skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Compiling C Programs Into “Mov” Instructions (And Only “Mov” Instructions)
> It seems the vast majority of people in this thread disagree that this line is arbitrary.

Maybe. I wonder how many people are choosing not to respond because they’ll only be voted down by the people who feel very strongly about this. I’ve curtailed and hedged many my contributions to this topic on HN because of this.

This is a common issue when social media is used to debate matters which are highly emotionally asymmetric.
I dunno man. Awareness is already this big powertool that we are all using all the time. Casually, sloppily, intensely, obsessively, recklessly. But not really very intelligently.

(like what's an engineer but a man who uses his awareness like a hammer, beating riddles into submission?)

Learning to use your awareness intelligently strikes me as close to an unalloyed good thing. Meditation can do that.
> this could still be poisoned by Five Eyes participants, and that it does not preclude state actors forcing Apple to replicate this functionality for other purposes

The thing is, if this is your threat model you're already screwed. Apple has said they comply with laws in jurisdictions where they operate. The state can pass whatever surveillance laws they want, and I do believe Apple has shown they'll fight them to an extent, but at the end of the day they're not going to shut down the company to protect you. This all seems orthogonal to the CSAM scanning.

Additionally, as laid out in the report, the human review process means even if somehow there is a match that isn't CSAM, they don't report it until it has been verified.
Find the closest related repo and add a scripts folder has been my approach.
So if your house caught on fire, would you refuse to let firefighters from putting out the fire? Would you stand around saying "There is no such thing as free emergency response. It is absolutely terrible this community is controlled and strangled to the point where home owners don't make enough to pay for private firefighters or set up a self-contained biodome immune from the effects of climate change. 'Free' firefighting only papers over these fundamental problems".
No, I'm saying it would be bloody hard to kick Belarus out of the EU, since it was never in it.
If Epic wins, it will set a bad precedent and we will all lose as a result. The the government should not compel what a company, or individual, can say or publish; this result would do just that. If I want to build a platform that does not enable or allow other potentially malicious software repositories, it should be my right to do so; I should be able to charge what I like for the privilege. Like it or not, the "selling point" of Apple's walled garden to some is that it is locked down. If you don't like what Apple chooses to do, there are millions of other options that don't include Apple, or Google, at the table.

If we start letting the government legislate the software that we are "allowed" to write or use, then what remaining freedoms we have left will be gone. Creating laws, or bad precedents in court, in knee-jerk response to Epic's temper tantrum is not how we solve these issues, considering that Tim Sweeney tried to bring "open source" into this debacle when Epic has a history of being hostile towards it.
I strongly considered switching away from Apple products last weekend; but this document has convinced me otherwise.

The threats people identify have minimal risk. If a total stranger offers you a bottle of water, you may worry about it being spiked, but him having offered the bottle doesn't make it more, or less, likely that he'll stab you after you accept it. They're separate events, no "slippery slope". It's very convincing that any alteration that would "scan" your whole phone would be caught eventually, and even if it's not, the announcement of this feature has no bearing on it. If Apple has evil intent, or is being coerced by NSLs, they would (be forced to) implement the dangerous mechanism whether this Child Safety feature existed or not. The concept of backdoors is hardly foreign to governments, and Apple didn't let any cats out of any bags. This document shows that Apple did go to great lengths to preserve privacy; including the necessity of hashes being verified in two juristictions, the fact that
neither the phone nor Apple know if any images have been matched below the threshold; the lack of remote updates of this mechanism; the use of vouchers instead of sending the full image; the use of synthetic vouchers; and on and on.

Furthermore, the risks of the risks of this mechanism are lower than the existing PhotoDNA used by practically every competing service. Those have no thresholds; the human review process is obscure; there is no claim that other pictures won't be looked at.

The controversy, the fact that it uses an on-device component. But PhotoDNA-solutions fail many of Apple's design criterias, which require an on-device solution:

- database update transparency

- matching software correctness

- matching software transparency

- database and software universality

- data access restrictions.

What about the concerns that the hash databases could be altered to contain political images? PhotoDNA could be, too; but would be undetectable unlike with Apple's solutions. Worse: with serverside solutions, the server admin could use an altered hash DB only for specific target users, causing harm without arousing suspicion. Apple's design prevents this since the DB is verifiably universal to all users.

A rational look at every argument I've seen against Apple's solution indicates that it is strictly superior to current solutions, and less of a threat to users. Cryptographically generating vouchers and comparing hashes is categorically not "scanning people's phones" or a "backdoor." I think the more people understand its technical underpinnings, the less they'll see similarities with sinister dystopian cyberpunk aesthetics.
I fear this this dynamics will promote highly controversial topics. Even here in HN, a topic with many comments and few upvotes have a higher temperature, more reported comments. It sounds like you are selecting for exactly that.

That said, it's always hard to know until you have a large user base.
I suffered from an early version of this when I was one of the top Elite Yelpers in my city about a dozen years ago. I started to notice that anytime I went somewhere, I spent much of my time looking for flaws to post about in my reviews instead of enjoying myself. I still notice and mentioned the positive things but for most people, seeing the good is the default when going out. Elevating the flaws that often would have quickly been dismissed otherwise was having a negative impact on my quality of life. Additionally, friends who also started doing reviews were becoming increasingly critical of everything and everyone in their lives, which made me realize I was doing so too. The entire social scene around the local Yelp community was getting increasingly hostile and petty with each other. When I stepped back and looked at it from the outside, it was shocking how much it was changing everyone's personalities.

In the end I quit writing reviews for Yelp and exited the community even though much of my social life at that point had become subsumed by it. Luckily I was still at an age where it was easy to rebuild my social life. For many, social media has become their primary social outlet and without it, they don't have anything else to turn to. Even without the pandemic, I suspect that it's more difficult to build an offline social life than it used to be, especially for the young.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but ultimately the energy requirement for flight boils down to optimal lift-drag ratio, doesn't it? My impression was that we were in a pretty sweet spot there already, and can only expect marginal improvements (higher aspect ratio (which comes with its own challenges - from airport suitability to structural stability), less zero-lift drag by reducing wetted area). Even if we double L/D (which would be a substantial achievement, no?), battery-electric flight would only have endurance of about an hour with current tech, and then maybe 2 hours in two decades after specific energy has doubled again, just about giving us a bit more than 1000 km (after reserves etc.).
I don't personally know any reasonably intelligent people who question the existence of global warming.

I do, however, know several highly intelligent people who have looked at the atmospheric carbon and temperature data and wonder (quietly, for obvious reasons) if we might have got the causal mechanism story wrong.
A company renting space from a city parks department is not a bribe.

I’m sure all the vendors and food trucks I see in our local parks paid a fee of some sort to be allowed to hawk there. Those fees weren’t bribes either.
> Much of the doctrine is not acceptable to a modern Western worldview, so researchers of meditation have to cherry-pick the parts of Buddhism they like and ignore the rest. For example, they might draw from certain passages of the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta about developing mindfulness of the breath and body but overlook other passages about meditating over a corpse at a charnel ground. Or they might integrate into their research the Dalai Lama’s teachings on compassion, but they stop listening when he gets to the teachings on rebirth.

David Chapman has a whole (long, elaborate) theory about this:

https://vividness.live/consensus-buddhism

(actually I guess you could spend several days tracking down all of the different pieces of this account that Chapman has written across his several web sites!)
...and many more Buddhists if more were exposed to Buddhism.

The interesting part about these religions is that unlike two other prominent major religions (Christianity and Islam), they rarely prostelytize or seek converts.

If they were as gung-ho about trying to spread their religion as Christianity has, for example, there'd probably be a lot more Hindus and Buddhists.

Incidentally, belief in a god is not absolutely necessary for either religion, since both Hinduism and Buddhism have atheistic flavors (and theistic ones too, before someone jumps in and claims that Buddhism is always atheistic).
Yellen Redacted 73 Meetings/Calls in First 3 Months in Office
what about synthetic kerosene? Net-zero.
For me the standard is that I don't want any 1-line code change between me and near-perfect Orwellian surveillance.
> On the phone, you can always confirm the contents of what’s added to the safety voucher’s associated data.

...except you can't? Not sure where these assumptions come from.
No kidding, I am downtown and you can't even see North Vanc right now.
Of course, the Pantheon that stands today is not even the original, it was rebuilt at least twice, from what I can tell.

One of the emperors that rebuilt it still kept the "Agrippa did this" inscription, you don't mess with Augustus.
Another shift if from denial to acknowledging it is real, significantly man-made, and should be addressed--but then rejecting any reduction to emissions on the grounds that it might hurt the economy [1]. All they will support are things like planting trees or offering tax credits for recapture.

Perhaps most ridiculous in rejecting emissions reduction is Senator Rubio who "said it made no sense for the United States to cut its emissions while other countries like China continue to pollute. But at the same time, he also rejected trade policies that would apply pressure on China and others to curb their emissions".

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/13/climate/republicans-clima...
I have seen tummo meditation used by non-buddhist to raise their body temperature. With a little bit of practice you should be able to experiment with it yourself (one common recommendation: don't practice it in a warm room / wearing warm clothes).
And how is telling you in great detail about what they’re planning to do months before they do it and giving you a way to opt out in advance a breach of trust? What more did you expect from them?
Why optical lithography will live forever
I mean, I trusted current management not to pull stunts like this to begin with.
What this story and thread really highlights to me is that the average person thinks of their phone as a direct extension of their mind, and the objection to automated scanning of their device for the purpose of reporting them to the authorities is rooted in what the 5th Amendment codifies in our constitution: "No person shall be ... compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" [1]

It's time to expand (or reaffirm) the 5th Amendment to apply to your digital mind as well as your meat mind.

[1]: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-5/
In western mathematics? Maybe. In India analytic geometry was the norm and Indians used infinity and negative numbers for over a millennia before Europeans.
You forgot, 'after it leaked'
I'm not calling pageandrew out personally - it seems like many people on this site can't seem to see the forest for the trees in this regard. The narrative that a few FAANG sites have completely centralized and commoditized the web to the point that they have de facto become the web is necessary for the fear narrative of a vast leftist conspiracy controlling the media and persecuting free thinkers, but also completely wrong.

Look at Youtube. The platform has been demonetizing and deplatforming accounts for obscure and opaque reasons for years, and not just Conservatives and gun videos. The result has been people advertising their non YT content on alternative platforms. If enough people are upset with the way a platform does business, they go elsewhere.

People get kicked off of 4chan, they move to 8chan. They get kicked off of Reddit, they go to Voat. Plenty of platforms serving the persecution complex of modern Conservatives, Trump supporters, incels and the alt-right have shown up on Hacker News. Gab and Parler still exist, and are still cesspools of free speech. And that's just on the open web.

Censorship at the platform level is not a problem, because there can always be alternative platforms. Censorship at the network level is a problem. That's why I'm vehemently opposed to arguments that the government should step in and regulate all social media platforms, or force them to publish content against the will, or require a judge to sign off on any moderation action. I'd rather have parts of the web play by rules I don't agree with than have the whole thing play by one set of rules at the point of a gun.
500 AD, that's about the time the Western Roman Empire collapsed, of course the Byzantines needed a gigantic project to show they were the real Roman empire now. It's probably more similar to the Manhattan Project.
Just out of curiosity, would it be possible to fight this back by creating a huge number of false positives without involving actual CSAM content?
Past discussions:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6309631
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9751312
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12372242
> any group thinking about attacking the US on it's homeland will have to contemplate a 20+ year conflict afterwards.

Several groups attacked the US Capitol 8 months ago and they got away with it with only 500 carged with federal crimes. Which isn't nothing, but is a far cry from 20+ year conflict.
But people consider that bad! With this system, Apple can never look at your photos in the cloud. They are a pipe for the bits, but they don't examine the contents, except on your device.

I'm not saying I necessarily agree that this is better, all-told (mixed feelings), but I think it's worth acknowledging why a rational actor might consider this superior to Google doing whatever the fuck they want with anything you upload.
It actually seems fairly useful for say, the homeless population to have an easy place to pick up items, or people who are walking through the park to pick up items.

The only issue I would have with this is, they should've created their own platform for it adjacent to the sidewalk, not ON the sidewalk, and the space should only be leased or licensed to Amazon temporarily, not permanently.
I was also curious about this. Looks like it is slightly exaggerated [1]

It is 17 degrees Fahrenheit, and the study mentions 8.3 degrees Celsius.
A linked follow up study in 2013 was able to reproduce temperature increases between 1 and 6 degrees Celsius [2]
Also, the results suggest that "...the peripheral temperature increases are primarily the result of increased peripheral blood flow due to peripheral muscular action (and proximity of the femoral artery) rather than a result of psychological (caused by meditation) or physiological (caused by breathing or isometric techniques) states." It looks like it is caused by blood vessels opening up (vasodilation) as a response to certain kinds of breathing exercises. If true, it is just an indirect result of the practice, not some form of body control that extends to other use cases.

[1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/harvard-study-confirms-tib...
[2] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
It does if they bring all aspects of their traditional culture with them. Do you want tribalism gaining a stronger foothold in US?
Since your one-liners seem to be immensely dense with functional changes, I can’t understand how you trust any software.
I look forward to seeing this locker on tiktok being pushed into Lake Michigan
Here is a quote from the Foreword of that report -

"According to the statistics presented by the EU, Sweden has long had the highest number of reported rapes per capita in Europe"

Now, it's perfectly reasonable to say that rape is defined and reported differently in different countries and that's why rape appears more frequent in Sweden than in many other countries. In fact, I referenced that in my previous comment. It's not reasonable to say "Theoretically, if Sweden followed Germany's laws and reporting then Sweden would have an average number of rapes and therefore the true claim that Sweden has the highest rape rate in Europe is false."

It is actually true, and is repeatedly acknowledged in this report, that Sweden has, and has had, the highest rape rate in Europe. Maybe there is an argument for calling the "Rape Capitol" claim misleading or complicated, but it's clearly not just outright false.
They do seem proud, but one of these things makes less sense than the others, given Apple's prior reasoning.

We don't know what goes on in the secret courts these days but we have been assured watchdogs are in place and certain programs are no longer in use [1]. This is all speculation based on past behavior, but I assume new reasoning has been constructed that passes watchdog's interpretation of the law but requires new hoops for three-letter agencies to jump through to get the mountains of data they so yearn for.

[1] https://reason.com/2015/11/29/the-nsa-will-stop-collecting-y...

Now it kind of sounds like I'm playing 5D chess, but since we don't know what takes place under secret Executive Orders...
Your question seems to be framed from a christian/abrahamic perspective, and is about God's omni-benevolence property. Unfortunately, I've yet to find a sufficiently simple/satisfactory explanation for that question.

In some flavors, the view is that there is no omni-benevolence (think in the tradition of Roman gods, for example), other views include the position that God is not an entity per se and that the notion of conflicts and the pursuit of what is "good" are inherent to our human condition (think Buddhism). If you're inclined to hear abrahamic leaning interpretations, the most closely aligned I've seen is the idea of "God draws straight lines w/ crooked sticks" (i.e. things we perceive as injustices are actually not, but we cannot comprehend the greater good because we are imperfect, biased things). See also karma and beliefs of reincarnation.

As for the origin of entropy, there's a lot of different takes, some rooted in philosophical thought (e.g. Spinoza-like takes that everything is deterministic and RNG is an illusion), some more spiritualistic (e.g. the panentheist idea that the universe is contained in God and that there may or may not be a non-deterministic force underlying it all)

Personally, I don't try to obtain explanations for every claim of every denomination (trying to nitpick apart the exact definition of God as per christianity, for example), since at some level one needs to acknowledge the metaphorical/allegorical aspects of various religious texts. I find it more interesting to take note of what concepts/interpretations appear in multiple denominations, there's a surprising amount of overlap when looking at individual concepts separately from lore.

Aside from all the stuff about deities, there's also quite a bit of literature on the morals side. I find those topics to be have a lot more overlap among religions, with self improvement usually being a central theme.

Anyways, if these kinds of debates interest you, I would recommend looking into pantheism and derivations. A lot of common questions have already been contemplated by various schools of thought. The wikipedia article might be a good place to start.
vi is specified by POSIX, but (at least currently) it's marked as a User Portability Utilities (UP) extension, which is optional. It is required for XSI conformance, which mandates other extensions like C-Language Development Utilities (CD). But XSI itself is mostly legacy SysV stuff; the more widely supported parts were rolled into POSIX proper and either made a requirement or grouped into their own optional extension.

In general, most utilities and functions primarily used interactively are optional in POSIX.
Apple management changing would be a massive threat regardless of these premises. Apple has gone to bat for encryption and privacy to a greater degree than Google, for example, and that's because of their current management. You should not in any way assume that the next group will do the same!
I use FF as a daily driver.
I mean, Apple can, as long as iCloud remains unsecured by e2e, the roadmap for which remains MIA.
Funnily enough, I really struggled going to Java and python coming from C++ originally. What do you mean I don't know if I'm getting a copy? The semantics of passing something to a function were so confusing and I was never sure if I got a copy or not. Pointers made so much sense.
I’m more in agreement with GP. Legacy Visual Basic had a substantial use case of visual editing of forms and form elements with a programming language behind it so you could attach actions to events. What they said resonated with my unfortunate experience working in VB for around 6 months back in the mid to late 90s.
Georgia Tech! Anyone else just finish taking Graduate Algorithms? Hope you passed.
> > So Bit"coin" is millions of times as secure now as it was a decade or so ago?

> Yes

> > Wow, it must have had really crappy security back then.

> Correct

> > If you're saying it was so insecure then that it was pretty much fraud to sell it for real money

> Is this a real argument or sort of a joke?

Wow, that must be a world record for short memory. You just admitted that yourself, in your previous paragraph.

> > What do you then say to your equivalent (or yourself) ten years in the future, when they say the same about you now?

> This argument will be equally silly ten years from now

Yeah, sure, whatever.

> If you think millions of people are wasting resources on something and you can't really explain why

Who says I can't?
Man you must love ed!
perhaps this is whoosh, but I thought Google wasn't releasing their model weights or source code, at least for a lot of things.

like with WaveNet, it was easy to train but computationally infeasible to run the way they published the paper. then it turns out there's a trick that makes playing it forward far more efficient, which Google later acknowledged using internally, but didn't disclose.