skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I have one I've been working on for a few years.

It's based off something I call "source derivation"....

It has data sources where things get stored, repos that handle syncing and pulling data, and ents which represent the data but add functions to it.
> If YOU decide not to wear a seatbelt, then YOU are the one that might to go out flying through the windshield. Your choice.

And if I accidentally pull out in front of you, causing you to crash while not wearing a seatbelt, now I'm traumatized for life and possibly sued into bankruptcy, instead of simply inconvenienced.

Not to mention traumatizing anyone who witnessed you fly through the windshield, and EMT/first responders.

You do not exist in a vacuum.
> what is government there for - if not to enact laws that keep people safe and prevent profiteering companies from hoodwinking the common folk to help their own bottom lines?

Well put. Are our governments guilty of systematically oppressing us? In many cases yes. That doesn't mean that every government-imposed regulation is brimming with evil. But it is easier (and probably more dopamine-releasing) to believe in a world where the government is the bad guy 100% of the time. It requires less work than acknowledging the occasional good fruits of otherwise inimical regimes.
YouTube is a de-facto monopoly (a fact further complicated that it seems to be closely aligned with the current ruling party).

Monopolies have a more or less successful history of being regulated. In other words, governments limiting their exploitation of their market position.
I don't see why it couldn't be cheap if the editor always enforced being structurally valid? Then AST transformations are as fast as modifying a tree. A comment node would just wrap the necessary items and could unwrap them in linear/constant time.

https://twitter.com/dm_0ney/status/1414742962442014720
As someone who has gone through a kidney transplant, this is actually a bit depressing since progress in this field is painfully slow.

I have seen these articles pop up at regular intervals for a decade now, and if we're going to be honest: nothing much has happened during that decade. This is still an under-funded area where nothing more than "pre-clinical" prototypes keep getting press - and then nothing.

I used to be active on various forums for kidney patients (one of which had more than 27.000 members last I checked). I'm not very active anymore because it is too depressing to read about people who are less fortunate than me (I have good health, live in a country with socialized medicine and my total cost per year for keeping the transplanted healthy is less than $300). For instance non-affluent people living in the US.

I've lost count of how many americans I've known who have ended up in a place where taking their own life seems like the best option. Either because they are tired of finding money for the medications that keep them alive, tired of navigating bureaucracy, because they don't want to drag their entire family into a financial hole, or because they are just physically exhausted. (Dialysis is time-consuming and slowly ruins your body)

Take some time to think about that. Think about what it means that every so many months someone on a forum you frequent tells you "I've had it - I'm going to give up and die". It can be quite taxing if you allow yourself to care.

So excuse me for being negative, but this isn't anything to be excited about. This is just a reminder that nothing much that actually has any impact is happening in this area.

Please take some time to review the national statistics for the US and please consider becoming an organ donor.

https://www.organdonor.gov/learn/organ-donation-statistics
> In reality though, laws have been limiting speech for hundreds of years, and those laws and judgements are enforced by the government. The idea that it is sacrosanct and is (and should "continue" to be) unabated is already not what happens. The usual example is about shouting bomb in an airport or fire in a crowded movie theatre but those are more about mischief than any freedom to say a thing (you aren't punished for the words alone). However, Libel and Slander laws exist and have for a long long time and are limits on free speech.

Why is it that I have never heard these laws cited outside the context of justifying additional restrictions on freedom of speech, and especially restrictions on political speech? Without digging for an example, when is the last time you personally encountered someone who was prosecuted for saying a naughty word in a movie theater or saying mean things about someone online?
Anybody who used a cheap PC in the 90s knows how horrible everything looked. It was a low-res dithered hell. I don't understand why anyone thought that gradients on a 256 color screen ever looked good, and wonder why we didn't have the modern, flat, solid color designs that are fashionable today back then.
> think we have to ask if this won't have a chilling effect on open discussion by moderate voices

You have to weigh that against the known chilling effect caused by the disinformation campaign.

You also have to include the fact that the disinformation campaign is killing people. And that it is known to be partially funded by governments specifically to shut down discourse and destabilize the US.
It's just a never ending disaster once you go down that path. Because now people have to "select" their community somehow.

If that existed, I'd refuse to be part of whatever community you think I belong to and I'm going to pick the one least likely to interfere with me.

And if it's a forced choice, I'm going to fight that instead. I think you'll have to educate and then just let everyone say whatever they want.

You know, you don't HAVE to remove a video. Can just put another video above it that says "here's what we think is going on" and be done with it.
That's the rub of it...eventually there will be crimes that involve said "proper authorities" who will not want the public to know.
In a comment[1] on a related thread a few weeks ago, someone pointed out that if you pass youtube-dl a playlist URL instead of an individual video, it will download all the videos on the playlist. Thus, you should be able to just have a cronjob that calls youtube-dl on a specific playlist every so often.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28482923
Don't fire staff for making mistakes
And when you ban misinformation on your platform, that "anti-vaxxer" instead goes to 8chan where by your argument might inspire them to shoot people up.
If you are a library developer/maintainer we'd be happy to sponsor you with free subscriptions, contact us at support@cloudmqtt.com.
While unfortunate, that's a much better statistical outcome than getting COVID, for the hundreds of millions who got COVID and have some form of long COVID, and 4.55M dead as of today.
>it's disingenuous to pretend that they're simply a private business and that we can treat them as if they aren't effectively virtual public squares

Recognized public squares (eg the National Mall) are protected by regulation. Is that really what people want for Youtube?
I like the article, but in practice he is not talking about 'debates'. On the contrary, all the stuff he says is bad for debating, is actually all the stuff that would help you 'win' in a debate.

The key difference being, he seems to be talking not about debates, but about discussions. Or about dialogue. I.e. where the point is not 'to win', but to improve the state of knowledge in both groups, for the sake of making 'better' decisions more generally. In fact, the only way one can 'lose' at a discussion, is by treating it as a debate and 'winning', thereby ensuring no net benefit to either speaker.

The whole point of a debate, on the other hand, is to be won. In the best case scenario, winning a debate is a means for effecting a decision. Whether they are honest or not is largely orthogonal to the process.

I have come to loathe debates. I have honestly yet to see one that was actually useful.
Watching a discourse from 2 sides is not the same as having a discussion.

Besides (but not as much relevant), the idea that there are 2 sides for every issue and that they are both relevant (bothsideism?) is very wrong and usually harmful. "Bringing the 2 sides of an issue" is a common anti-information practice that hides that the issue has dozens or hundreds of different "sides", or that it's actually unanimous and the other side is morons and people with financial interest on you believing it.
Do cigarette companies lying about health effects of smoking and Big Oil doing the same about climate change count?

Just example links, I think I'm not making any outrageous claims but that this has long been established and discussed here too many times:

https://stopswithme.com/exposing-big-tobacco/big-tobacco-fou...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/30/climate-...

The investors already got theirs many times over.

I think you could also include any company that left what became a "super fund site" (US name, similar in other countries). They cannot have believed creating and leaving all that toxic waste in the ground would be a neutral action.
Dirty blood is toxic to many organs. The ears, eyes, and nose will all degrade along with the mind as kidneys fail. The worst is that dirty blood is toxic to the kidneys, so failing kidneys cause kidney failure.
We already have 64 core/128 thread prosumer machines and it is only going to be more in the future. Python is so slow that message passing between processes can often be slower than just handling it in the same process.

What if you have a big array of python objects that you want to sort? In other languages it is trivial to get a huge speedup with more cores.
Yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected free speech, fyi
Sadly that is true. Luckily, if they are using a password manager, it will do the right thing.

Some work has been done on UX here, Apple seems to hide the URL and show only the domain name on iOS sometimes, which is interesting, but annoying. Firefox colour codes the domain name part in the URL bar, but it's pretty subtle.
The Valve Index significantly improved on text readability. For example, I was able to easily read the blurb on the back of a random paperback in Half Life: Alyx.
A core part of the issue is statistical literacy and statistical expertise. A surprising number of scientists suck at stats. This leads to all sorts of shifty analyses and conclusions, often about statistical significance or causation. People who appeal to science as objective tend to not understand how much freedom there is in choosing analyses. The most overconfident seem to know just enough stats to be dangerous.
> replace the contents of the page to look like an iCloud login form while remaining inside the apple.com domain

Indeed, and with the history.pushState() API, you can even change the URL to be more realistic.
This is not true. The study found a reduction in COVID-19 symptoms for the cloth mask group. They also found a reduction in seroprevalence for the cloth mask group, but that reduction wasn't statistically significant. "Statistically insignificant" is not the same as "not true". It is very hard to sufficiently power a seroprevalence study.
I can say that the local subreddit is one of the most heavily policed with the result that during the covid pandemic a large fraction of the casual posters were banned because they couldn't keep track of what new rule was introduced in what day.

A lot of people moved over to telegram channels because you could actually ask questions without getting banned for concern trolling, misinformation or incitement - e.g. asking where protests were happening which is what got me banned finally. Ironically I was asking where they were happening so I could avoid them.

The result of that policing is that I now have a telegram account and regularly scan a dozen right wing channels so I know if I can buy groceries without getting tear gassed.

If this is what winning looks like for the left we don't need help in losing.
For programming languages that offer a good experience with static linking, sure, but even those may depend on external config files, environment variables, specific ports and sockets, all of which can potentially conflict with other programs on the same physical host. Go binaries are almost always just one file and yet are among the most popular to deploy as containers along with making up virtually all of the CNCF ecosystem.
>Curiously, some bits of code went kinda full circle in the process

"Oh I see why. .. yeah that's a better idea."

Happens to me all the time ;)
Overrun hospitals. Ballooning medical bills. Attack on congress. Over 600,000 dead from COVID. High vaccine hesitancy. States enacting voting restrictions to discourage voter participation. Growing social discontent, division and distrust in institutions and democracy.

Your response? Government needs to step in and force YouTube to distribute election lies and COVID misinformation.
At work they are already treating Linux on Desktop as a "solved problem" due to WSL2 (especially due to the Microsoft marketing around it!)

Microsoft is basically telling us "Here you go, your developers can do their weird dev thingies now, so you don't have to bother with that Linux desktop stuff anymore. We've killed their last excuses."

I think this is a really bad thing to happen to Linux. Microsoft Loves Linux?? More like Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. They're trying again to displace the Linux desktop marketshare, small as it already is, by pushing it into the software dev niche.

Personally I use Linux because I don't want to use Windows, with their choices made on my behalf and telemetry that can't be turned off etc. It's because I like choosing my own desktop environment, because I like full control of my machine, because I like to choose whether I want to use a TPM or not. It's not because I wanted to use some dev toolchain or something. I want to use Linux because I love Linux. Not because Windows wasn't good enough for my purposes.
Reddit has a way of drowning out moderate voices which is why I no longer use it
In spite of being nonsensical, I appreciate the former because it echoes the sentiment that up to today, it seems like the war profiteers have won more than any particular side in this insane "War on Drugs." Also, the circular logic of the statement fits with the theme of insanity.
Nothing that's satisfactory in one way or another. Probably Luxonis DepthAI?

The main problem with off-the-shelf solutions is that they add another set of cameras, and afaik nothing exists that allows custom cameras.

We're gonna need an FPGA anyway due to the large amount of IO (2 cameras for AR, 2 for eye tracking, IMU, whatever other sensors we need, plus potentially mmwave radar if we decide to go that way) so it's tempting to put the processing on the FPGA as well.
> This is exactly the source of the trouble. Hearing scientists project their value system onto everybody else destroys their credibility.

> sticking to the facts and avoiding ideology and values

I think a few different things are being confused here, but as far as value is concerned, the choice to do science, to take scientific findings into account and to decide what to investigate are themselves the result of value judgements. There is no fact-value dichotomy. There is no "clean" separation between fact and value (as if value were a dirty word contrary to fact).

This fact-value dichotomy can be tied to the materialist worldview which denies objective value because it presumes a metaphysics that renders the world a kind of theater of senseless extension in space. Any value must therefore be a matter of subjective projection (and therefore delusion, putting to one side materialism's inherent inability to account for subjectivity). But this metaphysics is, to put it gently, problematic. The wish to separate fact from value (which I take to occupy one order, not two) is no doubt further encouraged by liberalism's pretensions to neutrality and the inherent tension within Lockean liberalism between science and liberty.

But I do agree that the actual deciding of policy is not to be left to scientists but to politicians and the like. Scientists are specialists who can supplement our knowledge in specific ways that generalists can then take into account along with other data and understanding when making judgements.
Dithering was never a compression technique, it's a filtering technique for reducing banding on devices/displays/images that have a small color palette.

In fact, even in the 80's, dithered images were often larger than their un-dithered counterpart, sometimes by a lot. But it was worth the trade-off when the alternative was an image with so much banding that it could be confused for a European flag.

Unless you're trying to display your image on a retro console (or have aesthetic reasons for wanting to achieve that effect), you should not use dithering. Essentially all modern devices have a sufficiently enormous color palette, and modern compression algorithms use other techniques to achieve their efficiency.

In fact, modern compression will do a much better job giving you a smaller file size if you don't use dithering.

Edit:

Don't get me wrong, dithering is a super interesting topic, and designing a good dither can be surprisingly hard, it's just not going to help you if your goal is to shrink the images on your website the way the article claims.

If you haven't seen the trailer for "Return of the Obra Dinn" you owe it to yourself to take a look:

https://youtu.be/ILolesm8kFY

Super cool aesthetic, and writing that shader must have been all sorts of difficult/fun. But you don't do this sort of thing for compression efficiency.
That doesn't really square with her board, who were notably from the military and older, conservative leaning men like Kissinger or Shultz. I think they were more taken in by her charisma than they were motivated by feminist activists.
youtube is a private company, they can ban you for whatever reason they want, presumably. Youtube, google, facebook, they aren't public services.
They had to write a paper saying that because it doesn’t happen. We are still doing these procedures today.

Do the interventional cardiologists want to stop stenting people? Not really. The orthopedic surgeons still want to mess with your meniscus, etc.
What's New in React 18?
Why would any organization fighting for funding be inclined to undermine their reason for existing? And why would any rational person be interested in what they have to say about a topic that is well outside their area of expertise (medicine)?
Meanwhile, the world's container ship capacity will have increased by some large factor (30%, 50%) to address the shortage.

How long do you think it takes to build a container ship?

It's in the area of three years in the best of times when you have a good supply of workers and raw materials and building capacity.
> This isn't exhaustive in the sense that it doesn't cover all permutations of vaccinated, infected, and, but it shows that at least infected + vaccinated is better than infected. That seems to meet the criteria that vaccination always offer stronger protection than getting the virus (at least in the vaccinated + infected vs infected populations).

It is consistent with that criteria, but generally “always” means something stronger than “we have evidence it holds in one case”. Especially if that case is the rarest permutation.

> But even a cursory glance at the study shows that the authors of the study knew this wasn't exhaustive, but they cite research [1] backing up OPs claim, and then add their voice to back up that vaccine > infection, vaccine + infection > infection, and make OPs conclusion in the Discussion section.

The paper you just linked was cited on the line “Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 has been documented, but the scientific understanding of natural infection-derived immunity is still emerging” in the OP’s article. The closest line I can find to “back up that vaccine > infection” is an offhand “ Although such laboratory evidence continues to suggest that vaccination provides improved neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 variants, limited evidence in real-world settings to date corroborates the findings that vaccination can provide improved protection for previously infected persons” which doesn’t seem like a particularly strong stance for “vaccine > infection”. Especially when we get back to the original claim which used “always”.

And it appears that they may have been wise in not going that far, since now that we have studies in review that directly measure the endpoints we’re discussing it’s certainly not clear that this is true[1][2].

I’ll wait for those to get peer reviewed and more widely discussed before I’d be comfortable saying “in most cases infection > vaccine” (note I didn’t use the word “always”, which I doubt any researcher or clinician would) but the actual opposing claims in the papers you’ve cited are comparatively tangential to the original “always vaccine > infection” claim.

[1]: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.20.21255670v...
[2]: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...
Frankly, i applaud this censorship. Granted i'm super left/liberal/pro-vax/etc so i'm _definitely_ not in the camp of anti-vaxxers, however we have for years put all our faith and trust in corporations.

Now private entities aren't aligning with a lot of people and they're shocked that corporations aren't the free speech utopia that they once thought. It frustrates me that many of these people didn't care when it was others that were oppressed, but i digress.

Regardless, this sort of mostly harmless but highly sensationalized censorship is very good for our freedoms in my mind because it forces us to decentralize. We've become far too centralized and complacent in unwarranted corporate faith. This is to be expected, and people should have been prepared.

Let Youtube/etc censor all it wants. We need better than Youtube. Wake people up to that. My 2c.
NSFW affects not only the site, but its users.

If a site is specifically intended as, or is incidentally used in the course of, professional work, then NSFW content can literally get your users fired if overseen, logged, or otherwise detected.

That turns out to shift your user demographics in the medium-to-longer term, and not in a direction that's generally compatible with high-quality and engaging content and interactions.

Where NSFW content is permitted, it should be specifically tagged as such, and not presented unless users specifically opt in to it.
Not the OP, but once you attach enforcement to something, it feels different - it is a slight invasion of your world.

To give a wild-ish example: I am very careful about my teeth and I floss often, but I wouldn't like to have to carry around an authorized list of last cleaning sessions for a random cop to check. Even though it could, on aggregate, save quite a lot of money for dental care in our local single payer system.
Apple outsources web development to low cost centers as well.
> In fact, most political speech is misinformation.

Now there's an understatement.
> It’s no one’s business

I must assume you are unfamiliar with the history of Typhoid Mary. Public health is everyone’s business.
MQTT is becoming the defacto interface for home automation. As an example, Home Assistant used to have plugins for zwave and zigbee but they are now replaced by an MQTT broker that sits between Home Assistant and the program driving the wireless dongle.

Since I'm already running Mosquitto to interface with zwave devices, I decided to also use it to monitor my home lab. Servers push sensor statuses into Mosquitto and Home Assistant is used for the UI and alerting. That was a fun week-end project.
Does it? I tried this in GIMP and I get pretty bad block artifacts, discoloration, and blurriness at compression factor 25 (which ends up at ~25kB).

I would say at that point it's arguable which artifacts are preferable (compression or dithering), not compression being a clear winner.
DeepMind claims its AI weather forecasting model beats conventional models