skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There are already Bitcoin ETFs and other stock-market tradable products in many jurisdictions (not US though). These are very straightforward for casual user, I don't see how it would be any more insecure than buying for example Gold ETF.
Honestly, Today I'd be happy with Big Sur booting after a borked upgrade.
> All of these big corporate moves are making me think more and more of decentralization of platforms. Is that coming?

Absolutely not. Decentralized and self-hosted alternatives to doing anything on the internet have been available since the beginning, but

1) people choose convenience, every single time

2) popular things get popular

3) corpos have what it takes to make a thing popular

4) popular things get popular among the audience because all the content is there

5) popular things get popular among the "content creators" because all the audience is there

6) it's hard to make an artificially popular decentralized service without centralized investment into it; platforms that rely on individual users meshing their internet connections and $5 VPSes start small and stay niche

7) central investing into a platform without moderation and censorship is very risky, so it's unlikely to happen and if it does happen, it's likely to draw the same fire from banks, hosting providers, regulators, etc.

8) any platform that offers moderation and censorship and gets big enough will eventually get between what people want and those who provide that

9) lots of people actually want moderation and censorship, not freedom

10) the "scene" behind decentralized stuff is also divided on the issue of moderation

11) if a decentralized platform with no moderation were indeed to get big, it would again draw fire from various parties (see how various file sharing protocols and sites died)

There's more to it but point is, a "big" decentralized platform cannot happen (or at least cannot last) unless it also has a central entity that wields the power to do the same things that happen on centralized platforms. And people really just want to use one big platform.

And it's not a technical issue, it's a social & political issue.

To make a system that won't bend under the powers that be, people would also have to accept that they're hosting child porn, terrorist materials, drug trafficking, and other fun stuff. That's never going to happen.

The alternative is decentralized platforms that are and stay niche. They exist already, they've existed since the beginning. Are you using them, or are you just using the big few popular centralized platforms? I'm guessing you're not using them because "Is that coming?" kind of implies you think it's something that doesn't exist yet.
Family and loved ones are not in danger if they get the jab, if they don’t then they could be.
A better contrast is the night and day difference between Samsung SSDs and Samsung SD cards. The former are among best in class and the latter are among the worst in class and notorious for dying mighty fast in Raspberry Pis and DSLRs (going read-only). (Best SD cards are probably from Sandisk.)
Lately I read

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22617.Seduction

and I can't stop having dreams of a "Terminator" that understands human psychology and feeds back observations of your own behavior to entice and control you.

I see that is the "Killer App" for Facebook's Metaverse.

Fans of superhuman A.I. think they are going to create "God" even if they don't admit it, the interest in radical life extension and personal immortality though "downloading" proves it.

It's much more plausible that we'll create "a devil" if not "The Devil."
I think they're saying that it's hard to see why it matters or is interesting intrinsically (i.e., if you didn't get any advantage by claiming some heritage, why else do you care?).
Personally, I still find it interesting, but I agree that it is basically just a curiousity and has no bearing in my "identity" at this point.
> a broader category of people who cant read together with people who have very a poor language understanding and communication skills.

We would be likely to call that second group "functionally illiterate".
In the context of the article I'll replay how I processed your reply.

> fully human
This is a bad argument.

My immediate reaction was 'it was a question, not an argument' and got a little stab of cortisol from my endocrine system. The 'bad' adjective could be interpreted as ignorant/incomplete or malicious, but usually when I see folks invoke the whole 'bad X' question, its really just a play to reframe the discussion or ignore some nuance of it.

So it didn't start off well, and I immediately felt that the comment was either reactionary or using my comment as a trampoline to project some tangential point.

Perhaps try "humans capable of living in and contributing to a civilized and prosperous modern society"

So this led me to believe we're going down the 'reframing' road, as the comment is adding a bunch of conditions to the term 'human'. This, to me, is simply a way to filter out humans that don't meet those conditions. Particularly when the comment includes 'capable', which clearly creates two classes of human from a political standpoint, one of which should be engaged with because they are capable of being influenced, the other is simply livestock.

and, unfortunately, I think you'll often find the answer is that they are not, nor do they wish to
exist in one. They want power and total control over, hilariously, the lives of others who simply
want to live in and contribute to a civilized and prosperous modern society.

The comment kind of lost me here, to be honest. Clearly this could apply to any individual interested in amplifying their own political perspective.

They're hateful, violent, and time and time again show that they're incapable of coexisting with others who don't share their same close-minded fantastical views.

I think I landed at this comment attempting to shift focus to extremists rather than the rank and file of any particular political persuasion. It's possible that connects back to the article because the extremists of just about any ilk are a) interested in amplifying their political perspective and b) are quite possibly more inclined to engage in sharp discourse on the internet.
You mean inventing the ECMO machine currently saving lives from COVID? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extracorporeal_membrane_oxygen...

Or inventing the transistor?

Walking on the Moon?

Fighting a bloody war to end slavery on their lands, and another war to stop the Barbary states from enslaving Americans and Europeans? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

Pioneering powered flight? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers

Inventing MRI, PET scans, and discovering the double helix structure of DNA?

Building the societies and education systems that enabled those discoveries?

Or do you mean just the bad stuff?
Shameless plug: The xmlstarlet utility allows creating implicit XSLT from command line args, so it would also be one line of shell. This way the XSLT verbosity is also gone: xsl:value-of becomes -v for example.
workaround: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/privacy-redirect/p...
Each of the last 10 years have been the hottest years on record. 18 of the last 20 years have as well. There is not a single credible scientist who doesn't believe anthropogenic climate change is real - many fault the IPCC predictions for being optimistic. Greenland is now known to be inexorably thawing. This year has seen places on the globe (e.g. southern Canada) beat previous all-time temperature records by 5 degrees.

There is no sane and honest denying that man-made global warming is happening. It's just like thinking the earth is flat, at this point.
The oddity to me is that this has been going on for at least 40+ years and people still seem surprised when something like the Arm situation occurs. Great, humorous book written a long time ago on this subject is Mr.China.

Dealing with China requires multilateral agreements to make sure companies and executives don't sell-out at the expense of the democratic open societies.
Not nitpicky at all. Some ideas.

1. I believe that there are some microcontrollers that have irreversible settings, such as a setting to permanently disable writing to flash memory.

Is the ESP32 such a processor?

If so, maybe they want to have WiFi on a coprocessor that they can write protect so that they can get certification to sell their modules in jurisdictions that require that WiFi has protections against people reconfiguring it to use channels that are not part of the WiFi bands in those jurisdictions.

2. Their software, Pocuter OS 1.0, the SDK, and the 3D and physics libraries seem to be a big part of their pitch.

Maybe they already had these, or a large part of them, for ARM before they decided on how they would do WiFi and BLE. Later they picked ESP for WiFi and BLE and could run everything on that, but porting their OS and low level libraries from ARM to Xtensa or RISC-V (depening on which ESP32 they are using) might be a lot of work.

3. Power savings? If WiFi and BLE aren't being used they can completely shut down the ESP32.

This is probably not it though, because I believe that ESP32 provides very fine grained control over power. They could run everything else on the ESP32 and still completely shut down WiFi and BLE when not in use.

4. I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that they are doing it for the next reason I'm going to name. I'm just including it because I'm sure at some point someone on Kickstarter or Indiegogo is going to try it.

Use a coprocessor for WiFI and BLE that is ridiculous overkill if that is all at does, and use all that extra power to run something of interest to you such as mining crytocurrency.

Edit: oh well, none of these guesses turned out right.
Rolling your own ASIC makes sense if you need to churn out enormous quantities for your own use. The actual cost of fabrication is largely weighted toward non-recurring engineering costs. Once the printing press fires up, chips are very inexpensive.

Does Tesla need tens of thousands of these things?
The article doesn't explain or even define "AI", so I'm going to respectfully disagree with your premise.

I understand that you consider the writing objectively "hostile", but the simpler explanation is that you're just not the audience.
No, you are rephasing thing, and pretending like you weren't trying to excuse their actions, Which is what I was responding to. I was responding to your attempt to excuse or justify china's actions, not have some tactical discussion of the best way to defeat them.

The original statement that you responded to, was this "It is China that is bullying Taiwan, not other countries bullying China."

And you responded to that statement, by saying that it is "not their perspective".

By responding to that point, in that way, you are basically saying "Well maybe china is right!".

They aren't right on that. They are wrong on that specific point, and it doesn't matter if from their perspective, they think they are correct, except as it comes to defeating that perspective.

So, to rephrase your original statement, instead of saying "thats not their perspective", you should have instead said "Yep, they are totally wrong, and should be stopped, but we need to figure out the best way to stop them from invading taiwan", or something like that.

You also said this "because we are good and they are bad". Which is a true statement, but you are being dismissive about it. Yes, their actions are bad, if they include invading Taiwan. And by saying that, you are basically disagreeing with that idea, by saying it dismissively.

So, please, don't do this bait an switch, where you are now pretending like you care about, uhh, the most effective way to stop China's bad actions, when instead you were quite clearly, quitely obviously, attempting to excuse their actions.

That is what you are doing, when you say this "because we are good and they are bad". You are dismissively attempting to excuse their actions, to support them invading Taiwan, because, well, according to you, "its just their perspective".
Hi, Tim here.

I'm the author of this long document you clicked on. I started this project spontaneously on Nov 13, 2020 and thought: Why not start writing things down in a changelog.txt file. That document has now morphed into a large markdown file.

I enjoy the process of reflecting. And I love the idea of the document as it allows me to have my ideas free flowing.

Anyways, the company is about rating crypto markets based on a number of factors to make trading safer. It's my way of assessing risk.

If you have questions, please let me know!

PS: I've posted here in HN quite a lot already about the project and about various blog posts I wrote. But so far, none caught on. But feel free to check some of them through my profile's submission page.
Sorry, but when you claim that global warming is not a big problem because "we need warmth", there is no way of taking you seriously, so I could only joke.
Except where reversing transactions is how the fraud is conducted. Such as Ebay buyers pretending they didn't receive their goods. Or scams in the form of "I'll send you some money then you forward it to my friend" but the sender uses a way that's reversible for a longer period than the victim and reverses it in the window of difference between them.
Science as currently practiced is an existential risk:

https://www.facebook.com/yudkowsky/posts/10159653334879228
Langdon is a nice little town, I wouldn't call it an attraction however, but to each their own...
But not having enough abstraction is also problematic and Go does cross that line for me at least.

Eg. on my current CRUD app, we use Spring’s aspects to implement some permission checking before specific HTTP requests. The alternative - copying a function call to each place - would be much more bug prone, a change in one will not be propagated, etc.

While it may not be the best example, there are many similar cases where I feel that less abstraction would just make it unmaintainable.
Terragrunt – Tools for Terraform
I don’t believe 7nm used EUVL, which would keep the cost down, relatively speaking.
> This initiative only has upsides, no downsides.

Theoretically, it might release someone who the rest of the world would have been better off keeping in jail.
Science tells you that your child which is under 12, 100% won’t have any problems by catching it, your child is not in danger from long COVID either cause that does affect adults in general. I had covid, I am under 30 and I did not suffer from long COVID but a friend of mine did felt sick for 3 months
> Otherwise, plan to reimage your computer.

You might also want to re-flash the BIOS while you're at it.
But if you look at the hero myth is the wrong strategy. It's like the immature hero that wants to hide who his father is because is ashamed for some immature reason hence demonstrating that is not ready yet for the challenge of the world. The alternative is, embrace his history, have a clear own identity, and yet come back and rescue his father (not the project but the spirit) "from the belly of the beast" and improve itself and the world by doing so. Not doing it like that will not fit the psychological archetypes of the good stories that marketing needs and fail and waste a lot of effort having at the end of the day to always admit it is a Smalltalk. Not all products can aspire to be legends. This is one that can do it.
MiBig: Minimum Information about a Biosynthetic Gene cluster
In my experience more often than not, the people the people that accuse others of unclear communication are making an effort into not understanding the message.

But then, I'm not known for fighting against new solutions either, so that experience is probably in a disjoint population. Anyway, I imagine you say that from the position of an "old wizard", but that position is as dependent on a receptive audience as it is on a communicative "wizard".
Role System for Python
> […] AI has a massive value to every aspect of the company's work.

That's also just wrong. During the recent "Tesla AI Day", when asked during Q/A, Elon Musk specifically mentioned that they intentionally use machine learning only for very few cases:

Q: "Is Tesla using machine learning within its manufacturing, design
or any other engineering processes?"

Elon: "I discourage use of machine learning, because it's really
difficult. Unless you have to use machine learning, don't do it. It's
usually a red flag when somebody is saying 'We wanna use machine
learning to solve this task'. I'm like: That sounds like bullshit.
99.9% of the time you don't need it."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0z4FweCy4M&t=9307s
> whose spent more than 2 hours working with the Chinese who thinks they are remotely trustworthy.

I dare you to a) change "Chinese" to "African Americans" and b) use your real name.

Despicable.
Yes lots of programming consists of gluing together libraries, but in my experience languages vary dramatically at how well they do even this.

For example, consider logging libraries. It's useful to have statements like log.debug(someSlowFunction()) in your code. In LISPs it's really easy to create a (debug) macro that generates empty code when you don't want debug logging turned on. In other languages, you have to wrap the arguments in a function to avoid extra runtime costs, and even then you can't avoid the "if debug" conditional at runtime. All those anonymous function wraps add clutter, and that clutter accumulates. There are many other cases where having advanced language features greatly helps gluing together libraries.

Another aspect is the tooling. When I am considering a new library, I like to try it out in the REPL. In Clojure I can quickly start calling library functions, and use the (time) macro to get a sense of how long they take to evaluate. Not all popular languages are amenable to this kind of REPL-driven experimentation with libraries.

Not only does the language impact how you use libraries, but it also impacts what libraries may exist. Some libraries are simply not possible to write in less powerful programming languages. In LISP this would include any library that uses a macro. For example, Clojure was able to introduce core.async as a library, providing an async facility similar to what golang offers. But in most languages you wouldn't be able to implement that as a library.

Another major example is reagent vs. react. The concise hiccup representation supported by Reagent is only possible because of design decisions that went into Clojure. JavaScript users are stuck with JSX, which is less concise, and in my opinion far less good.

Another issue that arises when using libraries is whether or not the language has a static type system. Without getting into the age-old flamewar about static vs dynamic typing, I'll just note that popular languages differ in this dimension, and this has a big impact on what it's like to glue together libraries.

So overall, I think this essay undersells the benefits of LISP. Even if you spend all day gluing together libraries, LISP makes that much better by improving how you can call libraries, how you can quickly experiment with them, and even what kinds of libraries can exist.
I think you would have been right by putting "shopping cart" in quotes as well. Blimey.
Instead of arguing with them maybe respect their decision?
Science as currently practiced is an existential risk
ReNgine
In the early 2000’s, we built out our flex engineering office to include an exercise room and a shower. We had a full set of weights. It was only used about 5% of the time. It looks good for recruiting new employees, but in reality people probably won’t use it. I would still put in a shower, and maybe a room and mats for stretching, body weight exercises, and maybe some resistance bands. But that’s about all I would do if I were to do it again. The shower is useful for bikers and lunchtime joggers.
There is no such thing as a good language or a bad language an an absolute sense. There are only languages that provide you with more leverage towards a certain goal and languages that provide you with less. Is brainfuck a good language or a bad one? If your goal is to write a high performance back-end for a web site, it's probably bad. If your goal is to pass some time trying to solve an intellectually challenging puzzle, it's probably good.

But in general programming is viewed as something one does in order to achieve some practical purpose, not just to while away the hours. And with respect to that goal, "seek out weird languages" seems like a poor heuristic to me.
presumably, the people who seriously have $2M to invest are not just googling how to do it, so you may just be getting the set of ads for the people likely to actually put that in Google

as far as practical jokes go, it would probably be a lot easier to sign up someone to an unsavory email list.
Thanks for the essay, bookmarked.

I would like to offer a perspective I don't think you should miss. Many English authors wrote about their horrible experiences in boarding schools and of life in stodgy, middle-to-upper-class Britain; I find that sentiments similar to theirs persist in many people who came out of what we would call "repressive youth systems". You can hear similar complaints from the children of Nigerian immigrants or of Indian students who came through the IIT network, namely that they were pushed too hard by cruel people and uncaring systems.

However, I must notice that these people, especially the British authors, are often proud, learned, disciplined, well-spoken, and knowledgeable. The horrible memories they have of their past experiences are saddening, but I cannot deny that whatever repressive and authoritarian systems spawned them often did a damn fine job at raising extremely impressive men and women. I went through far less cruel or invasive schooling than they did, and cannot make the same assessment about the subjective worth of the vast majority of my peers, nor even for their parents. When I read prose of average middle-class thinkers, journalists, authors, etc. from more than 60 years ago to today, I see very plainly a marked downturn in the civic knowledge, moral backbone, and eloquence of these speakers and of the thoughts themselves as Western society moves away from its severe past into its "empathetic" future.

I myself harbor extreme anti-school sentiments and do not ever intend to send my future children to school unless they desperately want to go, but I still believe that extreme, conservative societies tend to produce the most impressive human specimens. Orwell is considered one of the greatest writers in the English language--I often wonder whether or not contemporary society is capable of producing his equal, or even his less impressive peers' equal. When I read the letters and musing of my grandparents- normal American country folk born in the 1930s- I am taken aback by their knowledge and eloquence, and I mourn for what I perceive as a loss of societal standards.

I suppose there are many who might mistake me for saying that I think it's worth returning to the cargo-cult corporal-punishment methods outline in the essay, but that is not what I wish to communicate. I would like to figure out what makes these citizens of strict and severe societies so impressive, and see if it's possible to yield similar results without all of the stupidity and cruelty.
It's harder to permanently steal gold from an institution than crypto.
CLIP has seen zero segmentations or bounding-boxed labeled examples of any object classes. Pure image-level contrastive learning against (extremely) noisy natural-language text captions.
If Content Is King, Context Is God (2015)
And the settings icon. And pasta? Maybe I can shop, get my car fixed and get something to eat? Sounds attractive.
The Republicans are actively eroding voting rights around the country (see Texas) and actually tried to annul the last election. Gee, I wonder why people believe that.