skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>What are you talking about? A "baddie" can grab my phone, replace my OS, and I won't even notice?

Is that so hard to believe when you consider that you're unconscious 8 hours a day? Even when you're awake I don't imagine it's too hard to find some time where you're separated from your phone.

>How does he know my encryption passphrase to set it back? Or he would insert malicious software into a powered-off encrypted block device?

He inserts malicious software into the bootloader, which can't be encrypted. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rootkit#Bootkits
Flagged for off-topic, politics. Consider the source is extreme-left WashPost before bothering to click.
The intriguing part is not that elites get to make decisions instead of experts (that's practically the definition of elite), but that people seem to prefer listening to elites. The panel vs talk example resonated with me.

I think a resolution, though, is that real expert knowledge -- things we know for sure -- quickly becomes commoditized, disseminated, and boring. You wouldn't ask a panel how to repair a car engine that's developed a knock. But you might ask them how long until electric vehicles outsell gasoline. So most "interesting" questions, by definition fall outside of anyone's range of expertise (even if expertise can be relevant to answering well).

In fact, influenced by Taleb, I wonder if a better model of the world is that almost every question is actually either "every expert knows and agrees on the answer" or "nobody knows and any predictions or arguing about it are almost purely entertainment". Nobody's interested in discussing Type 1 questions, and you might as well listen to elites as experts when it comes to Type 2.
I think our ability to evolve, adapt, invent, and assimilate will keep us ahead of the game longer than others might, though eventually it will lose efficacy. The Chinese government is too genocidal, militaristic, and authoritarian to permit the same broad range of innovation as exists...basically everywhere else (including Russia). China will only continue to advance as long as the rest of the world permits their technology thievery and genocidal empire building to continue.
Alternatively, stop assuming that it is our job as technologists to parent the rest of society. We have laws and politicians for that. It's not my job to figure out the eighth order effects of publishing something on GitHub.
So the chemist and his friend had the exact same disease and it was successfully treated and they wouldn't release it because it could be made by someone else? Uh a recipe can be patented and that protects it from being sold. Compounding pharmacies can't magically ignore those patents if they don't want to get sued into oblivion or lose their license. I'm kind of skeptical of your story, sorry.
> NTFS/ReFS support symlinks

That's a better description actually. Windows 10 is too vague.
I see. Programs that provide collective benefit, as long as you're a part of the group that benefits, generally aren't considered redistributive, either.

As far as the things you named, I would refer to those things generally as "social programs." Some of them might fall under the term "welfare programs," such as food stamps. Fire departments and roads, I wouldn't even classify as redistributive, for the simple fact that, although you pay for them, you also benefit from them.

Side note: I hate how the word "socialist" is a thought terminating cliche in the US. People should be more open minded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A...
That's an important point indeed. However, right now Taliban needs boatloads of money esp thru channels that cannot be frozen by Western powers. Surely they would amp up the drugs production. Wouldn't be surprised if China gives a tacit support by helping them with logistics to move stuff more efficiently to western markets.
The simplest way I could ever wrap my head around this, is to understand that everything travels through spacetime at the same speed. There is no travelling faster or slower, just crossing the graph at a different angle.
So? It just shows that rapping might be an effective prevention therapy for this supposed effect.
Definitely. Competition is healthy. But what Bezos is doing seems like a patent troll thing.
Explaining how the MASM 2-pass assembler works
So, did the US win in Afganistan?
I wonder if a lot of innovation/growth is only possible for small companies because nobody decides to enforce the rules with them/hold them to any standard.

YouTube, Uber, DoorDash, Reddit, etc. all did something crucial early on that a larger player would have got in trouble for replicating.
As another poster put it: it’s an introductory overview just to give the reader a quick perspective on what I the topic is about, like an encyclopedia description.

I would expect a 12 year old to get something out of it, or an author who knew no physics but wanted to put a bit of electronics into their mystery novel.

There is an important place for overviews such as this.
Agreed, it's 100% about money. Sometimes looks and charm can help you to get money, but you need money first in order to be considered an elite.

Another effect which I've noticed in the tech industry is how engineers who work at big name, wealthy, monopolistic corporations are treated as superior to engineers who work for no-name companies, even when the engineer's role at the no-name company is far more challenging end requires far more expertise and skill.
If I’m in my home and you get into a car accident across town, you can’t injure me. The same is not true if you contract and spread the virus.
1.1. How should I decide which integer type to use?

Programmer: Hmmm, I think these three should be shorts and these 10 can fit in chars.

Modern compiler: Fuck that, you're all 32-bits. I ain't got time for unaligned memory access...
re: RDF for joins. That's exactly right. You can keep things as light or as heavy as you need them to be regarding when/how/whether you validate foreign key constraints, whether you use a schema registry, etc. The simplicity of the format makes it really easy to build around.

My only suggestion re: infosec ontologies is to not push too much functionality into the ontology all at once. I have had ontology projects end in spectacular failure, and all those failures have resulted from putting too much responsibility on the ontology from the very beginning.

The ontology should be as dumb as possible to start with. In your case, the approach I would suggest is:

1. Ontology stores mapping between cloud provider resource schemas to your internal schema. These mappings can be represented in multiple ways - as a URL to a service which implements the mapping or as a JSON object in some DSL which defines the transformations or even as the code/binary that should be run to perform the transformation.

2. From the ontology, it should be easy to query/update the following things: current cloud provider schema for a given resource, internal schema corresponding to a cloud resource, and current mapping to the internal schema, the number of failed transformations from cloud schema to internal schema in the past {1 hour | 1 day | 1 week | ...}.

3. At first, you build the transformations from the cloud provider schemas to internal schema by hand.

4. A worker which alerts you when the cloud provider schemas change (should be easy to build on top of your ontology after step 2 - check the number of failures in transformation).

5. Now write a worker which statically analyzes the terraform code base to see when they changed the code related to a particular cloud API you are working with. Represent this in the ontology (e.g. "AWS Chime" - "terraform:vblah.blah.blah" -> "<json resource definition>"

6. Write a worker which monitors updates to - "terraform:*" edges and propagates alerts you to update the mapping given the new JSON resource definition.

7. For some services, it will be easy to automate the transformation update. For these things, create a new ontology worker.

I have found that it's better to let workers run idempotently on cronjobs/systemd timers than to implement event-driven workers.

The whole thing will probably take a few months, but you will have production-ready code at the end of each step and start benefitting from the existence of the ontology right away.

(Sounds like you are already at step 3 or 4?)
If people want an idea of how problematic Gitmo was/is, they should read about Murat Kurnaz.[1]

Some highlights:

Within months of his detention, everyone admitted he should not have been detained (no ties to terrorists, not an enemy combatant). Yet he was held for five more years and subjected to torture.

After they knew he was innocent, he was repeatedly interrogated about a friend of his who had committed a suicide bombing. Except that friend was well and alive in Germany, and likely had never been to that part of the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murat_Kurnaz
Well, supposed effective prevention for the supposed effect.
> So basically, the way I understand it, money is just a means of getting people to do work.

More like get (or enable) people to trade with one another.

> So the ceiling is much higher, but there's still a ceiling - go too high and your currency is in trouble.

I think this is the problem with MMT as it doesn't give an answer to what should you use to store wealth. Money should not be used to store wealth (that's not its goal) but to make a transaction possible between two counter-parties.

> Can it ever recover if people lose trust in it? Since that's a major part of what's keeping such a system going.

You shouldn't really care. Think if we can develop a system where one could work and exchange value in one currency, and store value in another currency. The first currency should disappear as soon as the transaction ends, and should appear as soon as there is a need to transact. The second currency gives a society IOU to give you a transaction in the first currency in the future.

Not sure how to do it, really.
GNU/Linux requires basically the same hardware as the usual alternative (Windows). If you switch from hosted GPT-3 to selfhosted GPT-J you start needing to get and manage all the hardware, which might go underutilized most of the time depending on what your demand looks like, and which requires lots of software optimizations to use maximally effectively. You can use hosted GPT-J, though, a few companies offer that.
If painting was the main career it would possibly not save the soul anymore since lots of constrains start to creep in due to how professions work: you’re no longer free to do whatever you feel but have to have selling in mind. I also think painting has saved my soul and made my 9-5 more bearable.
Though I agree with the sentiment and am all-in on democracy in general, personal stories are selection and survivor bias all the way down.

It might just be that you are the lucky one, and by definition, are surrounded by other lucky ones who landed similar jobs. Many millions others might have tried and failed and live in poverty or are dead. You'd need data on all those millions to talk about the % chance of someone succeeding, and to show it's better here vs there.

But that's all unhelpful. I think hope is important. I'd love to see us have a national consensus around equal opportunity, egalitarianism, and tolerance to different ways of life (and not just the "different" that I agree with!).
Are Erlang/Elixir really that exotic? I interpret exotic in our context to mean a language aimed at academics and very advanced programmers but lacking mainstream appeal.

Erlang/Elixir strike me as very pragmatic and, compared to Haskell/Lisp/Clojure/Scala/Julia/etc., they seem more beginner-friendly.
There's a ton of people who had to (or really wanted to, makes no difference in this case) escape a country that did it using their skills as a programmer.
Refreshing to see a link to F9 on HN.
not possible, to run the original gpt3 model, you need at least 8 gpus to just hold all it parameters in memory
Right, this is like the 2d projection of it which makes it easier for our 3-space brains to comprehend.
Speed of iterating product features:

* Google Videos had to do things the right way. It had to support tons of users on day 1. It had to ensure very high code quality.

* YouTube engineers were good, but they had lower bar to ship production code - probably they had less rigorous code review process or no code review at all; they just needed good enough infra
And good enough code quality. Releasing v0.1 was cool, but the hard work was on the continuous / incremental improvement later. Speed is critical.

Contents

* the bar for videos on google videos was higher than YouTube’s, this fewer contents , which can’t cater to a broad audience

* YouTube had tons of home made videos. Even only a small portion of videos was interesting, it was still a big number. + long tailed contents for diverse group of internet users.

Luck

* consumer product is always hard. You need to have the right ingredients + right timing. Essentially , Luck plays an extremely important role in the success of any consumer facing products.

* knowledge work, especially creative work, is unlike manual labor. You don’t compete on the number of human labors. A tiny team might be able to beat a big corp in a very specific area.

* google leaders might treat google videos like a side project or a small bet. Resources are always limited. Best engineers & best marketing are always allocated to search & ads. Small bets need to fight for internal resources & corporate politics first. If small bets fail, employees get allocated to other projects, not big deal. With this kind of model, the small startup YouTube didn’t compete with google Corp. instead, they competed with a few not-the-best-employees in google who always had options to work on other projects. Had google allocated more resources to google videos, probably they might be able to do better.
I think this is an excellent explanation for why it may have been shut down and the need for some degree of monitoring accountability.

The fear is not that the chat bot will come to life, but rather than the text content it's been trained upon could potentially regurgitate back dangerous responses.

I don't think it's too far of a leap to see someone taking the output from the bot too literally and possibly creating a negative situation.
Looking at the top 10 richest people [0], most of them weren't born into anything close to the level of wealth they have now. None of them were poor, so "essentially anyone can become successful" is almost certainly an overstatement, but the ability to go from "raised by dentists/lawyers/professors/engineers" to "among the richest in the world" is evidence of considerable mobility.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World%27s_Billionaires#Ann...
MF327 – Browser-Based Private Cloud, Remote Access and Webcam Security
Without Linus' rants linux will never be what it is. It's sad that some people have nothing to do and they just like to denigrate OSS while relying on it. Why not a list of Paul Graham (because he appears on a lot of HN posts) rants sorted by hate ?
It was banned and has been banned for almost 40 years? Obviously not in plane engines, which were a much smaller % of the pollution. You can't just ban it which in turn bans avgas. That's just dumb, it has to be phased out and alternatives developed. Sounds like those exist currently but aren't being pushed.
Am I missing something here? The United States at least is a constitutional republic. I must have missed the day in college government class when they renamed that form of government "liberal democracy", presumably in an effort to convince more people to vote for "liberal democrats" as their representatives.
I don't know about this. There are too many examples of people who exerted influence due to reasons other than having money: for example, coming from an old family has meant a lot throughout most of history, and while accumulated wealth is a common side effect of that, a king is not typically made a king because they have the most money in the bank, instead because of what I guess Hanson would call the "prestige" of coming from a particular bloodline.

The aristocracy in many places and times in history have been influential while being cash poor, at least compared to those filthy parvenus in the merchant and banking classes.

In terms of soft power influence, I think it's easy to mix up cause and effect. Is Jeff Bezos one of the most influential people in the world? Yes. Is he one of the richest people in the world? Yes. But, is he influential because he's rich, or rich as a side effect of the influential company he started? I'd argue the latter.

There have also been too many changes to what we call wealth to consider it the single constant in the history of power: would money today even be recognizable as a concept to someone from 3000 BC? The same goes with what we call influence: Martin Luther was one of the most influential people in history, and wealth was not a factor in that.
The block reward will continue to repeatedly halve over time until it reaches zero and dramatically decreases the incentive to mine. That requires no changes.

>"Why can't my car do 600km/h, it can only do 200km/h?" "Nothing is stopping it. Board a maglev train and you can do far more than 200 km/h."

Going by this analogy, you are commenting on an article about maglev trains. The article is about lightning network transactions. So you've gone completely off-topic? Why even talk about "transaction costs of the blockchain itself" if you think lightning transactions arent bitcoin transactions?

>What do off-chain transactions like Lightning have to do with the transaction costs of the blockchain itself?

Facilitating off-chain transactions lowers demand for on-chain transactions. Off-chain transactions arent possible without the underlying blockchain, yet they can fulfill the use-case of small bitcoin transactions. You can't separate the two.

>All sorts of things could change this - changes in the protocol to allow bigger blocks, changes in the hashrate that most miners are willing to invest, changes in mining hardware efficiency etc. But what you are claiming...

Back up the comment chain you were arguing that changing electricity prices etc would not affect the energy usage... I think you have changed what you are arguing about. Previously you disagreed with this:

"Bitcoin use and mining power are completely uncorrelated. By mining bitcoins, your earn as much as the computational fraction you are representing. So, indeed, there was a race to more and more mining power in the recent years but it can completely be reversed. For example if electricity prices rises."
Interesting. How do you find Brilliant in general? Is it worth paying for? Seems a bit surface-level from a quick glance, but I'm sure it's possible for it to have real depth if one follows learning paths (or if some courses are simply longer).

I'm sure it also depends on the topic; I only tried the free graphs course.
You're right, I totally misread the last sentence about "impure chemicals" and it stuck in my head.
The difference is the scale.

You are not convicting people they reply on you. But for everyone that response there could be 100's of readers.
> It's the power of raising taxes what gives money its value.

People can convert their BTC to USD at their obligation day and then your currency is only worth what % you collect in taxes. I don't think taxation will be the model for MMT, and only when you separate taxation, investment (storage of wealth) and daily transactions that you can get a healthy working system.
> then why do airlines use jet engines? Noise? Reliability?

- Noise, yes. EU effectively bans turboprops by noise limits

- Reliability, yes. Gearboxes needs frequent, and expensive overhauls. That's acceptable on smaller regional planes, but not airliners costing tens of megabucks.

- Size. There is an upper limit on propeller blade size after which aeroelastic effects cannot be overcome by any known material.
I switched over from pulseaudio to pipewire last week, and I can say it just works (tm), which is the highest praise I can give something like this as a non-power-user.
> If you believe they are, then the US has had socialist policies for over 100 years

The US has had socialist policies for over 100 years, and more intensely so since the mid-1900s; the modern US economic system (like the rest of the developed world) is a form of the “modern mixed economy”, a synthesis (largely ad hoc, rather than comprehensively, coherently planned) of classic capitalism of anti-capitalist alternatives, particularly socialism.
do tell?
Sometimes business comms /are/ sensitive to knowing the participants.

If the head of M+A of one corp is talking to the CEO of another, that might be interesting.

If a bunch of Silicon Valley HR leads are mailing each other, is there another anti-poaching agreement in the works?

If some retail competitors' sales VPs are mailing each other, is there some price fixing or collusion going on?

There's a lot of signals here revealed by metadata.
TypeError: String indices must be integers
> Despite that they don't get as much attention in contemporary discussion (at least, in the US), were European powers' continental African genocides morally worse, or not morally worse, than the New World's (institution of) slavery

That's like comparing Ebola to the plague, both were terrible. If presses, I'd say that European colonisation was slightly less bad from a moral standpoint, because there was usually at least some improvements in infrastructure, schools, there were some efforts around medicine, vaccination, healing, etc. and oftentimes traditional power structures were kept, just under the European colonial hierarchy. And colonial subjects usually had at least some limited rights ( mostly after the initial very bloody years/decades with genocides and atrocities which resulted in a backlash so things were scaled down). Compared to New World slavery where slaves had no rights, and were initially uprooted from where they lived to be shipped overseas for labour. And their descendants were subjected to the equally terrible "born into slavery" practice.
Pure gasoline is not that great of a motor fuel because it knocks (explodes when it's not supposed to during the internal combustion engine cycle). This is a major problem with high-compression airplane engines.

However, tetra-ethyl-lead (think one lead atom bonded to four ethanols minus the oxygen atoms) was never necessary to combat the problem. Ethanol's anti-knock properties at a blend of 85% gasoline 15% ethanol were well known, and issues with corrosion in fuel lines had been dealt with. However, that meant giving farmers (the only ethanol producers) 15% of the profits, and the famously monopolistic Rockefeller didn't like that. Indeed, about that whole Rockefeller-financed ethanol temperance movement, and Prohibition in general...

In addition, alkylation strategies in World War II by Shell produced 100-octane aviation gas for prop engines, with no lead. It's been reintroduced it seems (wiki):

Shell Unleaded 100-Octane Fuel

"In December 2013 Shell Oil announced that they had developed an unleaded 100 octane fuel and will submit it for FAA testing with certification expected within two to three years. The fuel is alkylate-based with an additive package of aromatics. No information has yet been published in its performance, producibility or price. Industry analysts have indicated that it will likely cost as much as or more than existing 100LL."

In the long run though, electric airplanes look far more attractive for the short-haul prop-driven world.
Are there any particular circumstance where it takes 10-15% of one CPU for you or is it whenever there is sound playing? I just checked mine while playing music on YouTube and it bounces between 4.0 and 4.8%