an effort to reuse the limited amount of symbols they have at their disposal.

k is a great domain-specific language, but struggles at being a good general purpose language for a variety of reasons. I'd love to be able to use it for data processing inside of other languages. Let the other less expressive but more robust languages handle the control flow, library interactions, etc., and then run k code to work with data as vectors and tables. If only k supported n-dimensional arrays, then it'd be very interesting to see what it could do if integrated with something like Numpy, but I could spend all day wishing k was better than it is. I'm very happy with what it's able to do, and generally groan when I find myself having to use other less expressive data processing tools (which is practically everything).
From this Reddit thread -

https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/1ktjfi/deltav_map_of...
Same, but Anker cables with lifetime warranty. One dies and without much more than an email and I get a replacement.
Title should be changed to "Top 5% of Power Plants Account for 73% of Global Electrical Emissions" that way it stays under the character limit and is more truthful.
This looks nice! Is there a way to configure it to exclude certain categories of content (such as nsfw)? Do you tend to run this behind a proxy?
I doubt you’ll get an answer from a particle physicist.

The most important factors are energy per particle, number of particles, width of beam, and is it matter or antimatter. The most general case is it’s going to bore right through you, so cancer and heating is a lesser concern than the gaping hole.

A microwave beam is a different story, but again the specifics make a huge difference. A microwave oven isn’t going to do much though heating the eyeballs can cause issues. Cancer isn’t a serious concern, but boost the power enough and you can get serious and eventually fatal burns.
fuckin burn! damn
What are you gonna run your firmware/software on? It's not easy to find SOCs without proprietary firmware blobs _somewhere_.

I really like the idea of Bunnie Huang's Precursor, but its a fair way from retail availability still, and I doubt it'll be inexpensive enough to be able to convince enough friends to acquire one to make it any use socially.

I'm vaguely thinking of building a few devices with a TTGO TBeam and a Pi Zero, that can do medium range (1-10km-ish) LORA point to point and mesh networked shared-key encrypted comms to avoid touching the internet as much as possible, and that can provide (low data rate) mesh wifi bridges so other wifi devices can use the LORA mesh. Theres a project called Meshtastic that provides the bulk of that already on those TTGO boards, with a USB/serial/bluetooth API with some nice python example code. That'd still be "trusting" a bunch on non audible code on the TTGO and RasPi boards though.
Still, it's a very good point to make. We can have a huge impact globally and quickly by focussing on 5% of the plants.
I researched this pretty comprehensively, at least as a curious person in an armchair, and this is 100% correct.

There's one possible way it may pencil out, which is you gain some flexibility in terms of launch site. There's one company pursuing airplane based launches for this reason, but I'm still skeptical. Elon et all haven't had much trouble securing land for launch facilities.
Yes, it's evolved significantly. For example, plants expressing a Snf7-targeting double-stranded RNA to control western corn root worm are now commercialised. dsRNA does not have the toxicity issues associated with many synthetic and organic insecticides, and is far more specific (so doesn't impact on beneficial species). There are no additional applications of anything required for the effect.
I like the perspective offered here but I don't really think the author's perspective on the "leftward end of the climate activist movement" comports with my own experience. Most people I know that I'd bucket as such are eating ~vegan, driving less, stretching the lifespan of their built-to-break consumer goods and (this is the real litmus test in my opinion for upwardly mobile techies) seriously limiting when and why they fly.

Or maybe he's talking about "climate envoy" John Kerry and his private jet. At any rate I hope he meets some climate activists that he likes someday because this is a valuable addition to their conversation and a good antidote to some of the worst doom-and-gloom tendencies in those circles.
What an excellent read. His approach is very similar to how I have developed successful software for years. It scales from the smallest throw away code to the largest Enterprise system and is flexible/adaptable without 27 levels of empty abstractions.
glyphosate is safe. on it's own it's not carcinogenic. however, the supporting ingredients and solvents are very carcinogenic.
1. Stages

2. Adaptive rocket nozzles are a thing.
I think the energy deposited is almost all just from the kinetic energy of the particles.

The U-70 Synchrotron from the article produced 76 GeV protons. Electron-volts (eV) are a unit of kinetic energy. That works out to 0.012 microjoules per proton.

This was a pulsed machine, with a repetition rate of 0.11 Hz (9 seconds between pulses). In one pulse there were 1.7×10^13 protons. That adds up to about 200 kJ per pulse: About the same kinetic energy as a Toyota Corolla (1200kg) travelling at 65km/h.

As for exactly how the interaction would happen:

The particles would have bounced around the atoms in Mr Bugorski's head. They would lose energy I think mostly via interactions with atomic electrons. As they decelerated, they would also throw off Bremsstrahlung photons which would create a pencil-beam of x-rays. At that energy there would also be plenty of nuclear interactions which would tend to produce neutrons and prompt gamma rays.

Not all of the kinetic energy in the pulse would have been absorbed by Mr Bugorski's head. The energy deposited into a medium by a proton beam is described by the Bragg Peak. If you look it up, protons of ~200MeV would be almost entirely stopped by a human head (~20cm). But at almost 400 times that energy, I think a large fraction of the kinetic energy would just come out the other side in the form of neutrons, gammas, x-rays, and slightly slowed protons.
I agree in practice, but I think my point is to resist the dichotomy you are implying - that there is a "first hypothesis with little data"... vs ... the other ones..?

Isn't all our knowledge little knowledge - even if it seems like a lot? Wouldn't your advice apply equally as well to your most knowledgable topic?

The hard part isn't having knowledge, it's finding the hypothesis to show how your knowledge is little knowledge.

(Aside: I would love to hear the experiences you are forming your comment around! I'm sure there's a lot of interesting stuff there.)
you trust safety based on headlines?
Agree. It's easier to just go up and and hit someone in the head with a rock or knife them. But possibly harder for an untrained person to kill someone else like that, particularly with other people around. Guns make it easier to cleanly defend yourself, rather than having to rely on rocks or knives, but also easier to murder other people.

I think the self-defense and defense of the people against a tyrannical government is a worthwhile tradeoff, tho. And, apart from anything else, the 2A is the law, and even if the law is not always comprehensible to people, as long as it remains the law I believe it should be respected and protected. So there's that, too.

I think there's an argument to be made, too, for guns as a tool of true political feminism, in the sense that, if there is violence against women happening, guns 'correct the imbalance' of asymmetrical physical strength, giving women ability to defend themselves.

I have one extreme idea, tho. I think if a society allows guns, then every citizen of age, whether or not they own a gun, must undergo a gun training course. I don't think we should mandate everyone must own a gun...while that could work in theory, it seems too extreme, but I think everyone should be trained to understand and respect what guns can do.
That's fair although he's probably elected by a lesser of 2 evils situation and hasn't been targeted by a serious primary contender yet.
> Yes. It always has to have a much larger surface area in proportion to the weight it is carrying than any heavier than air craft, by definition.

What do you mean 'by definition'?

A heavier than air craft lifts with its surface. It has a relatively fixed surface area to weight ratio, no matter how big it gets.

A lighter than air craft lifts with its volume. The bigger you make it, the less surface area you have per weight.
New “Glowworm attack” recovers audio from devices’ power LEDs
The military haven't used airships since the 1930's because transatlantic aeroplanes rendered them obsolete. Not because of some military-industrial complex conspiracy.

Every couple of decades the DoD decides that blimps are back in fashion and throws millions of dollars into blimp projects. Inevitably they cancel the project and decide they don't want them. Admittedly they've all been helium, but the reasons for cancelation are usually related to capability and the intrinsic qualities of lighter-than-air flight, and not cost.

The past 20 years, they tried Integrated Sensor is Structure (USAF) [1]; Long-endurance, Multi-intelligence Vehicle (Army) [2], Blue Devil (USAF) [3], Walrus advanced technology demonstration (DARPA) [4], and a handful of other boondoggles [5].

If anything, the concept of viable airships in the 21st century is just a defence contractor gravy train.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Sensor_is_Structure

[2] https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2013-02-22/u...

[3] https://defense-update.com/20120529_blue-devil-2-airship-def...

[4] https://www.flightglobal.com/darpa-details-plans-for-ultra-l...

[5] Congressional Budget Office, "Recent Development Efforts for Military Airships" (2011) https://fas.org/irp/program/collect/cbo-airship.pdf
What is the story of pretty far? Did she find market fit and needs to scale? What kind of challenges is she facing?
I'm not a physicist or mechanical engineer and this is a genuine question - why would we not be able to reliably design anything if we only had statistical models? Empirical formulas are used in various places in science/engineering and seem to work well (with exceptions). As an example - would we not arrive at something like f = ma using statistics and then use it without really knowing why (or maybe all the implications of) f = ma?
Good point!

Off the top of my head Id have put it at a couple of years earlier than ‘89!

You think I’d know as I own one
Not exactly, but you can do a crazy 'sun dive' maneuver: https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1119/10.0002178

It takes advantage of two things:

1) The Oberth effect, where thrust is more effective the deeper you go into a gravity well

2) The thrust from a solar increases as you get closer to the Sun
I think we just have different definitions. It's about the "Directly"

You need a propeller to go Directly Downwind Faster Than The Wind as far as I know. I think on water it has to be very large. I expect there are other ways other than a propeller but haven't seen them.

A half way definition (This isn't DDWFTTW to me either), I'd like to know if an America's Cup boat could beat a balloon? So it would be allowed off the 'race track' but it has to come back to meet/beat the balloon at the narrow finish line. So it would cover a much larger distance than the balloon and still beat it to the finish line. Is this possible in practice?

The Veritasium video doesn't actually answer this, it kinda goes around it.

[edit] If it's symmetrical which it should be, as long as they are going downwind faster than the balloon, they just reverse it at the halfway point and get back inline with the balloon but ahead.
A “softer kind of MAD” isn’t MAD. The whole point is that there’s mutual destruction, and that it be assured and devastating. Just the fact that these attacks happen shows that it doesn’t follow the logic of MAD.

Considering the are attacks from Russian state-sponsored/run/tolerated groups against important US targets makes it more sensible to note how unlike MAD this battlefield is, even in contrast to, for example, conventional warfare, which isn’t core to the mechanism of MAD but has, in the past, been subject to the restrictions that follow from it.
> I don’t really take this as a language debate though.

It is when "burning" just means "fast reaction that creates something like a flame"... the vast majority of your post relies on a definition where it does not.

> That statement, no matter how you take it, leaves an assumption that other gases might burn like hydrogen without oxygen,

There are at least two ways to read this statement where that is incorrect.

One is to use the merriam-webster definition (see another one of my comments in this thread where I tracked that down) of burning (which includes things like H2O2 decomposing) instead of your definition.

The other is to include non-pure gasses, like a mixture of H2 and O2. Or if you somehow managed to vaporize gunpowder without it igniting.

A potential third is if you managed to make a chemical with an oxidizing agent on one end, and a reducing agent on the other... which now that I think about it sounds technically possible (if very difficult).

> And while I would agree that people do refer to fusion as “burning” I actually think this is a again a prime example of people not understanding the underlying physics.

Fusion researches call it burning, so with respect I think you're just wrong, they just understand the word burning to mean something other than what you do.

Consider also that things "burn up" upon re-entry from space (I'm sure anything oxidizable oxidizes, but mostly that means they vaporize), that you get rope burn, that ablative heatshields burn up, ... (I'm sure I could come up with more given some time)

> If we don’t communicate science effectively then we end up with conspiracies and pseudoscience. Words are tools. They should be used wisely.

I agree, but I think you are doing the exact opposite of what you want to to achieve this goal.

Redefining words so that they have a cleaner scientific definition makes it easier to talk about things precisely within the "in-crowd" who have accepted your redefinition. It confuses, annoys, and generally makes the "out" crowd feel stupid. That confusion makes it easier to get them to accept conspiracies and pseudoscience, making them feel stupid makes them less likely to listen to you (as a whole group) when you try and show them why they are wrong. This is counter-productive.

This is a common trend in "academic language", and I really think it does untold damage in peoples trust in these illiterate experts who keep insisting on facts that are simply wrong in the language called English that everyone else speaks (Peanuts are in fact nuts, Tomatoes are in fact vegetables and not fruits, and so on and so forth).
It's likely true, but quite probably even worse.

A friend here in NSW Australia told me some years ago, while working at one of the larger coal-fired power plants we have, that emissions are measured on only one of the four stacks, and the results are then extrapolated.

Obviously this was ripe to be gamed, which is precisely what happened. Good coal (black, low-emission, cleaner-burning) was used to power that turbine, the other three turbines got the low-quality / high-emissions brown coal.

Either way, studies like TFA rely on the accuracy of the data that different nation states collect and publish, and I seriously doubt the accuracy of much of those data.
I don't see the contradiction here?
If I understand what you're saying though, you would be in motion on the bike as the crosswind pushes against you- it takes a lot less force to shift your heading while moving forwards than if you were being blown sideways while stationary.

Unless I'm misinterpreting your statement- perhaps you have a hobby of riding in hurricanes, which would be rad. :)
Hm. The creator did label it "delta-v", but apparently they did mean "energy required by a simple rocket" instead.
Yes, but it still give initiative, time and effort to and organization that might work directly against them.
I carry a Nite Ize Doohickey but it's 90% box tape cutter and 10% bottle opener. Not sharp at all but I haven't tried flying with it.

https://www.niteize.com/product/DoohicKey-Multi-Tool.asp
A few seconds each day, unless you have a really bad or poorly maintained watch.
Most developers I know are obsessed with paper planners and carry their preferred model everywhere.
Just bought an iphone 12 a few years ago. Won't give that up. Probably will upgrade to a newer android brand next time, but not because of the privacy issues.
“Once the Picture Collection is relocated, its space in Room 100 will house administrators who were hired for educational outreach.” - inflation of administrative apparatus is a scourge of modern society. It is partially responsible for growing costs of education and healthcare.

One of my favorite dialogs in Yes, minister!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JAk448volww
The EU isn’t in the business of arresting the family members of criminals. We leave that to the Lukashenkos of the world.
A good start would be phasing out the top polluters ASAP.

The top ten most polluting plants were in Poland, India, South Korea, Taiwan, China, Germany, and Japan. South Korea has three coal-fired power plants among the top ten super polluters. India has two, and the other countries mentioned above have one each.
YC itself has a service for finding cofounders. I myself have not used it, but if she hasn’t taken a look it’s worth a mention: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27750298
that is the weakest form of nihilism. of course the state of the world has no deeper meaning. of course something will happen.

if you value things, then you have wishes and desires. if you consider people to be responsible for choices, you can assign value to actions and consequences.

some people don’t like devastation of the natural environment. if you understand yourself as part of the world, it feels a lot like self-harm.
If predators are bears then the U.S. National Parks Service cautions against this method, at least in Yellowstone. They claim it’s ineffective as they aren’t loud enough.
Paint Transformer: Feed Forward Neural Painting with Stroke Prediction
I think a lot of this is simply just IQ. People like me can’t pass interviews easily, and it’s a fucking nightmare.
The entire mathematical world realized how interesting the Collatz conjecture was as soon as it was put forward. And it took until 1937 when Euclid figured out most of geometry 2000 years ago.
traditional mail is under federal jurisdiction from mailbox to mailbox. For obvious reasons.
Storing files on a private company's servers is nothing like that whatsoever.
Doesn’t Google already scan for these CSAM photos?
Lecture notes available:

http://timroughgarden.org/notes.html