skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There are companies (at least one anyway) that make rapid testing panels that include COVID, plus a dozen plus other respiratory diseases, in a single test that is profitable at $200 and costs $20 in consumables. I heard that they disabled all the other tests so they could get approved as a COVID test sooner, or something like that. The problem is you can't ask for such a test as a patient, hospital billing departments make the news for charging insurance $$$$ for each individual pathogen on the test, and doctors come out of the woodwork to say how negligent and irresponsible it is to test for so many things at once, as if it's literally impossible to take base rates into account when you do more than one test.
Yeah Messenger is OK. Another WhatsApp. But really, these are small, self-contained apps. They don't need the rest of Facebook attached to them.
She might just die. I recently convinced a coworker to get the vaccine, and she did. And four weeks later contracted Covid-19, probably the delta variant, lost her taste and slept for 5 days straight. Had she not had the vaccine, it's quite likely she would now be dead.
PostgreSQL 9.6 is about to be unsupported
I've been on this rant for a while: https://twitter.com/Zamicol/status/1284613190215593984

https://old.reddit.com/r/github/comments/htoq8u/where_to_fin...

I've done a lot of work with QR Codes for work:
https://github.com/davidshimjs/qrcodejs/issues/83
Presumably the US would find itself in such a situation because it tried to stop the invasion of Taiwan. China will never have the interest or capabilities of going after Europe.
Nice, but I really want matching _variable_ colorization. Here is a beautiful demo [1]. I've yet to see it implemented in any serious editor.

[1]: https://evanbrooks.info/syntax-highlight/v2/
you need to get your facts right. Crime rates (murder rates included) went to the lowest in Japan in 2020:

https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2021/02/e3ca6d2dc86e-crim...
> ...because I have been working head down on the project.

Sounds like you are doing it right.

When I see a "landing page" collecting email addresses, I assume that there is no product, there is just someone doing some half-assed marketing. On the other hand, when a page shows an actual products, demos, and a way to create an account and start using the product, I'll take it seriously.
The timing lines are not critical; timing can be derived from the data itself. Metadata areas (mask, error correction level, version) are stored twice and protected with error detection bits.
> The bottom line: An investment in Ozy has become a reputational headache. SV Angel took the most extreme step, but others are distancing themselves, both publicly and privately.

SV Angel is surrendering shares (and writing down its investment) because the story has blown up and people are asking questions about why someone literally committing securities/wire fraud is allowed to be let off the hook and the incident written off as a "mental health crisis"
When and why did "home page" become "landing page"?
(At least I think that the latter refers to what was meant by the former.)
They won't become illegal. They already started to censor them heavily, and it will get a lot worst.
GTFO with your conspiracy theory bullshit. "Project Veritas", indeed.
Don't forget Alzheimer's and herpes (HSV1).

The idea of letting my kids get a known neurologically-affecting virus without even the option of vaccination (yet) and just hoping that it won't cause them issues in the long-term fills me with dread.
The quotes you provide are not anti scientific method. They're meant to mock unthinking obedience to the authority figure science has become. The scientific method is great!

'Follow the science' means don't question me I'm on the side of science.

Quotes like 'I fucking love science.' belie a tendency to get caught up in science's many miracles such that one can be lead by corrupt institutions claiming scientific credulity.

The two quotes are used in the 'dark corners' you mention to mock naivety in the belief of purity in science.
Mosquitto: An open-source MQTT broker
They didn't have to pay it directly, but it is common for companies to have contingencies to pay employees 60% or more of their base salary "to do nothing: Amazon was already paying for, in part, long-term disability insurance, but the employee, manager, or - most surprisingly - HR were not in the headspace to even think of this, I assume because the default mode of is adversarial.
If you can ban something for being hate speech, calling something hate speech becomes a weapon. I absolutely don't trust any of the people banning "hate speech" to not have double standards that make it easy to call anything politically disagreeing with them "hate speech".
> "Free speech is great if almost everyone is reasonable. ... Empirically, free speech has failed ..."

The problem being that democracy, even representative democracy, also only works if almost everyone is reasonable and (tying back to speech) informed. Once you give up on the population being reasonable, it's a short step to saying that someone "reasonable" ought to control what they see and rule over what they do "for their own good, of course". Even if that happens to be true, down that road lies madness.
I didn't say they're stupid, I said their fools for believing what is obvious a bunch of politically motivated lies, science is no place for emotion.

No, you said "while believing anything Trump says without question."

If we can't change people's mind with the truth, what possibly could make them realize they have been duped?

Packaging matters. People are emotional and make rarely make factual determinations in a vacuum. Your attitude in our conversation so far tells me that you have a near-zero opinion of their intellect and have no idea why they believe what they believe (ie you say that they believe 100% of what Trump says, but 10 seconds later acknowledge they'll boo him at his own rally). You most likely come across as smug and superior in these conversations so while you may just be explaining that mRNA therapies have been in development for decades they will see it as an attack on them... Logical? No, but it's how humans operate. Maybe you're perfectly logical but I kinda doubt it.

Lets use creationism as an example because it's what I have the most experience with. You can argue until you're blue in the face with facts and won't get anywhere most of the time -- there were certainly people who had that experience with me 15-20 years ago. Looking back I wasn't interested in the facts. The Adam and Eve story had to be literal to explain original sin, which had to be a thing to explain Jesus' sacrifice which was one of the most central things I believed in. So when you'd crush me with facts demonstrating that the earth cannot be 6,000 years old you'd actually be tugging at the single most central thing I believed. Good luck.

I was reasoned out of young earth creationism, but I had to be in a place where Jesus was also on the table to be discussed. It took about a year from "oh shit, that's how radiometric dating works" to "uh yeah, none of this makes sense." Open discourse was the only way that was possible -- the talk.origins archive, books like Why Evolution is True by Coyne, lectures by friendly scientists, ect.
> Facts, science, logic exist on one side of the discussion, not both.

I'm not really sure I buy this. There are people who are simply misled, but most disagreements touch on either disagreements with regard to facts or else values about what is more or less important. I tend to find that there are thoughtful people who disagree with me that are worth hearing.

Beyond that, though, there is simply risk management. The harder it is to impose speech controls (governmental or corporately), the harder it is for them to be applied badly - and there is no tool that cannot be used for ill as well as good.
This is my favorite equation to trot out when red state folks demand bikes be taxed for also damaging the road. Comes out to some fraction of a penny.
Find another source. If it's true there should be evidence other than the proponents words.
> If you believe vaccines have no potential negative effect beyond 1 week, you'll have to give a serious thought as to why you believe Covid can have long term effects.

Because viruses do cause long term effects in the form of just straight up irreparable damage to your organs or long last presence that re-emerges later. They are actively hurting you, and despite the popular phrase, what doesn't kill you tends to just make you weaker.

> Also past vaccine history means absolutely nothing. You can't assume the next bridge is built safely just because you have never seen a bridge fall before.

Are you suggesting you feel you're risking death every time you step on a bridge? Because that would have to be the case if past engineering precedents meant "absolutely nothing".

The reality is that medical precedent means a lot. We understand the mechanisms of vaccines pretty well. Our estimates on the efficacy of bridges tends to be pretty good. One can assess a bridge design and affirm that it's likely to stay up under X pressure for N years. If a problem were to occur, we would know the typical failure modes.

Vaccines aren't a black box. We know how they work and we can anticipate the failure modes. There aren't really any paths for "long term effects".
You can't compare the two at all. One is a historical fact that debating it leads only to hatred of Jews and no other observable effect on society. The other is an experimental medical operation that people are sometimes forced to take and debate on it can literally change lives.

If somehow lives or even something less important was on stake when debating the holocaust then maybe censoring it would be wrong. You're not allowed to publish death threats to politicians either. I can live with censorship of things that only serve to encourage violence and nothing else. When something positive is at stake, I'm against censorship.
I think it probably depends. When we sold our company they spent months digging into numbers. And they kept asking for new types of metrics that we had to figure out ways to derive from data that wasn't necessarily designed to measure those metrics.
I worked on Ruby code at Stripe using Sorbet and currently work in a Go code base full time now!

Sorbet is pretty incredible and IMO was a huge benefit in a massive code base. Not having to worry about nil checks and always knowing the shape of the input data to functions was immensely valuable. It made data transformations really easy.

I'm also a big fan of sum types which is available in Sorbet. It made expressing failure conditions with data really easy to do, and obvious to users of your code. This wasn't a pattern used everywhere though which is understandable given that it came much later in the Stripe code base.

Go is actually a pretty nice language. It really is easy to pick up and be pleasantly productive in it. The built in libraries are extremely good, and the eco-system seems to favor using as many of the standards where possible (e.g. http middlewares all use the same patterns, no matter which framework you choose).

I really dislike error handling in Go though. It's hard to actually know what errors you're receiving from functions you're calling, especially as they trickle their way up. For instance, if you're wanting to display certain error types to your users, you have to hope you've enumerated all of the potential errors returned and handle them in a janky manner (errors.Is / errors.As).

I also really dislike that lots of things can be nil, and the compiler won't really help you there. You just have to know that some things are interfaces vs others being structs.

The way interfaces are defined and used in Go are quite nice and it ends up being really easy to refactor something slightly to make it easier to test.

edit: summary, I think I would agree with you that starting with Go is likely the better option for many types of backend services. Ruby on Rails is still really hard to beat for productive web oriented services though, and I think you could do pretty well mixing the two together.
If they didn't have antibodies how did they beat covid?
"Filtering the Evidence: Is There a Cognitive Cost of Hemodialysis?" (https://jasn.asnjournals.org/content/29/4/1087) reviews recent research and finds cognitive impairment both significant and prevalent as a side effect of in-center hemodialysis (as opposed to peritoneal dialysis, which is less harmful). It cites among other things an RCT result entitled "Cognitive impairment in hemodialysis patients is common" (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16864811/), which is frequently cited in studies and articles reviewing this phenomenon; the "Cited by" list on that page is a fertile ground for further review.
Is someone going to reinvent Namecoin¹ and IPFS's IPNS²?

At least the abstract of the spec reads like that to me:

Abstract

Decentralized identifiers (DIDs) are a new type of identifier that enables verifiable, decentralized
digital identity. A DID refers to any subject (e.g., a person, organization, thing, data model, abstract
entity, etc.) as determined by the controller of the DID. In contrast to typical, federated identifiers,
DIDs have been designed so that they may be decoupled from centralized registries, identity
providers, and certificate authorities. Specifically, while other parties might be used to help enable
the discovery of information related to a DID, the design enables the controller of a DID to prove
control over it without requiring permission from any other party. DIDs are URIs that associate a
DID subject with a DID document allowing trustable interactions associated with that subject.

Each DID document can express cryptographic material, verification methods, or services, which
provide a set of mechanisms enabling a DID controller to prove control of the DID. Services enable
trusted interactions associated with the DID subject. A DID might provide the means to return the
DID subject itself, if the DID subject is an information resource such as a data model.

This document specifies the DID syntax, a common data model, core properties, serialized
representations, DID operations, and an explanation of the process of resolving DIDs to the
resources that they represent.

[ Source: https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/ ]

¹ https://www.namecoin.org/
² https://docs.ipfs.io/concepts/ipns/
Your company's name must be Finder. ;-)
When I was in the process of disassociating from a high demand religion (a decade long process), I was struck with how effective people who insisted on reality were. Reality sounded belittling, but it really wasn't. I see an analogy here with the people insisting against vaccination with zeal and fervor. It is very hard to break through the bubble of cognitive dissonance, and lone/let live or "humor them" approaches frankly are disingenuous.
Wouldn't your pretrained model be lacking in neurons that react to human features though? Seems like a poor choice if your ultimate goal is human images.
Trying to channel Douglas Adams: Nature is. Science (and religion) attempt to explain it. Politics is explaining why you should give me your money.
It's all relative. Gemini was actually intended as the shovel, Gopher being the hands.
That's true for subsonic low altitude missiles yes.

For a missile going Mach 7 at 25km altitude, the carrier has no hope of moving enough in the 9 minutes it has to evade the missile.

So you only have to find the carrier once briefly, which is not so hard.
A free way [1] to track the trial, at least some of it. I'm hoping to go to at least one day of it.

I'm sure the actual court reporter trial transcripts will be public at some point (does anyone know?), but they're not in [1].

If you are drawing comparisons between her and the rest of Silicon Valley, you are missing one rather important fact: hard sciences are hard. We have it easy in computers.

There are government agencies involved in testing what she did, and people's health is at stake. Just imagine that some bureaucrat was reading every line of code you wrote.

[1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7185174/united-states-v...
While I almost entirely disagree with you, I agree with the general idea that most people aren't "hesitant". Personally I'm vaccine "hell no!" (because I don't have a personal medical need for the COVID vaccine, potential side effects aside, and I reject the societal benefit argument given the population dynamics of what happens when you vaccinate against just the spike).

So while I come at it from the total opposite reason, you're right that with the massive amount of propaganda and outright coercion that everyone (at least in the US) has been exposed to over the last several months, most people who are not vaccinated are fairly strongly opposed to getting it (not necessarily all for the same reason). There are definitely a bunch of "I wanna wait and see" type people, but given all the coercion/propaganda they are few and far between.
Oh, I’m well aware how much easier it is to throw out random unscientific claims than it is to respond to them analytically.

Which is actually part of why I’m opposed to a blanket ban. I’ve had to personally wade through papers and studies to determine whether a vaccine skeptic (an M.D., at that) had correctly interpreted the results.

They hadn’t. So I’d rather have someone else, with some expertise and clout, spend some time on it and publish their counterargument.
If the state's going to host it, then their bar should be whether it's legal or not. If they want to put scary warnings around certain content or lock some of it behind age restriction, sure, fine. But if they are going to use public funds to host a government run publicly available video sharing platform, they should be very cautious about removing any content that doesn't violate actual laws. Free speech and all that, if anyone still remembers the concept.
Yes, organised crime (because that is what you are describing) has big knock-on effects on the rest of society. That is why we treat organised crime the way we normally do. The fact that these corporations were allowed abroad and left to do what they did highlights that the legal system (meant in the first place to protect citizens) has been broken. That that doesn't get looked at harder and seen for what it is is truly tragic.
I live in Texas so it may be a bit of an outlier, but yeah, you do actually meet people. Pet dogs, say hi, chat in the front yard, share a beer, throw a stray ball back to some kids, share gossip. Sometimes you know someone's name, sometimes they are just "that lady who runs every day in the park" or "The Donald Trump guy."
It could alternatively means rejection of scientific authority in favor of one's own view, right or wrong.
This is the opposite of reality for SVG.

Inkscape is the only tool pushing the SVG standard forward right now. Mesh gradients, SVG2.0 text flow, and much more besides. None of it supported by Adobe, Chrome, Firefox or librsvg. Only found in Inkscape and it's not like Inkscape broke the standards, we went to the w3c and got involved in setting the spec and then implemented it.

If you have broken svg files, report them to https://inkscape.org/report
Em. Half of my relatives live in a rural area. Not a single one of them has a 4WD truck (or any trucks at all). Why is it considered a necessity in the United States?

It's a pretty big country too, with shitty roads and pretty low population density.
The video has been restored: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKbU8B-QVZk
And in the middle you have the people who say they "believe the science"and are religiously unwilling to accept anything that isn't orthodoxy. Less dangerous in most cases, but kind of ironic.
No one is stopping anyone from hosting their own website and getting on their own soap box. You just can't do it on this person's lawn anymore.
I take it to mean damaging to democratic countries or, in a more abstract sense, damaging to the credibility of the democratic form of government in general. A good example of this is the current effectiveness of disinformation in democratic societies. Authoritarian countries do not suffer nearly as greatly from this.
Well what I found interesting is that while the phenomenon of increased conformity in upper academia is not new to me (e.g. Eric Weinstein's discussions on the matter), the cultural change surrounding this phenomenon is not something I had yet recognized (i.e. scientists in movies are like lawyers).
Yes, when a museum puts out a poster saying the scientific method, rational thinking, is akin to whiteness... you know well certain that the very concept of science is being undermined as well as weaponized. I mean, someone unironically worked on this poster, its content, and its layout, probably spending several tens of hours looking at it on their computer screen, and then said to themselves and their peers, "this is fine".

https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1283372233730203651
Yea, I hear you, that's certainly possible. But I'm not reasoning top-down from liberalism's unpopularity, but rather bottom-up from the inability most people have to grasp the components I mentioned. Some of them are much simpler concepts than liberalism, and are applicable in many cases that people have more direct stakes in. And yet, in my experience, vanishingly few people are capable of grasping them to any reasonable degree.

> Perhaps we need to continuously keep making versions of this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGAqYNFQdZ4 ("Don't be a sucker" 1945)

We're drowning in anti-racist and anti-fascist material. I don't think it's particularly relevant: clearly it's not difficult to nominally support these beliefs while still being extremely illiberal.

That's what's so insidious about illiberalism. It can (and does) poison any ideology, even "good ones", because once a sufficient number of people are bought into it, it hardens into dogma and leads easily to "why should we protect those that disagree with our holy belief system?".

To use an example that we have no trouble recognizing as illiberal, from our modern perspective: Christianity on paper is a very liberal tradition, full of exhortations to love thy enemy and spread peace and love. I don't doubt that this deeply resonated with many early converts. But after a thousand years of spreading to the masses and ossifying into institutions, the medieval Church resembled every other illiberal institution: here's the dogma, and if you don't like it, well then you'll love my torture dungeon.
Similarish, I use the structure:

- Claim

- Reason to believe

- Call to action
Yeah this is one of my pet peeves - those of us in the science community should be saying: "if we do x, we will see y result"

we should not be saying: "we should do x"
If it runs on someone else's server, they monitor everything.

I have a similar concern with most productivity apps on the web, tbh.
The answers of China and Russia are pretty similar. Use air power or submarines to locate the carrier, fire hypersonic missiles.
Hard agree. I've had it with moderate voices on this issue, it's a matter of life and death. Would we not push someone out of the way of an oncoming train? Do we not have lights, gates, and bells that ring when a train is going to come through? Should we take those down, and just leave it up to each individual and their opinion? Fuck their idiotic opinions.
Yeah true. They talk about a first party app on the podcast episode tho, I'm just not smart enough to find it.
The accumulation of "chilling effects" has now become a deep-freeze.
Where does this worry come from?

We’ve had 9 months with the vaccine and everyone who gets it is doing great, but you think some problem is going to crop up in 20+ years?