skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's not that there is no unique solution past the time of collision, it's that there is no solution at all. The model ceases to be well-defined because there is a singularity. (As I noted above, this is a residue of the idealization of the problem and could be removed by modeling with hard spheres instead of point masses.)

This phenomenon is distinct from the example you gave of the dome with multiple solutions. There, a single initial condition leads to multiple valid solutions, and could reasonably be called non-deterministic. For the three body problem to be non-deterministic, one initial condition would have to lead to multiple valid trajectories, which is never the case.

The conclusion you have arrived at is wrong, and I urge you to reconsider.

You write: "The paragraph on the first part of section 2.1 does not apply for all cases."

What there does not apply to all initial conditions with distinct mass positions?
> A blue light tells our brain "we're in the morning, wake up up!" while a soft yellowish light tells the opposite "slow down, dusk is coming".

I have no idea where you live, but in my sunny location the sunlight streaming through my window that wakes me up every morning is overpowering yellow. I associate "bluish" with darkness rather because evenings do become "bluer" before becoming dark. In fact, I have a colour changing LED bulb in my room, and I switch to yellow lights if I want to work longer at night - I find it more soothing on the eye, while it helps me be more "awake". The whitish / blueish light of the LED actually makes me feel drowsy.

On computer screens, I find that whitish / blueish light strain my eyes more, and thus apps like Flux - that change the display to a more yellowish tint - is more soothing and less stressful on the eyes.
Must have been the forced masking that suffocated them and didn't allow them to breathe.

Maskers should be shoved out of helicopters.
Agreed, but based on my 10 years spent in defense work before escaping to startup land, Boeing and Lockheed are bloated, pathologically wasteful defect factories. Their entire business model revolves around winning contracts via paperwork and legal battles not efficiency and quality. Essentially the defense division of Boeing and Northrop Grumman and Lockheed are all rent-seeking organizations. They make extensive use of the revolving door in the military industrial complex as well and that breeds further inefficiency by constantly bringing in bureaucrats. It's utterly corrupt at the leadership level. Generals retire and are given a massive corner office which they almost never sit in, called in occasionally to play golf with another general who is not retired to cement the deal. And don't think for a second they aren't promising the general that hasn't yet retired a job as long as he goes along. That is the business model of these companies and never forget it.

Boeing had their shot to make space travel cheaper and they never even tried to make it happen.
I also agree that the gRPCs libraries (in all languages) tend to be opinionated, and most annoyingly, opinionated about the wrong things.

That said I also haven’t found anything better either and the technology is popular enough that I stick with it and just work around the limitations.

For your specific case I highly recommend ignoring the built in GRPC retry nonsense and using the Java failsafe library retry policies instead. That has worked well for my team at least.
With Linux as of late, once heavy I/O is happening it doesn't matter what program is running because I can't even move the mouse cursor over to click anything.
their laptops are pretty meh -- my laptop loses the mouse if it goes to sleep. i had to disable sleep mode when closed.
And we've been making the same "mistakes" with JS too!

But if PHP and JS are so shit and full of churn, why are they so popular and widely used? And have been used to build larger, globally successful projects?
> This definition means that complexity is completely dependent on the individual. ... I can't accept ...

Isn't this exactly how it works though? Many things look hopelessly complex until you gain additional knowledge about adjacent concepts.

Consider how an elegant piece of Haskell code looks to an outsider who isn't yet proficient with the type system. Consider how difficult it is to make sense of call/cc the first time you encounter the concept of continuations, even though the underlying principle is incredibly simple. Consider how apparently difficult it is for many seasoned developers to adjust to the Rust borrow checker.

It's almost like you need a "frame of reference" for judging complexity, analogous to physical systems. The velocity of an object is entirely dependent on the observer ...
>are there any other major advantages of Cap’n Proto?

Parametric type polymorphism AKA generics.

I regularly think of Cap'n Proto when working with gRPC or GraphQL, despite not ever having had the chance to use it in a real project.
My main problem with this theory is that so many people want it to be true; very hard for me to see anyone doing dispassionate analysis of whether humans will be valuable in the loop long-term.
Enterprise edition TP is definitely not compatible with my ass. The stuff at malls and offices is like sandpaper, yet somehow less absorbent.
Speaking of a working link...

I presume it would be this: https://kisstodo.com/
Yeah, I've literally spent months of my life hunting the html sequences causing netscape to crash. It was viscerally loathed by my team. Particularly the fragility around tables... good thing it was hilariously fragile with css too!

You can still see remnants of some of it online, eg this

http://old.macedition.com/cb/nn4crashers/index.html

We were early to the idea of shipping professional apps via the browser, and it was a choppy beginning.
> Or maybe several people are sluggish today because they’re sick. ... When the boulder falls, it means that the collection of processes weren’t able to compensate for the disturbance. But there’s no single problem, no root cause, that you can point to.

Perhaps I agree with the idea in an academic way, but in practice seeking the deepest root cause possible is valuable.

OK - the boulder fell because enough people were sick that day.
How did we end up with a staffing policy that allowed this?
OH - because the person in charge of this is a junior manager
How did a junior manager get to be in charge?
OH - because our top leadership didn't realize how important this boulder is.

Oh - so the real thing we need to do is educate top leadership on how important this mission is. Then they will find a good leader for it. He will then design a robust staffing policy.

The point here is that this fixed other problems along the way - getting a better leader in place solves more than just this one instance of a problem.

I get it, it's all recursive systems of balancing the boulder all the way down. But in practice you can make things exponentially better by digging for the deepest root and fixing there.
This comparison of prohibition and Covid-19 lockdowns is apples to oranges to say the least. Drinking alcohol is a choice. Getting Covid-19 is not. Death from alcohol takes years of abuse. Death from Covid-19, for some, can take weeks. Vaccines are not magical, they are excellent applied biological science. So are masks, social distancing, and lockdowns. I would like to see enforced vaccination, because your freedom to stay unvaccinated conflicts directly with my freedom to stay alive and healthy.
That is not true. First of all, the reason why we used the Alinx module (which you can buy of ebay as well as Amazon), was to make it easier for the community to manufacture and build. Our internal version of the time card does not include the module!
The second piece about the XC7A100T, you do not need any license to do any development as the free version of vivado is more than enough to work with.
Give us a bit of time and we will have a fully functional open HDL ready for you to add things.
It is very easy to sit down and nag about a project. I want you to understand that I had only one goal in mind when I released this project to public and that was allowing others to have a head start to work on time related project. Of course, I work for Facebook and I try to help my company with new technologies as a researcher, but helping the community and releasing the source code (to whatever I had) is just a core value of how I love to support the community.
I think the best way to go forward is to start a whole lot more initiatives that are similar to this and have FB shut all of them down, essentially building an anti-trust case against themselves.
> Glowacki is on the autism spectrum and has superlative memory and calendar recall skills.

I've also known several autistic people who have great memories; I don't know if the right word would be "interest", "obsession", or "compulsion", but they have an inclination to go over certain facts in their heads over and over, so of course developing a good memory for those facts is natural.

I've seen similar articles and TV segments about people who particularly remember autobiographical facts, what they were doing everyday for decades. Again, it's not "automatic" memory, as it tends to be sensationalized, but rather the result of an interest or obsession to continually think about it. For instance, this woman talks about being somewhat obsessive-compulsive about her past: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoxsMMV538U

> Unfortunately, it didn’t translate into academic exam success in his weaker subjects like maths and science: “I only remember things I like.”

When you're interested in something, you will naturally think about it more often. So the memory itself really isn't the phenomenon so much as the relative rarity of someone being interested in such details in the first place.

---

The real magic would be to be able to remember something without effort, interest, or attention. I'd love to be able to read a book while daydreaming and then reread it in my head later for processing. Or remember some detail from another day that I didn't pay attention to at all at first, rewinding it in my head like a video. And though that's sometimes how movies and media like to sensationalize good memory, there's no evidence that it can work that way for anyone at all.

Anyway, the real skill is the ability to make meaningful and novel connections in the data, to be able to do something unique with it. You've gotta have some working memory for that, but being an encyclopedia of vast trivia (that you could just as easily depend on book and the Internet for) doesn't seem to lead to profound and useful insights by itself (as far as I can tell).
This article is too slow to get anywhere for me to spend the time necessary to evaluate wether I want to read it.
I'm hearing this for the first time. can you link to some documentation? sounds really interesting
There are numerous jobs available. No one is forcing you to choose a specific job.
I always stumble a little over the concept of a root cause. It feels subjective to me.

What makes a cause a root cause?
If this is the time to offer our personal chiptune favorites, Loonie - Biohazard really does it for me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiMHDHwsEQA
Any sufficiently fancy compression for communication formats immediately makes me worry about the Xerox Effect[1], where the reconstructed content is valid yet semantically different in some important way to the original.

[1] I propose we call it that unless there's already a snappy name for it?
Double and triple chording is part of what makes the Descent-series games (as well as Overload) so interesting.

Your ship moves freely in all directions, and your speed is proportional to the square root of the number of independent directions you're moving in. Fly forward, speed is one unit; fly forward + sideways, speed is 1.41 units; fly forward + sideways + vertically, speed is 1.73 units.

There's a long, challenging learning curve to making best use of this mechanic.
writing does not equate to understanding. Look at gpt-3. It can write semi-coherently but it does not understand anything. However an automated programmer does not require understanding in order to be effective.
You don’t even have to be young, necessarily. In fact being an “older” person in tech probably means you’ve built up a wealth of experience, and a cushion of resources for getting your business started.
Probably because they wanted to keep them short. AAAA records are so named because it is the ipv6 equivalent of an A record, and ipv6 addresses are four times as long as ipv4 addresses. I agree it is pretty terrible though.
A lot of slim-factor smartphones have screens glued on, so replacing the battery involves melting the glue, then taking the screen off.

On that note, I hope something like this comes to the US: https://www.fairphone.com/en/
Opus.

Opus is a remarkable codec because it’s excellent at almost everything. The only areas where it’s being beaten are extreme narrowband, which it can’t do, and narrowband, where it’s still not shabby (though some of this new stuff is redefining what’s possible).

Opus tackled a broad field of competitors that were each somewhat specialised for their part of the field, and pretty much beat all of them at their own game. And in most cases the incumbents were high-latency, while Opus not only achieves quality superiority but also supports low-latency operation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_(audio_format) has some good diagrams and explanation. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Opus_qua... especially shows Opus’ superiority except in narrowband.

Past about 16kb/s, Opus is pretty much just the format to use, except for extreme niches like if you want to represent over 20kHz (above which Opus cuts).

Opus is so good there’s pretty much nothing left to improve for now (for now), and even if you improved things it probably wouldn’t be worth it. That’s why all the development is happening in narrowband, because that’s the only interesting space left. Perhaps eventually some of those techniques will be scaled up past narrowband. I don’t know.
Even before Netflix, I watched only first season of any popular TV show. Lost interest after that.
I had an idea a little while ago: constantly rewriting code. It was inspired by the idea of doing something repeatedly allows you to improve. So constantly rewriting the same bit of code (with changes) would allow you to get better at writing that sort of code (or solving that sort of problem). Every time you'd end up doing it slightly differently and learning something.

I also came up with a different idea along the same lines while writing this comment. Weakening it to rewriting code regularly (instead of constantly) and adding a (rough) time limit. A reasonable time limit could be anywhere from a day to a week. I think it'd work like this: you'd build a project for the first time (in a few days) and use it for things. Later when you find a problem with it, you'd return and rewrite the whole thing (again in just a few days). I think the combination of rewriting from scratch and a time limit would limit the complexity of each project. One thing I haven't fleshed out yet is how to limit the depth/complexity of dependency chains.
As it is apparently essentially a purified bauxite, I imagine it would be a desirable raw material for an aluminum smelter. Consuming it in this manner would create a closed cycle for generating hydrogen from electricity (as aluminum smelting is an electrolytic process) - electrolysis of water by proxy, if you will.

https://www.usgs.gov/centers/nmic/bauxite-and-alumina-statis...

One downside is that currently, graphite anodes are used, with which the oxygen of the hydroxide anion reacts, creating CO2 in an amount commensurate with the amount of of hydrogen produced - so this process would be far from carbon-neutral, though presumably this CO2 could be relatively easily captured in a pure form (disposing of it is another matter.)

Here's some research into reducing the CO2 production (by 50%) as well as being more efficient, but it is still in development with some as-yet unsolved problems:

https://news.osu.edu/electrode-to-lower-cost-of-aluminum-sme...
Besides what others said: they canceled BoJack Horseman when it had 95% audience approval rating in its final season (!!!), and had approval ratings above 80% do the entirety of its run.

The absolute dumpster garbage that is Paradise PD that can barely scrape past 50% rating is now in its fourth season or something.
Different, yes. But how is that better? And how hard would it be for space x to make theirs parachute down on land?
Short version of rant, unrefined and unpolished :)

I basically agree about bringing modern software development into science, and I teach grad students and postdocs all over the country as well. But I'm looking for a better way.

A major problem is constant churn. We used to teach Travis CI. That seems to have fallen out of favor, so now we teach GHA. But what about all those projects still using Travis? What happens if/when Github or GHA fall out of favor?

Same with python packaging. setup.py vs. setup.cfg, pypi vs. conda vs. poetry vs. whatever else. Various ways of specifying requirements. Plus docker on top for some people.

How to build/host docs is yet another thing to figure out.
GH Pages, netlify, or RTD? Depends on the language? Now lots of projects are both C++ and Python, and cross language documentation is hacky at best.

And what about git? Lots of non-science software developers have issues understanding that, what chance do informally-trained scientists have?

And now we are starting to see people wanting to use Julia and Rust. Or to program web apis and web pages (html/css/js).

Each of these issues may not be too bad on its own, but they all add up. When you already know about all these things, you drastically underestimate how difficult they can be to understand for someone new.

Tech companies and startups can keep up with this stuff. I'm not sure scientists' time should be spent doing this.

[PS: Not sure why you think my name is Jonathan, unless I said that somewhere. If I did, I was lying :) ]
Pardon me, but I seem to distinctly remember it as "a-bomb launch detected".
It is a sane world. The US government needs a legal way to funnel money to the only domestic producer of air travel in the US as foreign governments outright funnel money to foreign airline manufacturers. Starliner was never about space, it was never intended to actually leave the ground, it is a legal slush fund for Boeing. It is of crucial strategic importance that we maintain a domestic airline maker. In the US we do not have a legal way for congress to just hand companies outright free money, we use these wacky programs to do it. I ain't even mad about it.
OK, but that’s a bit vague. Do you have the links to the incorrect Snopes story and links to the articles with correct information?
Employees are payed based upon market rate. No one pays you based upon value.

If you think you are more valuable that's when you start your own venture because there is no upper limit on how much you make.
Wow. Knowing this, I don't think I can live there. Scary.

The video paints ominous picture for DR being due for a 8+ one, right through their most heavily populated area.
Referring to the original link, I don't think the Pixar way it to tell stories using pablum and/or obfuscation. I agree with what I think is your point--the product matters most. If your product truly is great, it should be easier to craft a straightforward, compelling story.
For the same reasons, testing cannot be automated. The only people who routinely claim that it can are not those who study and enjoy doing software testing.

In fact, anyone who claims that any human activity has been automated faces a testing problem: how do you know? And a construct validity problem: how do you know that the new process is equivalent to the old in every way we care about?

Anything can be automated if you are allowed to ignore its true nature and make unchallenged claims.
> Starliner was never about space, it was never intended to actually leave the ground

Funneling money to Boeing is one thing, but that claim’s a stretch, surely?
> And to put the elephant in the room to bed, Google didn’t need real names, they simply needed one common way to refer to individual people.

I don't think this is sufficient treatment of what was, at the time, the biggest objection to Google+ that I heard. The hamhanded forced real name thing killed Google+ for virtually everyone I knew on there, less for the actual concern about using your real name than for the attitude it displayed towards users' privacy.

I know I was well on the way to moving completely over to Google+ at the time they announced that change, and dropped it entirely almost immediately thereafter.
On a different note, I like the Rick and Morty one as well. Not sure if this is going to fit investor pitches except in very esoteric cases. I used this during a cyber security session though with success.

reference : https://blog.reedsy.com/guide/story-structure/dan-harmon-sto...
There's too much emphasis on parsing in all the teaching materials on compiling.

And there's rarely any good stuff on the actual hard problems
If you want to nationalize an industry, why not make that argument?
So go join a company that gives more equity. There are thousands of companies to choose from
Good abstractions don't just exist to reduce code reuse; they help people reason about software. They turn logical operations into higher order concepts that are easy to think about. If this weren't true we would write all our programs as single, very long functions.

The right abstractions will reduce complexity not add to it. Consider the following information architecture:

Cats are warm-blooded animals that produce milk and give live birth.
Dogs are warm-blooded animals that produce milk and give live birth.
Humans are warm-blooded animals that produce milk and give live birth.

vs

Mammals are warm-blooded animals that produce milk and give live birth.
Cats are mammals.
Dogs are mammals.
Humans are mammals.

I would argue the latter is less complex even though it contains an abstraction.

Also, you can't always fix things retroactively. As an IC, you don't control what efforts are funded. Not all organizations invest significant resources in cleaning up tech debt, even it helps long-term productivity.
I don't think SpaceX delays are anything unusual for the aerospace industry. SpaceX will claim 2 years and hit 4 years; industry standard is to claim 10 years and take 20.
It is a well known in TV the higher the approval rating, the smaller the audience. Hence the phenomenon of well-liked shows being cancelled, networks like audiences over quality.
> continue to function normally

By definition, you are not functioning normally if you're OOM.
If it's so easy why don't you start a company and ask VC to pay your salary.

It's a free country no one is stopping you from doing that
For some reason stereo just makes me nauseus.

Maybe the mono 8-bit generation will never like stereo 16-bit.

http://csdb.dk
Here we go. The never ending story of inventing new syntax to configure software. Because that somehow brings value to what you are trying to accomplish with the software? Really? But why stop there? Why not invent a whole new programming languages to make writing your “To Do” single user web application easier? That makes as much sense to me as spending time thinking about your configuration file syntax.
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/userguide/select...
Half A Million Purple Hearts by Kathryn Moore and
D. M. Giangreco: https://www.americanheritage.com/half-million-purple-hearts
> Why didn't they implement basic boolean operators over circles and people?

> Post (@friends !bob) "let's surprise Bob for his birthday" is about as normal as it gets

Because while I would love that UI, there would be 1% of the population on their site.

Look at how much they had to simplify search syntax to appeal to the wider market.