skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I am trying to implement drag and drop of raw text and html (html is mostly Vue components) inside contenteditable="true" to move it around. Like in a WYSIWYG editor.

It is insane how complicated this is. Then you need to consider the differences between browsers. Ultimately you have to start using a library. And integrate that library with the framework and then hope that the framework won't have a major technical overhaul like Angular or Vue had.

Most of the time you just sit there thinking what will be the best approach and start to get more demotivated the more you dig deeper into it.

It is hard.

CKEditor would have solved most of my issues, but their licensing is absolutely crazy. I'd have to contact them to get an offer to use it for normal internet usage, but if I don't know if it will work, and if the site will be a success, then it simply does not make sense to contact them. 37 USD for 25 users? Or getting a custom contract where I don't know how they will change it in the future? I don't understand what assumptions they have about the usage of their editor, but just embedding it into a blog or something similar, where you don't really know how many users you will have, definitely isn't one of them.
Do you think government employees do it more than non government employees?
It is from a book by Pavel Tsatsouline, Beyond Bodybuilding IIRC i'll check. You do 100% on your first day, 50% on the third and 75% on the fifth, followed by two days of rest. Muscle grows while resting/regenerating.
Yeah there’s other edge cases with parasites and such like too. all fascinating cases in their own right but not even remotely on the same scale as humanity.
How about we just repeal the damn law in the first place rather than adding all this stuff on top. That was my issue with Prop 22. The original law it was layering on top of is faulty from the get go and needs to get repealed. The person who proposed it is an utter asshole to boot (her twitter is full of personal fiery attacks on other people and she can't take criticism)
Look at my comment above. Yes, at the time XMPP interoperability at the edges seemed like a good idea, but XMPP wasn't a good standard.

No, the reason it worked well was because Google made their own backend that could actually scale and which wasn't based on XMPP at all. (I actually spent a lot of time reading the code and talking to the people who designed Talk while I was at Google, because that project had a lot of really good lessons in how to deal with challenges in distributed systems).

The XMPP interop was nice, but it was just that: a client interface adapter. I can't think of a single XMPP backend that even comes close to working as well as the custom architecture Google used for Talk.

Actually, XMPP is the worst kind of standard you can have. Something that superficially looks like a good solution, but doesn't lend itself to clear, correct and performant implementation. And at the same time is seen as THE standard for chat. So people won't be inclined to "start over".

But if we're going to have chat interop, that's what we have to do. I'm not kidding.

If XMPP was any good you would see companies that do chat products at scale prefer it, at least in the backend. Imagine all the time you can save. But they mostly don't. Ask people who develop chat systems why not. (Zoom is the only company that comes to mind, but chat isn't the main focus of that product, just an aside)

Google killed XMPP interop because it was a pain in the ass and a technical obstacle. And then chat gradually became a closed affair because we, the developer community, just didn't come up with something that worked well enough to replace XMPP.
As a wise person once said, playing dumb isn't clever, it's just obnoxious.
>With rockets, well, we already had rockets.

The author uses naivety, but this statement is very questionable to anyone interested in spaceflight. No, "we" didn't have any vertically landing reusable rocket capable of autonomous reentry, except one primitive atmospheric demo vehicle with manual primary controls. Let alone engines such as Raptors in the western world.

Anyhow, the presentation itself didn't seem to take itself very seriously, so I wouldn't think too much about the (very difficult) feasibleness of this, they must be aware. Hell, it may just be an elaborate advertisement for jobs.
I like Elon Musk even though I have no expectation that this will work. I like that he is willing to try. Most billionaires in the world are incredibly boring. They just keep doing what they've been doing trying to earn more money. Elon Musk is a style of billionaire that other billionaires should aspire to - "I guess we'll try to make humanoid robots now."

Maybe if they could get it to a reasonable price point and get it to follow someone they could sell some of these as novelty type thing.
But that's part of the problem. There isn't a single DE which means that any applications that aren't specific to a DE will provide a UX that is inconsistent.
Yep. Despite 2 shots of Pfizer, the second of which was in early May.
Glad Doggett – Beauty and Precision
Passionate writer, adventurous traveler, poet and professional editor
When you think about the utility of such backdoors, the ones in Windows like in Bitlocker are much more useful to intelligence agencies than a similar thing in Linux. As Linux is mainly installed on a server, we are talking about a backdoor that allows defined or arbitrary code execution based on a given signal such as specific connection data. What happens next is also important (a connection is established, a hidden process is created and so on). When you take all this into consideration, hiding a backdoor in the Linux kernel is not the most efficient way to proceed, especially when you normally deal with specific targets. So instead of a full backdoor you would prefer introducing a feature that would play nicely with a zero day you already developed.
The cheapest available FIDO2 option is PIN-based so your PIN (actually any password, it doesn't need to be like a bank PIN) is the something you know, and the FIDO2 authenticator is something you have, two factors. You don't need to pick a PIN to have conventional "second factor" working but if you want a usernameless authentication you can have that by choosing a PIN.

What's different compared to having a web site password? The web site knows the password, but they don't know your PIN. This means suddenly relatively weak human memorable passwords are good enough, because bad guys can't break in and steal 40 million of them in seconds or leverage them across multiple sites, the PIN is useless without the authenticator.

But other FIDO2 authenticators can do fingerprints, making it something you are (a person with that fingerprint) and something you have (the authenticator) so two factors again.

Usernameless (rather than passwordless) is the differentiator. You can literally have the sign-in flow be a "Sign In" button and the user does the thing (finger on reader, types in PIN, or maybe looks at camera) and they're authenticated. No step where you type in an email address or a username. This has a privacy cost because it means the authenticator knows in some sense who you are, but it is super convenient if that's what you're all about - while being much more secure than today's username + password dance.
I've heard multiple times that Google Cloud has the best support for k8s, and that people moved to it because of that. Is that what you meant by making a market?
You are quite right. Except that you are implying other product will decrease in price while that one increases. Vehicles is a rather large market and an element of supply chain costs, chips are used across so many industries. I would rather expect the majority of product to see an increase in price. We can talk technical terms but my comment was a reflection of the markets at large.
Curiously, I find this isn't necessarily true for me. I often prefer hearing an abstract explanation first and I have no problem with keeping several abstract terms and relationships between them in mind without having anything "real" to map them to.
You're 2 clicks away from having a fully-featured clojure environment + an interactive clojure tutorial, thanks to Calva (vscode clojure plugin) running in the browser:

- click here[0]

- click on SSO provider

More information here[1]. Of course, it'd be better to just use the Calva plugin with VSCode. That's a bit more than 2 clicks, maybe about 5.

On another hand, I don't mean to say that it's easy to start programming on Clojure, merely that it's now easy to try it out. There's a steeper learning curve than python or JavaScript, specially on the tooling side.

[0] https://gitpod.io/#https://github.com/PEZ/get-started-with-c...

[1] https://calva.io/get-started-with-clojure/
If you watch attentively, nowadays everything good and that give pleasure finish by being controlled and limited.

It's like that the society does not like when people reach happiness and self satisfaction.

You use too much internet that makes you less lonely and bored? Bad.

You like to go to the beach or in nature? You are destroying natural space. Bad.

You like to travel? Bad.

You like to eat? Bad.

You like to play video games? Bad.

You like to do a specific activity all the time? And it is enough for you? Bad.
From the essay of Paul Graham "Haters" (http://paulgraham.com/fh.html):

That word "fraud" is an important one. It's the spectral signature of a hater to regard the object of their hatred as a fraud. They can't deny their fame. Indeed, their fame is if anything exaggerated in the hater's mind. They notice every mention of the singer's name, because every mention makes them angrier. In their own minds they exaggerate both the singer's fame and her lack of talent, and the only way to reconcile those two ideas is to conclude that she has tricked everyone.

What sort of people become haters? Can anyone become one? I'm not sure about this, but I've noticed some patterns. Haters are generally losers in a very specific sense: although they are occasionally talented, they have never achieved much. And indeed, anyone successful enough to have achieved significant fame would be unlikely to regard another famous person as a fraud on that account, because anyone famous knows how random fame is.
Nobody knows for sure if Hyperloop, Self driving Teslas, Neuralink, Starship, Cybertruck, Starlink, etc. are going to work out.

But we know with 100% certainty we'll never find out unless we try.
I laughed reading this because I agree. The voice control on the model 3 is so bad it’s insulting someone even thought to put it in.
The previous thread on this topic actually laid out a plausible general "Musk strategy"

(edit: here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28243811 )

IIRC it went some thing like:

1) Declare a ludicrous "pie in the sky" / "City on Mars" goal.

2) Use that to inspire, hire clever but starry eyed people who will work 7 days a week in service of that.

3) Iterate rapidly on do-able things in the general direction of the goal.

4) Reach some some point that's far from the original goal, but is still a huge achievement (e.g. re-usable rockets to LEO).

5) Profit!

6) Use the profits to start again, with another field that has synergy to the last (e.g. if you have electric cars, then add solar panels and battery packs)

In terms of humanoid robots this makes sense, the "10% to the goal" point is useful, and ties into the space plan. Robotics and space have synergies.

Note: original post calls the big goal "relatable, unoriginal" - this is a feature not a bug: to inspire, pick something that people already understand. Something that you don't have to explain.
Perhaps if my country were still in the EU I might, but I do accept direct bank transfers, which comprise the vast bulk of my payments.

Sometimes however, clients can't pay by bank transfer and need instead to pay by card.
"That will never work" is probably what has been said the most about Musk projects.
Still can't be compared to Bezos, Gates, Brin&Page, Benioff, Ellison etc.

They are done. They founded the thing, grew it, nurtured it and now they left and the respective companies are still dominating.

Musk can't leave because his companies depend on him being there and pulling this sort of things.

People call him a con-man because he never really delivered anything financially sustainable before moving onto the next shiny thing.

It's not like he's media shy and needs to operate under the Tesla umbrella , like Page&Brin or Buffett need the Google/Berkshire umbrella respectively.

If you go by the fundamentals of the automotive market Tesla should be the American answer to Porsche or Ferrari, only totally electric. An honest 50B dollar car company.

All the extra is speculation (both technical and financial/marketcap-wise) and although speculating is fair game, it's not intellectually fair to list those things under Musk accomplishments , that is because they just aren't accomplished yet, they are POC at best and the judge is still out on whether they are even valid POC.

The paper wealth and the market cap can go as fast as it came for Tesla and Musk, and then all the people who are adoring him will start doubting and second guessing his decisons.

Nobody is second guessing Bill Gates deciding to go fully GUI with Windows 95, or Bezos opting to invest heavily in the cloud anymore. It's now clear as the sky that those were brilliant decisions.
> Gig work works at some level since both workers and customers want it.

That's rather superficial.

Workers want it compared to what? A full time job with benefits? Most likely not. It's mainly driven by sweatshop market logic, "So you want the textile workers to starve?".

Customer want it? Of course, the lower prices enables an inflated lifestyle.
They don't use chlorine?
> It can't hold a candle to Apple Pay

Am i missing something? To me google pay does contactless payments so i don't have to carry my card. Hugely useful. What does Apple Pay do that is better?
IMO, 'Data is truth' is not true. The data the machine sees was chosen in a way biased, at least, by the intent of the data collectors and by the capability of the sensors used to collect the data, both of which are shadows of reality. The Y2K problem is an illustration.
From the text:

There is no doubt that the American debacle in Afghanistan has given China’s massive propaganda machine a field day, allowing it to pour scorn on American decline, but the claims of some overseas analysts that this has given China a strategic win are premature.

From a Chinese point of view, having US troops bogged down in Afghanistan has far greater geopolitical benefits. Now the American withdrawal will not only create uncertainties and risks in regional stability and the balance of power but will also allow Washington to focus more attention and resources on countering China.

I think this is true mostly. China shares a border and dealing with US (or a US puppet government?) in Afghanistan may have been easier than dealing with Taliban, particularly since, now, China seems to have little choice but to befriend to Taliban and deal with them. I wonder how they will handle it? I guess they will try to get another country involved to avoid dealing much directly.
Is it related to the Jackson programming language?
Create Python, C# and F# Jupyter Notebooks
I don't get it - they're using it for actual work, rather than burning power to run useless benchmarks for bragging rights - and you think that makes it hype?! Surely it's the opposite - running benchmarks rather than doing something useful is hype.
But not particularly great compared to Covishield (Oxford-AZ) and Covaxin which are the main vaccines in use in India. The fancy needle free injector is almost certainly going to be more expensive than a normal syringe and will make logistics more difficult. While the thermal stability is great, I don't think it will be a game changer. The one thing it has going for it is that it can be given to children above 12.
I Don’t Want to Be Like a Family with My Co-Workers
Seven Important Facts That You Should Know About Divatrim Keto
We have seen that over 60% of the United States populace, including kids, are body disgracing and corpulence casualties. Regardless, the Divatrim Keto Reviews will inspire your misinterpretations concerning the enhancements, sound pills, and comparative items. We should plunge into the inherent item subtleties and its fulfillment Guarantee.

https://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/270755038/divatrim-keto-reviews---is-divatrim-keto-legit-pills-price-side-effects

https://www.prlog.org/12881802-divatrim-keto-shark-tank-reviews-get-50-off-today.html

source:-

https://www.prlog.org/12881811-essential-cbd-extract-price-australia-trending-products-50-off-today.html

https://supplementglobel.com/divatrim-keto/

https://supplementglobel.com/

https://supplementglobel.com/vital-flow-male-enhancement/

https://supplementglobel.com/quick-flow-male-enhancement/

https://supplementglobel.com/yummy-yummy-gummy/

https://supplementglobel.com/ultra-cut-keto/

https://supplementglobel.com/nutra-empire-keto-smooth/

http://supplementstore4u.com/

http://supplementstore4u.com/keto-extreme-fat-burner-ireland/

http://supplementstore4u.com/keto-extreme-fat-burner-shark-tank/
I suspect the difference comes at least partially from the amount of electronic in between the stearing wheel and the road, preventing most feedback, including unconscious.
The way these things go we'll be looking at billions of packets per second in a decade or two
Everyone complains it's not good enough yet and I agree. But can we look beyond the decision to put this in production and look 2 years ahead?

Why would you need vehicle to vehicle communication? They totally are on the right track to do exactly whet human drivers would do (no end to end ML yet though).

How far away I can't say, that anything is on the road as is I think is wrong, but the demo here was really really impressive and a big leap.

I wonder if they are too proud to build a "don't know that area well"-mode where it drives like grandma and is extra cautious.
I'm referring to the analogous concept from E log X optimisation. (The "Kelly criterion".)

The efficient frontier based on Markowitz' mean--variance optimisation does not help you find a risk level that maximises growth, because it looks at one investment in isolation, not sequential reinvestment over a long period.

The analogous concept I'm referring to is the set of portfolios that are linear combinations of risk-free assets and the E log X optimal portfolio. These are all Kelly optimal under more and more restrictive constraints on allowed variation, but come with slower growth as a trade-off.

To reiterate, the E log X "efficient frontier" talks about how fast your portfolio will grow over time as you reinvest your gains. The Markowitz efficient frontier tells you something about the statistical nature of a single investment opportunit.
How is the beauty of the insect or the way it cares about its eggs relevant to whether or not it should be eradicated?

> Must we also evict the magnificently iridescent mosquitoes whose larvae prey on dangerous species, or the ones that pollinate flowers at night, or the single species known to risk its life to protect its eggs from harm?
DNA→RNA: What Do Students Think the Arrow Means? (2014)
they already made it: https://rust-lang.org
>I must be a terrible person because all that "women are like this, whereas men are like that" stuff strikes me as epically sexist and extremely shallow.

Confounding factors are THE thing that make this kind of thing utter bullsht even if* there's data. But there isn't data.

Do you understand the point I made that you responded to now? I'll ignore the condescension in your response above because it's against the rules around here to respond to it other than by noting it.
That is typically done because some browser extensions and older JS libraries will append elements to the <body>, react would destroy these when rendering.
Yes I thought something similar. Basically, whenever Musk announces anything, I ask myself “how does this relate to Mars?”

Mostly it’s pretty obvious. Tunnel boring machines to dig hyperloop tunnels to take passengers from the starship spaceport to the nearest city on Mars? Check. (Why isn’t he building hyperloops himself? No need to create a vacuum on Mars… but the vehicle research will be interesting)
It’s not like they are trying to sell anything.
And who cares what your CTO wants to adopt?

Some people simply enjoy computers and are not looking for external validation.

Spin up your jvm/.net bloatware and code yet another CRUD application and leave us alone.
I came here to say this very thing. This was the first thing that popped into my mind when I started reading. I hope the people responsible understand the motivations behind their customers using their product. It's a very superficial, and obvious observation to make that a large number of people use this product for romantic interactions.
> Each Unwrap() call needs two OK() calls? Letting Unwrap return OK would be better?

That would rather miss the point as you'd be converting the type-safe result to an unsafe version?

Go doesn't have pattern matching or any "structural" construct which would allow performing this in a single step, so the alternative would be to use HoFs and while Go has them they're quite verbose e.g.

func (o Option[T]) Then(then func(T)) {
if o.OK() {
then(*o.value)
}
}
a.Then(func (v int) { fmt.Printf("\tvalue = %d\n", v) })

which is… less than great.

An safe other option would be a method mapping to a slice of 0..1 element and you'd use a `for range` as an `if` but that seems way to clever, similar to Scala's comprehensions over everything which I rather dislike.

Also sadly the current proposal has no facilities for methods generic in their arguments independently from the subject, so no `Map` method.
Who is Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the Talibon's de facto leader?
Google's Secret Initiative – “Project Hug”
One of the major issues I have with new topics in computing is the amount of acronyms and the words and meaning behind them you get bombarded with. And you need to understand each one of them in order to understand the explanation you're dealing with.

Each acronym opens up a world full of new questions.
is 66% good, comparing to other vaccines?
I find that it's also very possible to make concerted effort and end up fine in a relationship with relatively anyone: I've been with a student who spent her life in the same region as me, studied in the same class at uni and had exactly the same age for 6 years, a Pakistani 4 years younger, practicing muslim who was born and lived in Hong Kong, for 2 years, and ended up marrying a Chinese citizen 2 years older than me, and it's been 5 years and a child now...

So I think none of the match making matters as much as the capacity for patience in relationship as well as rational understanding you build a partnership not a lifelong burning passion :D
I think it’s usually less of a “I’m not smart enough” and more of a “this may take significant time to understand well.” Topics that are deemed too complex usually just require a significant amount of previous knowledge that you may not already have, and you just need to spend a lot of time thinking and learning about them. More on this here - https://www.benkuhn.net/thinkrealhard/
A Simple Interpreter in Python
Yeah, there is something weird about that vaccine - before I had it I thought people where stupid not to get vaccinated, since I've had it I'm entirely sick of the utter cretins.

Could just be a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc though.
> That does not prove that supplementation does not work.

Before I spend another second on your comment show me where I said that "supplementation does not work".

If you don't have the time to read what I actually wrote and understand it, then why should I waste my time writing it?