skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>but how does that scale to using new libraries which may lack documentation?

it doesn't really that well which I guess is a drawback. I'm not dogmatic about it so what I usually do with a new larger codebase is I just open it in vscode, read around somewhat, look at the symbols and use that for a while and then when I'm kind of familiar with it I go back to emacs.

>I'm jealous of your memorization

it's was actually very difficult in the beginning and one of the reasons I started doing is because I noticed just how bad my memory and attention had gotten without tools. Even with other things, as a kid I could read for five hours straight and a few years ago I noticed I couldn't read for 30 minutes without distraction.
Yep, same here. I graduate from Pico on a Vax system to nano on Linux for console editing, with the exception of Ted w/FOCUS since it was a somewhat integrated development environment.

Of course the limitations mean I still had to use things like sed & awk frequently for things that weren't possible or were much slower in nano. That's for relatively small uses though. I use an IDE for most coding.

Any choice of tool is always about trade-offs.
The complexity is historic, not accidental. If you start with a linearly organised address space then you need some way to reference the items in it.

The physical address in the linear space [1] isn't just the obvious option, it's the only option. [2] It's a short step from there to indirect addressing via a linear lookup table, and/or simple address arithmetic to find items stored sequentially.

You can only avoid this by adding layers of abstraction which hide these mechanisms.

But you can only do that after the mechanisms are in place. Otherwise your "reference" is just an unimplementable idea with no meaning.

[1] Ignoring hardware paging, because that's usually invisible.

[2] Ignoring hypothetical magic associative O(1) key-value store hardware with the same speed as semiconductor RAM - which could be built at ludicrous expense, but would cause complexity issues of its own.
Well, it's a somewhat important and key feature for these kinds of projects. It's not much different than asking "does it support checkboxes" or "how does it handle scaling?"
If you know how to find the outcome of this particular legal argument I'd be very happy to read it :). I was studying at the time and a lawyer that was teaching us the basics of copyright and patent law told us about the then ongoing case.

Also, yes, you're right, forgot some key details after the 10 years. Can't believe it was that long ago.
> local right wing people and parties were emboldened by an Islamophobic mindset in general (thus, in turn, leading Muslim communities into isolation instead of integration).

A phobia is an irrational fear. I don't quite think it's right to describe any criticisms of the Islamic religion/culture as de-factor irrational.

Also, integration happened. Assimilation didn't - which is where the issue is. People in the "West" created enclaves and didn't leave behind the worst of their culture & traditions and instead allowed it to breathe in societies where have been trying for decades to rid themselves of patriarchy, misogyny and homophobia.
When you post for “Show HN”, it would be wise to use the link option to direct the users to your repo [1] - otherwise readers can’t click through. It is a HN wierdness - you either get to write text or post a link, but not both

1. https://github.com/denvaar/pgdiff
I understand the technologies they're proposing deploying at a decent level (I couldn't implement the crypto with my current skills, but what they're doing in the PSI paper makes a reasonable amount of sense).

The problem is that this "hard" technological core (the crypto) is subject to an awful lot of "soft" policy issues around the edge - and there's nothing but "Well, we won't do that!" in there.

Plus, the whole Threat Model document feels like a 3AM brainstorming session thrown together. "Oh, uh... we'll just use the intersection of multiple governments hashes, and, besides, they can always audit the code!" Seriously, search the threat model document for the phrase "subject to code inspection by security researchers" - it's in there 5x. How, exactly, does one go about getting said code?

Remember, national security letters with gag orders attached exist.

Also, remember, when China and Apple came to a head over iCloud server access, Apple backed down and gave China what they wanted.

Even if this, alone isn't enough to convince you to move off Apple, are you comfortable with the trends now clearly visible?
They can, but they say they don't. Of course if you're uploading data to their servers (and to a lesser extent, using their OS), you are trusting them to some degree.
> So they already dropped it.

Don't you agree that's totally irrelevant? Being arrested for downloading a random doc from the internet is a real problem, so as monitoring dissidents to persecute them for any reason at all.
How Your Data Model Affects Storage: Postgres Deep Dive
It is a very tenuous theory that this will only end at CSAM with alleged trillion to 1 odds. It is unclear how they justify stopping there - all laws are roughly equal in the eyes of government, why shouldn't an iPhone enforce them all? This incident shows that Apple is comfortable with the idea of using my phone to get me imprisoned:

1. I don't want to financially support anyone going through my private things in conjunction with what is basically the police, looking for reasons to imprison me. Reasonable suspicion first, thankyou very much.

2. I don't trust them to use this in a politically neutral way. This is too much power.

3. I don't trust them to manage the false positive rate. Everyone knows how reliable software engineers are when they claim a system does something. At heart they aren't 1 in a trillion people.

This is a great time to be outraged. I can't really do much about what they do on their servers, but I can certainly get antsy about what happens on my phone.
Do we have any idea how the NCMEC database is curated? Are there cartoons from Hustler depicting underage girls in distress? Green text stories stating they are true about illegal sexual acts? CGI images of pre-pubescent looking mythical creatures? Manga/Anime images which are sold on the Apple Store? Legitimate artistic images from books currently sold? Images of Winnie the Pooh the government has declared pornographic? From the amount of material the Feds claim is being generated every year I would have to guess all of this is included. The multi-government clause is completely pointless with the five-eyes cooperation.

The story here is that there is a black box of pictures. Apple will then use their own black box of undeclared rules to pass things along to the feds which they have not shared what would be considered offending in any way shape or form other than "we will know it when we see it". Part of the issue here is that Apple is taking the role of a moral authority. Traditionally Apple has been incredibly anti-pornography and I suspect that anything that managed to get into the database will be something Apple will just pass along.
When I first started working in Linux, it was in Centos and RHEL and I used nano, since it was already installed and easier to understand than vim.

That was about a decade ago though, maybe RHEL has removed nano since then.
Thanks for the feedback, will seek clarification on legal terminology.
Not when there is little if any due process and the opposite that when there is a favorite son like mr Cuomo despite the many accusations enjoyed great support from all the major players in the party and the mainstream media (Emmy award?) till the water could not be bailed out any longer.

So, yeah, thanks but no thanks. There is no due process and no consequences for false accusers.
Sure buddy, that’s exactly my point, how would you figure? I do not miss the forest for the trees though.
Because it still protects against certain threats. For example it could protect against the case where a laptop is stolen by a petty thief who didn’t realize the device had valuable intelligence.
I’d be really interested in reading an in-depth breakdown of Taliban and US decision making during that time.

Supposedly the Taliban didn’t refuse to turn him over full stop but rather refused without evidence. I don’t know if that was them never planning to turn him over and just trying to buy time with a soft no, them -as a very young government with little international recognition- trying to demonstrate sovereignty with the intent to hand him over after an extradition trial, them genuinely not knowing he did it and really wanting evidence. Or given that organisations don’t make decisions but that individuals do, was it a combination of the above plus various other personal interests and biases.

Same with the US side. Did they suspect or know the Taliban wasn’t ever going to hand him over? Not willing to give them the political recognition and legitimacy that cooperating diplomatically would have? Was the resistance that the Taliban was fighting and that the US backed believed to be stronger and the Taliban weaker than in reality? Was Bush just getting information from his campaign team that if he didn’t retaliate militarily quickly then the electorate would see him as weak but if he did then they would rally behind him?
> cherry-pick the most overtly anti-science of conservative beliefs

It would be convenient to denigrate those facts in some way, but they are there: Conservatives (generally) back climate change denial, which will cause generations of catastrophe.

> colorblind approaches to combatting racism which are equally vilified and actively suppressed

I don't agree they are "equally vilified" as the overt and covert racism of many on the right. I think "actively suppressed" lacks much basis or meaning except conservative repetition.

There is debate on left, that's true, and that's a good thing.

> why are the left so frequently resorting to cancellation of intellectuals rather than debate?

I don't agree that it's a phenomenon of the left; conservatives repeating that claim doesn't make it true (any more than climate change denial). Look at the conservative efforts to silence protestors (laws limiting protests, legalizing striking them with cars), professors (such as the right-wing donor at UNC, threats to and reductions of tenure at major universities), students (e.g., the football players at U of Texas), etc. Look at Colin Kaepernick, who the President of the United States attacked and who lost his career. Look at many executive branch employees, in Washington and the states, who were fired for telling the truth and following the law, and judges who were attacked for the same. Right-wing politicians and journalists who are destroyed for challenging Trump or reactionary dogma. Etc.
Real developers only use cat >> <file> to edit, and start from scratch if they make a mistake.
It's a meditation app
Those tools hide the easy part of programming - typing, syntactic peculiarities of a programming language, etc. They do absolutely nothing about the meat of the task: distilling a vague idea into fully formal description, structuring and compressing that description by factorization and abstraction, and then iteratively refining your work as the computer repeatedly proves to you that you still don't have a fucking clue what you actually want. Computers don't accept bullshit.

The core of programming is truly figuring out the problem you're solving. Everything else is management of complexity.
Who does the educating and who decides what that education should be? No doubt the most extreme across the spectrums will eagerly volunteer to do both while insisting that they're the moderate center.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-d...

> CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

...

> What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning.

In other words, all CO2 with biological source (including fossil fuels) comes pre-tagged, and the pattern we see in the atmosphere exactly matches the assumption that they're from fossil fuels.

So, unless your acquaintances theorize that it's the global temperature that drives mankind's demand for fossil fuels, there's really no ground in doubting the causal direction.

It's too bad they're doubting quietly. If they actually voiced their doubts in the form of an honest question, they would have learned about C13 ratio by now.
What is Parameterized Constructors in Java?
> Until a 1-line code change happens that hooks it into UIImage.

I really don't understand this view. You are using proprietary software, you are always an N-line change away from someone doing something you don't like. This situation doesn't change this.

If you only use open source software and advocate for others to do the same, I would understand it more.
The problem I have with populist anti-elite rhetoric is not so much that the elites don't have their failures (they do, and in fact any major failure is almost by definition the responsibility of elites, since they run things).

The issue is that it is often used by one group of power-seeking elites vs another, where one group tries to pretend if they win it will be putting the ordinary people in charge somehow. Often it doesn't seem to work out that way in practice.
It was a predictable disaster from the very beginning - there was never any other possible outcome then the one we see today. We don't have the ability (let alone the right) to invade a country on the other side of the world with a completely alien culture and turn it into some sort of 51st state with our values. This would be true even if Afghanistan wasn't a hodgepodge of cultures and different peoples, most of which never recognized a central government of any kind and exist in a tribal system. Then consider the fact that our so-called allies in Pakistan (the ones who harbored Bin Laden) support the Taliban as a proxy force, and have all along. We could have (and should have) pursued those who attacked us on 9/11 (Al Qaeda - not the Taliban) without launching any misguided, expensive and disastrous foreign invasions with delusions that we could remake the world in our image.
But in a way, everything is a little bit connected, if things start to collapse, it will be harder to be rich and comfortable.

Who grows your food etc etc?
ATMs hold cold cash and are built like it. They're essentially safes and take time to tear apart and are very heavy to move. Amazon lockers are much thinner metal.
in practice they are.
> Would you still hold this opinion (...)

I'm sure the post reads as satire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
This is so nearly awesome, but the hint only works for emoji. So I can type "<WIN>+. sad <ENTER>" for a sad emoji but, e.g., "<WIN>+. gamma" doesn't find the Greek letter. There seems to be no way of selecting a symbol using only the keyboard. So I go back to charmap. Its shitty UI hasn't been improved in decades but at least it can search all of the unicode characters.
In Malay, it's officially called "pepijat". Debug is "nyahpepijat". It sounds jarring because it means "insect", and "reverse insect".

So most of the time we just use the word bug, and it's a third of the syllable count.

Interestingly the word clicks a lot better with the other English use of "bug", which is to sneak a microphone into a room.

From a poetic angle, "pijak" means step (on). I don't know if that's the etymology, but it evokes the idea that "pepijat" is something with a lot of little steps and something you want to step on.

With a computer bug, you can't really step on it, but with a microphone bug you can.
"Meditation is about quieting ones mind to ultimate stillness."

There are probably hundreds of different techniques of meditation, in many different traditions, and with different aims.

For some, like in many types of Christian meditation, the purpose can be to deepen one's relationship with God. Quieting the mind or stillness might be part of a way to get there, but not the ultimate aim.

Even in Buddhism, there are, say, so-called loving-kindess-meditation which is less about quieting the mind than about increasing compassion and goodwill towards oneself and others.

In Buddhism there are also forms of meditation that seek simple nonjudgmental awareness, and others (like "just sitting") don't have any aim at all.

In various tantric forms of meditation the goal might be to liberate sexual energy.

Vajrayana Buddhism, Hinduism, and Sufism have many of their own forms of meditations with various aims.
> public debates have never had truth-finding as a goal: they’ve always been exhibitions to rally your base. Changing minds happens at the private scale.

That's defeatist. And the world has never had a public forum like the Internet. We're just learning how to use it well.
> [...] 19 hours/day [...]

What, only!? Pfft, lightweights.
Chrome safe browsing feature shows a warning if you browse to a URL which Google have flagged as hosting known malware. If you described this as "Google blocks your device from connecting to servers that don't have their approval" would the listener get an accurate understanding of what was and was not happening?

If Chrome scanned downloaded files for viruses and you described that to someone as "scans your computer for viruses" do you think the listener would come away with an accurate understanding of what was happening and accurate understanding of what they were and were not being protected from?

If BestBuy GeekSquad offered a service to "check your device for problems" and all they did was open your photo collection, would you walk away arguing that it proves the screen and mouse and CPU and disk must function and nobody could expect them to do any more than that, service provided, full marks, that's "the device" checked? Or would you hope that "checking the device for problems" might involve at least exercising all the major features like speakers, wifi, bluetooth, at least once, and preferably with stress and thermal tests?

When the TSA ask you to switch your device on to demonstrate that it's not a bomb, are you on the side of "if the screen lights up, the device is thoroughly and effectively tested and cannot contain anything else" or on the side of "an attacker could make up many ways to make the screen glow while hollowing out the insides, this does not really demonstrate that 'the device' is safe"?
In French (France and Quebec), people use "bogue" (even though they tend to pronounce it like "bug"). It means "burr", aka the spiky chestnut hull.

To debug is "déboguer", which only means to debug (and not opening/removing the chestnut burr).

Alternatively, "défaut" is also used (defect). Sometimes the more general "erreur" (error) can be used.

However, the English word "bug" is getting used more and more (along with "débuguer", the French way to turn "to debug" into something usable in the language).
And saving tens or hundreds of thousands of lives...
Slippery Slope
> The thesis of this post is roughly that nano, when configured, is enough of an editor for the author. Which is totally fine! People should be happy with their tools and not feel pressured by popularity to use what others use (vim, emacs being prime competitors in this case).

My advice to the author would be to give emacs an other shot. It can be configured to behave a lot like nano (and isn't modal), and runs in the terminal. But there's an ecosystem of plugins around it and has a lot of stuff that's built-in. But one day one of the journey it'll behave almost exactly as nano.
Have you used the Apple ecosystem? I haven't used others and I am telling you how it looks from my point of view. I will have to invest resources to discover the things you talk about. And there are lots of assumptions in the things you suggested, like that I am fine with using Google or Linux, or not using iMessage at all.
nothing zen about animated sticky headers that make the page jump around when you scroll down. a giant "Information on NEH and COVID-19:" banner that takes up 1/4 of the screen and won't go away. why is this acceptable?
> Lithium might just become worth more than gold in the near future.

No it will not. If it became anywhere even remotely close 100s of lithium projects would be announced.

Lithium is all over the world and it is very common.

> and I could completely see a company like tesla hoarding it

Why would the 'hoard' it? They need to produce an ever increasing amount of vehicles, they need every bit of supply they can get to put it into products.

They are planning to mine it.
It's software. it will have bugs. lives of innocent people will be ruined.

I'm a huge Apple fan and a Mac devotee of 30+ years. I love my iPhone. If this thing becomes real, I will go shopping for another phone.

This is absolute insanity. I can't believe they even thought about launching this.

I'm completely disgusted.
Can't say I'm pleased right now. Apple can still change course.
People use minimal OS images when they absolutely have to, but the ideal case is just your binary sitting there all alone. (Sometimes you need the tzdata files, SSL certificates, and other support files. But rarely a shell.)
Just tried this on https://craftinginterpreters.com/a-map-of-the-territory.html and I'm getting weird pauses in the middle of sentences
ed is the standard text editor.
Templates to help startup founders grow the company after launch
> The second protection [against mis-inclusion of non CSAM hashes] is human review: there is no automated reporting in Apple’s system. All positive matches must be visually confirmed by Apple as containing CSAM before Apple will disable the account and file a report with the child safety organization.

I don't understand this at all. As I understand it, part of the problem is that — in the US — Apple isn't legally allowed to review, transmit or do anything else with suspected CSAM images, so they can't have a manual review process (or even check that their neural hashing is working as expected on the real dataset).

Does anyone else have any idea of what this is trying to describe?

If Apple really are somehow reviewing flagged photos to confirm that they're CSAM and not maliciously flagged files before sending any reports, then that does make the system substantially more resilient to Five Eyes abuse (not that I wish that job on anyone).

Edit: There's more context later in the document

> First, as an additional safeguard, the visual
derivatives themselves are matched to the known CSAM database by a second, independent perceptual hash. This independent hash is chosen to reject the unlikely possibility that the match threshold was exceeded due to non-CSAM images that were adversarially perturbed to cause false NeuralHash matches against the on-device encrypted CSAM database. If the CSAM finding is confirmed by this independent hash,
the visual derivatives are provided to Apple human reviewers for final confirmation.

This is more confusing: visually comparison using a second perceptual hash doesn't actually to provide any protection against mis-inclusion of non-CSAM images: it just double-checks that the image really was a match in the database (ie. protects against hash-collision errors), but it does't check that the database contained actual CSAM.

Apple explicitly says that this process protects against mis-inclusion though, which doesn't make sense to me yet.