skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
My favorite thing about yarn is how it lights a fire under npm's ass to implement community requests.

But I don't actually want to _use_ yarn! More specifically I don't want to waffle my scripts, team, and keyboard habits btwn npm and yarn commands every time yarn has a new hot take on package management. Which is like, a lot.
Very good explanation. Thanks. I was thinking of some other contraptions to explain this (to myself mostly), but the glider->powered glider made it click. Even if it might not exactly how this vehicle work, at least it demonstrates a system that can obviously go faster than the wind speed.
>This is not a question of robustness of data.

Hard disagree. Especially when you double down on the Bayesian part. Robustness of data is directly proportional to the strength of a belief in Bayesian inference. Your point here reads as someone looking for confirmation bias. After finding one “commonality” of data, one can exclaim “Eureka” and not have to confront uncomfortable and conflicting data. That’s not good science.

>There has been plenty of credible scientific opposition.

A strong claim that should probably be backed up with citations. And balanced against the credibly of data against the claim. Because, after all, science is almost never in 100% agreement. There are still credible scientists who disavow the link between HIV and AIDs; would that be enough for you to roll the dice on that issue?

>What makes you so sure that physical reality is composed of particles.

Who said I am? Or, for that matter, that I believe fields and particles are mutually exclusive? This is another one of those seemingly purposeful digressions from the actual point of inference and precisely why I thought you were treading the well-worn tracks of misinformation tactics. In a similar vein, you never actually said what your bar for changing your mind is, you just redirected into attempts sowing doubt. So I’ll ask again, more directly: what information would you need to change your mind? My experience is that when people are unable to clearly articulate their position here, it’s because they are overly dogmatic and it almost becomes a faith issue rather than a reasoned one.

>In the meantime, a series of propaganda...

There's a certain amount of skepticism that is healthy but there is also a tipping point where one becomes so skeptical of everything that it just becomes more convenient to wear a tin-foil hat because one can never be 100% certain. To circle back, I think it's wise to go with the preponderance of data when in doubt and try as hard as we can to resist irrational bias.

>According to your view, which is biased...

Yes, every human view is biased to a certain extent. That's part of being human. Which is more to the point that it's better to err on the side of the data. Even if it flies in the face of what you want the conclusion to be. I'd encourage anyone to think outside the confines of one's worldview, but that maverick-i-ness doesn't absolve one from needing data to back it up.

>But. Just. Tax. Very credible.

This was read as a pragmatic argument and I don't find pragmatism to lack credibility. I’m not sure your point here; is your stance that taxes are immoral or illegal?

>Begging the question is "not appropriate"

(Not really begging the question in the literal sense of the phrase unless I'm failing to see the circular argument related to taxation) Bringing up a question is fine, but it came across more as making a statement without any actual convincing argument or data is not
I'm not even talking with you any more.

> Does the expression "anecdotal evidence" ring a bell to you?

Read the guidelines.

> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Actually thats inaccurate but wholly inline with the media BS. Schools cannot impose mask mandates without funding risk. You are allowed to wear a mask.
That and a Starlink not bound to a location - would be awesome. Would it be possible to live on such a ship?
Same answer for me. No social media apps.
>If only we didn't have widespread climte change denial and minimizing caused by their broken incentives caused by failure to caputre externalities, yes, we'd be a hell of a lot further along.

"a hell of a lot further along" is much more vague than the original claim of "responsible for the vast majority of warming". Furthermore, most of the climate change in the future is going to be caused by developing countries rapidly industrializing and getting richer. How much of that can be attributed to climate change denial?

>The cartels were used to outcompete all alternatives and bend governments to their will.

That doesn't sound like a cartel to me. Excerpt from wikipedia:

A cartel is a group of independent market participants who collude with each other in order to improve their profits and dominate the market. [...] Cartel behavior includes price fixing, bid rigging, and reductions in output.

>See 1979 for how just a 4% shock caused pandemonium.

It's unclear how that's due to cartels. Shortages during covid shows that a supply/demand shock in any essential commodity will cause pandemonium (eg. toilet paper, hand sanitizer, mask).
Nothing. It doesn't rank high in my list of things I am concerned about. It would be nice if there were other options to consider besides Android, as I don't really care it as an ecosystem.
Zettelkasten sounds very interesting. This might be what I am looking for. Thank you!
God, I've low-key been wanting to adopt a husky...
The two tasks are interconnected. The reasoning flows both ways.
According to the article, it's still there, but they just renamed it to .yarn.
Yes but the criteria for a warrant can be nothing more than reasonable suspicion. So a warrant could be issued for access to someone’s entire device regardless of whether objectionable content exists on it or not. Theoretically, a government could issue a warrant for every single person’s phone and get what they want. This prevents anything even close to that from happening because users aren’t required to provide the keys and Apple won’t have them unless that content matches what’s on the list.

On your second point, yes… that’s a very real possibility and one that I’m sure Apple has already considered and has responded to.
i might buy an iphone. i read the materials they published and think it's a fine bit of engineering that balances end user privacy with abuse management for their hosted service. they don't share hashes with anyone, in fact they never leave your device, takes about 5m to grok that.
You really don't have to. If you're subscribed to the mailing you just get an email every month or two. Most of the time it either won't apply to you, or it'll just be a nice-to-know. Every once in a long time (last time for me was 18 months ago) you'll actually have to remember for the next time you upgrade. Otherwise you can just upgrade and you'll be fine.

It's honestly incredibly low-maintenance. You just have to spend a relatively long time setting things up first.
Hot dang I forgot to actually add in the link and now it's too late to edit so here it is

[1] https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1wkF67ThUz37T2_oPIuS...
> The first one will almost certainly be noticed, and will be clearly illegal/violate contracts, and can therefore be identified and rooted out.

Well since they have made very detailed public statements about the limits of this system and. not letting it be misused, they would certainly be in violation of contracts if they did start misusing it.

> if you used the same mechanisms (but different types of matches)

What kinds of ‘different matches’ do you think this mechanism can be used to make?
Combinatorics is just counting but can be so hard finding the shortcuts
It seems like the "guiding parent" style is acceptable to you.

And yes, a phone - and the web and computing in general - are information weapons. Same as a knife or a hammer they have utility too which is great and also something to be lauded. But dangers must be recognised.

I won't trust Apple or Google to draw the line in the sand for me. Both the kid and myself will know what the expectations are and be talking about it the whole way through growing up.
I know American ADHD patients. None of them take drug tests.
I seem to recall something on HN a few months back where google wanted to require full names for FOSS code, but can't find it now. (If anyone remembers that I'd appreciate a link.) This smells like it's trying to do the same thing and let google try to attain the control over the foss ecosystem that it has over the web.
According to these guys, industrial process heat accounts for larger emissions than electricity and transportation: https://www.absolicon.com/

The nice thing is that it's easy to make heat with higher efficiency than going through electricity.
It could become a thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_diving
Examples of surveillance abuse could work for some, but I think the problem is that people don't feel it themselves that the privacy violation happens. No negative feedback at all, the cute device just slurps the data, and the badness, if ever, comes only much later. Just like people who gamble away their life savings in the curtained rooms of a casino.
I have used it on 16GB before, but currently I use it on Windows 10 with 32GB ram, SSD drive. It works very smoothly.
Snapchat is user disempowerment patterns taken to their logical conclusion: The developer has full access to all their data, while the users have none.

The other big players have been moving in that direction, making it less and less accessible and exportable, but Snap takes the cake.
Let's wait until the preprint is available, but just looking at the info it is not a randomized control group.

If someone arrives in the ambulance with 105°F and can barely breath and can't sign the paperwork, is s/he added to the trial group, the test group or excluded?

What happens if someone dies during the first 5 days?

Did the patients in the trial group receive any additional care? (For example in a recent study in Mexico, all the patients in the trial group got daily calls to check their health, but only some of the people in the control group got that.)

Were the patients in the trial and control group get the same level of hospital quality? (For example, if the trial group was in on of the big hospital in the capital city of the province, and the control group was in the smaller cities of the province, sometime the quality of the smaller hospitals is worse.)
I have always wondered how public sourcing like this prevents bad actors from spamming garbage and polluting the system? This issue is main reason my billion dollar idea hasn't happened yet.
I feel that the Business Insider title is really misleading and counterproductive; because Derek Muller is not 'a youtuber' -- he's a serious physics educator, with a PhD in physics education research, and with probably the best youtube channel (or any channel, in any medium) in the world for explaining physics content; which has been running for a decade; and with nods from multiple famous physicists IN THIS VERY VIDEO saying that he is the best that there is. So the claim that 'A youtuber bet a physicist and won' just makes it seem that experts are wrong, whereas in reality, this was expert vs. expert. That being said, physics is such that if 'some youtuber' bet a physicist, and was right... physicists would concede.
I honestly don’t want this. Each project having their own copy of the dependencies is a blessing.
"Who was based" surely?
Even then it's comparatively trivial to capture the carbon dioxide from steam reforming, as opposed to gasoline in a car.
Yeah this view that it's all pattern matching isn't too helpful. I find it more helpful to consider mathematics the art of generalization.

Discrete math is frequently about things with very little structure (e.g. graph theory, where you basically just have any binary relation), so inevitably ends up trying to prove things that are way too general. The flipside is that those theorems do tend to crop up everywhere.
I’d encourage you to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_mole-rat. They are awesomely bizarre creatures.
M. Kat Anderson's Tending The Wild details how the Yosemite indians warned Congress more than a century ago that it was a mistake to suppress fires in the national park and allow brush to build up on the forest floor. I can't find the exact passage, but the entire book is worth reading.

https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520280434/tending-the-wild
The Codd 1971 stuff on Wikipedia looks like a mess, and I think the original is propbably a bit crufty too (though I don't want to disrespect the old masters, SQL was a high water mark of business thinking about computing in many ways).

I would follow the citations of https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/lens+%28in+computer+science%29 instead. Whatever Spivack can say about this stuff I think is going to be much more worth your while.

Looking at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.03501.pdf now.
Nobody tell him about GPT-3, I guess…? How do you write this in 2021 and not specifically confront the evidence of what modern ML systems can do and have already done?
Same here, V90.0.2 Windows 10
Objection! Leading the witness.
This makes it sound like there aren’t entities out there who are interested in such solutions. If you have one that fulfills that need, I’m sure Apple and others are open to hearing it.
Same goes for problems in data structures and algorithms (read: hackerrank / leetcode problems)

Some people will recognize patterns pretty fast, while others must solve literally hundreds of different problems, before becoming comfortable with the concepts.

People always seem amazed and baffled that some candidates can practically walk into white-board interviews unprepared, other than what they learned / did in their DS&A classes in college, and nail the interviews, while others have to basically prep 6-12 months before passing the same interview.
The world has utterly lost its collective mind.
also Prowlarr
https://github.com/Prowlarr/Prowlarr
Applaud.

When I look at the alternatives (e.g., Facebook), I see pictures being stored in the cloud unencrypted, where they can be scanned for a match with the CSAM hashes.

Apple, on the other hand, is developing a system to scan for CSAM matches client side, in a way that allows pictures to be stored encrypted, and paving the way for full end-to-end encryption.

Assuming that scanning for CSAM is going to happen, which I'm generally in favor of, Apple's approach is more privacy preserving, and reinforces my happiness with their privacy direction.
Proven Ways to Lose Weight with No Diet or Exercise
Thanks. I tend to leave it abbreviated because it's always the top Google result!
This needs to change.
Is this Lil Dickey?
Although there's a slight difference in meaning, I prefer the term zeppelin to blimp.

fyi: the difference is in the frame construction. A zeppelin has a rigid frame that keeps it's shape if the gas is lost, whereas a blimp has a semi-rigid frame that will deflate if the gas isn't present.
"of every Belarusian citizen" - not only officials.

According to the twitter thread.
I've counted. 235 countries and territories. 30 are downright decreasing.

Plus:

> As of 2010, about 48% (3.3 billion people) of the world population lives in nations with sub-replacement fertility.[2] Nonetheless most of these countries still have growing populations due to immigration, population momentum and increase of the life expectancy

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility

That was back in 2010 and fertility rates are only going down plus Covid has accelerated this so I'm willing to bet real money 50%+ of the world's population is living in countries with net natural population loss due to low fertility rates.

These things are very localized, look at the world map on that page to see where this growth is concentrated.
Unpaywalled: https://archive.is/IhHOz
Maybe your computer science brain kicked in took a CA interpretation of the question once they mentioned a query. Eg:

Q: Are you a man or a woman?
A: Yes

Despite your interpretations of the article’s question. I bet you know which one is the more likely answer.
There is of course

{ var i: usize = 0; while (i != 10) : (i += 1) {
...
}}

I.e., you are not obliged to plaster on a newline after every semicolon. That is roughly as busy as the equivalent C++ loop,

for (auto i = 0u; i != 10; ++i) {
...
}

but syntax is syntax. You would be much better off with a function that takes a lambda, and pass the body as that lambda. In C++, a loop using that would look like

forloop(10u, [&](auto i) {
...
});

That's not a much shorter than the built-in, but leaves a lot less room for mistakes; i.e., if there was a typo in the built-in, it might be very hard to make yourself see it even knowing it must be there.

I can't find anything to suggest Zig has lambdas. That's a planet-sized hole, nowadays.

(BTW, forloop in C++ is just

template <typename Ix, typename Body>
void forloop(Ix top, Body&& body) {
for (Ix i{}; i != top; ++i) body(i);
}

In use it compiles to instructions identical to the built-in loop.)
I would still argue in these cases that the site shouldn't override the built-in keybinds. Maybe a custom search field/button, and maybe a custom keybind. But when I press Ctrl+F, I always want the same type of search to be initiated. Otherwise, there is no consistency, and efficiency suffers.
This article is interesting. “Hydrogen doesn’t explode without being mixed with air first then ignited” is a kind of funny statement. I read that as “hydrogen doesn’t explode outside of when it does”

I’d ask “was this written by a hydrogen sales team?” but it’d be mind boggling if it weren’t. The blaming of special interest groups right off the bat, and the blaming the lower-performing helium as the cause for a crash (that iirc, involved a leak so I’m not sure how that 8% difference could’ve saved everyone) are naked examples of sales speech.

“Maybe you’ll blow up! Who cares? You get 8% more lift and stick it to the uh, Bureau Of Mines”
> What happens when China announces its version of the NCMEC, which not only includes the horrific imagery Apple’s system is meant to capture, but also images and memes the government deems illegal?

This is the crucial part here. The means are there, apple can't say it's impossible to do so, the implementation is simple, and the consequences for individuals with winne-the-pooh photos are horrible.
This is why algorithmic and predictive policing is so terrifying. Everyone in the justice system now has a great way to shirk liability for their actions and decisions: they can just defer to the infallible black box system that tells them who is a criminal or not. Want to side step accusations of bias or targeting? They were just going after whoever the black box said was guilty, and computers purportedly are not biased.

The corollary to this shirking of responsibility is how it lets people, and not just law enforcement, justify abuse of whoever the system says is guilty of a crime, because after all, the company that made the black box says that there is a one in a trillion chance of encountering a false positive. Judges will throw the book at defendants because, statistically, the black box system is almost never wrong, and the system says the defendants are monsters.

But the most Kafkaesque part is that people will never get an answer for how these systems determined they were guilty. It's a trade secret, it's part of on-going investigations, it's critical to national security, or in Apple's case, it's literally illegal to look and find out how their system came to conclusion because viewing the data itself is a crime. These systems often inscrutable ML models, as well, and we all know just how buggy and error prone computers and software can be.
IANAPOSE (I am not a philosophy of science expert) but I think a happy medium is to observe, collect data, and look for things that are interesting, and then perform properly formulate experiments to test those hypotheses.

I think that focusing on either side alone can lead to biases and problematic science, and focusing on both is actually the most "fun"
I don’t really take this as a language debate though. It clearly is about the fact that people don’t understand what an oxidizer is at a chemical level.

Someone who says the following isn’t just using language inaccurately, it actually shows a fundamental misunderstanding of combustion:

> pure hydrogen doesn’t burn. It needs an oxidizer—like the oxygen in air.

That statement, no matter how you take it, leaves an assumption that other gases might burn like hydrogen without oxygen, which is again a fundamental misunderstanding of chemistry.

In addition calling something “self oxidizing” doesn’t make sense. There are always mixtures of fuel and oxidizers… whether those are gas and fuel, solid and fuel, mixed in gunpowder form, mixed as gasoline and air in a carburetor, etc. So if I supply you a balloon with the proper stoichiometric ratio of gasoline and air, is that “self-oxidizing”? If so then everything is self oxidizing.

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. Most people don’t understand how fusion works, so calling it “burning” is a lazy way to conceptualize what the sun is doing. Scientists will sometimes use “burning hydrogen” when talking about nucleosynthesis, but they assume the audience of other scientists understand the difference between combustion and fusion.

When articles like the original post are talking to the layperson in this manner however, it does nothing but lead to more scientific illiteracy. A perfect example is one of the above comments:

> There are rumours that because of this fact, that the Hindenburg disaster was not from natural causes.

If we don’t communicate science effectively then we end up with conspiracies and pseudoscience. Words are tools. They should be used wisely.
> I've purchased three OOP books (in the order I've read them): ...

If your gonna pick three books on OOP it should include Design Patterns at the top of the list. At least if you want to understand why OO is a thing people still use and talk about.
> Maybe we could learn something bigger from this?

It seems to me that Derek did several things right here:

- Choose a topic with which he has relevant experience

- Collect experimental data supporting his hypothesis

- Fairly address opposing viewpoints, in this case by providing a platform for a dissenting expert to present his evidence

Are there examples of similar videos being removed from youtube for misinformation?
Exactly. America is structurally dependent on cars. The working poor have been forced into increasingly long commutes to find affordable housing. We need big structural changes: densification, massive investment in sustainable transit systems and urban design.