skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Constructing or incrementally updating an AST is not cheap. In particular, most ASTs are very fragile and there are characters when inserted at the wrong position invalidate the entire AST (e.g. prepending a C-like document with `/*`). Even prepending documents with `{` could render all nodes of the AST invalid, as they might get a different meaning (a class declaration might now be parsed as block statement).

I think you have a worldview where text is being edited and ASTs are constantly being replaced via parsing.

In an AST-based language, it doesn't necessarily have meaning to add some random character at some random spot, in the way that it does with text. With text, you can only recreate the entire AST by parsing, and discover that the parse is broken.

With an AST-based language (such as https://darklang.com), the editor could inform you that that character cannot be added in that place. Or it could allow you to put it there, informing you that that particular piece of text has no valid meaning, while the rest of the AST is still valid. (Darklang uses both approaches).
For an example of how science can end up with competing ideas and differing conclusions from experiments, see the little battle between Steve Mould and Mehdi "ElectroBOOM" Sadaghdar. They each made a few videos trying to explain the Mould effect (the effect where a chain dropped from a jar rises up from the lip as it falls). Each of them make compelling arguments as to why they're right and the other is wrong, but if not for them competing we'd just be assuming that Mould's original explanation was correct.
> It's only when you're presenting your opinion as a fact that you're engaging in misinformation

And this sentence is a peer-reviewed fact, or just your opinion that you failed to label appropriately i.e. misinformation?
> So, you think that we should circumstantially limit constitutionally protected rights

According to your logic, you should think that common carrier laws should be repealed entirely.

Think, the telephone company blocking certain political groups, or the only water company in town, refusing to deliver water to certain people who say things that they don't like.

It is pretty similar, philosophically. Common carrier laws are pretty uncontroversial.

So it feels weird for you to be making these types of arguments, when it is already established, that there are major counter examples.

So you'd have to either recognize the contradiction, or admit that your position is at odds with other established, and uncontroversial laws.
Ironically it was the liberals I most associated with opposition to vaccines in the recent past. In 2020 everything just became so much more polarized.
In fairness, it is trivial to point to any number of counter-examples throughout history if you just want to dismiss the observation. Hedges is a journalist and was referring to the changes he saw in the squeezed middle and lower classes through his career, and probably wasn't making a sweeping historic claim.

I mentioned it as contrast to the parent comment who simply concluded people are incapable of rational thought, and meant to suggest there are mediating influences.
Fair enough, but Logos, Ethos, Pathos are also insufficient. And I have no answers on what else is required. It's very frustrating.
You are now banned from YouTube.
This is very true and based on well-researched, well-founded premises.

At Arist (YC S20) we donate $1k/month to the main open source project we make use of (Ruby on Jets). This has been a major productivity boost for us as issues critical to our business are fixed quickly. Definitely recommend it!
Objections over long term safety are absolutely reasonable due to historical precedent (see the Polio vaccine) and because the litmus test of “peer-reviewed” research is the standard the parent I responded to set. There exists no “long term” research of mRNA vaccines from which to draw conclusions (another reason why the “peer-reviewed science” standard for truth is fundamentally flawed). I don’t think concerns over long-term danger is a strong argument (which is one reason I chose to be vaccinated) but it is absolutely reasonable.
Don't know why you're being downvoted for stating the truth.

In Brussels (and all over EU), many companies are founded just to leach off EU funds or to advise you how to do it, for a fee of course. They're basically red-tape companies, and it's big business in Brussels.

Look around on LinkedIn and you'll see a bunch of serial entrepreneurs with fancy titles and pompous resumes, who found a new company every couple of years, each tailored to a new innovative way of sucking that EU grant money and producing zero real world results, other than a fancy looking website about the vision of the company, and writing lots documentation.

And, honestly, I don't blame them, I blame the EU politicians for being monstrous idiots.
I've had lots of vaccines and none of them made me sick. I guess about half the people I know who have been vaccinated were knocked out for a day or two, with many of them reporting that they felt truly terrible. That's not normal.

As for Minaj's claim: you believe it's absurd and stupidly false, because you haven't heard anything else like it. But this topic is about censorship of anything that can be perceived as anti-vaccine. VAERS has quite a lot of reports of swollen testicles and/or testicular pain, so who is to say that her report was really false? It can't be proven by either of us one way or another; just assigned probabilities based on prior expectations. Expectations partly controlled by the type of act this thread is about.
This makes some sense, but I'm a bit confused on why it was so slow, to be honest. Seems that running emacs against the checker.ts example they gave, with rainbow-delimiters-mode is instant. Am I just comparing against a different type of mode?

That said, I do get the point on wanting things to be IPC based, but that feels like a large jump in complexity for most items. I'm very grateful for the model of extension in emacs, where you do have to learn complexities if you are building a complex plugin, but you can go very far before you get into the realm of complex plugin.
The distinction exists but its also rhetorically insignificant. Nobody is conflating the academic research complex with the scientific method. But just as how other definitions have changed over time everyone knows that when someone refers to problems with science they mean problems with the academic research complex and related topics.

Put another way in modern colloquial English what you call science is almost always called the scientific method. What everyone else calls science is really Academia. When people start publicly calling for other forms of reasoning and problem solving to be taught then your argument will be convincing.
Do you mean with React.lazy? Suspense hasn’t been used yet outside of that in released versions of React. Would be curious what specifically you ran into though; it shouldn’t make errors hard to debug.
COVID is actually a great example of some of TFA is about.

Many of the "facts" about COVID are not actually in much dispute. The people who view it as "a dangerous virus" and those who see it as "the flu" are much less far apart than they appear.

Nobody has seriously disputed the R0 values for COVID, nor the (rather) broad range of deaths per 100k cases. What isn't agreed upon is what the implications for policy should be.

Those who view it as a dangerous virus point to its transmissibility and capacity to cause hospitalization, and therefore its implications for public health issues.

Those who view it as "the flu" point to its relatively low death rate compared to other global pandemics of the past, particularly when adjusted for demographics, and correctly note that a given individual's chance of dying from COVID are extremely low (at least in countries with roughly adequate health care systems).

Both can claim "facts" on their side. The question is what policy consequences follow, and that is where the major differences lie. Depending on your perspective, the deaths (and long term illness) caused by COVID are variously worse, better or about the same as the damage caused by policies to contain it. Since making this assessment necessarily involves subjective judgements and questions of morality, it can't be settled by an appeal to science let alone mere facts.

None of this is to say that there are not relatively fact-ignorant people making various cases for certain policy approaches. But we could ignore those people, and the core debate would remain, and it's not a debate about truth or science, but policy.
Show HN: Tool for debugging client TLS version and cipher support issues
Note that my previous comment did not state anything to do with long term safety, only that there is a false equivalency being drawn. I agree that there is no long term (decades) study that I can point to about the safety of mRNA vaccines. However, my personal choice to take the vaccine was a conscious comparison of the benefits and risks (with attempts at quantifying the above).
I think that you could have made that case if we had a vaccine in April 2020, but by now US has 30-50% of its population with natural immunity. Additionally, the spike protein is the least likely mutation to enable escaping, as it both has to modify to be different enough from the original, plus somehow still be able to attach onto our cells with similar level of infectiousness. Thats why they choose to vaccinate against the spike protein vs any other part of the virus. None of the variants at the moment seem to be a concern for escaping the spike protein, with a billion vaccinations and a billion infections. We are literally running out of chances for that to happen.

There also remains enough spread now that vaccinated people are getting mini boosts of natural immunity. Israel has some great data on the combination of various number of doses and natural immunity, and the combo is very strong.

That being said, I don't know your medical history. I am a strong supporter of accepting natural immunity in lieu of a vaccine. But even so, that fear of escape isn't made worse by a naturally immune person getting vaccinated, as they already have the non-spike protein defenses.
Some day I hope there will be a Raspberry Pi with two network interfaces.
> but there must be some path from paying SAP and Microsoft Gigabucks in perpetuity to building an ecosystem of free software that everybody can use.

Simply have a law that any software the state buys, if not OSS already, becomes time-delayed OSS: after 2 years it becomes open source.

If Microsoft et al don't want to sell software on those terms, fine, then no country within the EU (or state owned entities) will ever buy any of their software.

This idea is probably far too sensible for the EU to ever adopt.
Why Science cannot be Value-Free (2008) [pdf]
> Or do you think they are unvaccinated because they read up on the history of vaccines, talked to their doctors, etc?

The history of vaccines shows a phenomenal success rate. And most physicians are in support due to the enormous impact vaccination has on hospitalization rates.

The problem is your definition of "moderate" is flawed. You have included craziness as part of the spectrum which isn't correct.

Many have said "it doesn't really work" or "somebody died from it" which are not moderate statements at all. Those are quite anti-vaxx when you dig into how skewed the numbers really are.

Trials so far have shown over a 90% drop in hospitalization during reinfection cases IIRC. Similarly in July 2021 there were 3 known deaths from 339 million doses. Hell there were 6,207 deaths from people who had been vaccinated (the 6,204 other cases were found to be unrelated)

> Now that we are way past herd immunity

We aren't past herd immunity. At all. 70% is a low ball number for herd immunity, many suggested a large rate is needed given the fast spreading of the virus. California is sitting at 58.8%.

> And sadly, as it pertains to covid, the extremes have been wrong about covid - everything from death rate

I mean the US has had 43 million cases and 693,000 deaths. It has so far killed 1.5% of the confirmed cases. I remember there were error bars from 1-3% but I believe since early 2020 that has been the expected range for cases. (Actual death rate requires knowing the infection rate which is super hard to do unfortunately)
I agree but even 5-10 years ago - putting faith in a company being omnipotent is no different than government without oversight. I'm very pro government but oversight is required for it to function properly in my mind.

5-10 years ago was the source of the problem. We're seeing the fruits of this now.
Brazen Bull
I mean location based smoking bans definitely do reduce smoking rates.
> Whether or not the Earth is getting warmer, and the cause of that warming, are scientific questions. Also science is a discussion of possible remediations and their costs. Which remediation to choose, if any, is a question of values and outside the scope of science.

So how do you propose scientists "stick to" the discussion of remediations of "we can remediate X by doing Y at expense Z" without it being portrayed maliciously as pesky interfering scientists saying "we should do Y"?

The problem of lack of trust is hardly the sole responsibility of scientists here.

Do you think discussing uncertainty more is going to raise trust or just be more fodder for the people with non-scientific reasons to oppose action?

I propose scientists "only stick to the science" if and only if everyone else in the world sticks to their wheelhouse as well. Lotta citizens, politicians, and pundits out there without much training in making good ethical decisions either!

As long as the output of a scientist will be interpreted through other people's political lenses its fair game for them to frame it politically too.
I think the argument isn't generally that non violence is always the only option it's that the current situation doesn't warrant violence.

I understand this is a subjective point of view as it is in response to police violence.

If things are as bad as the media suggests, that racist cops are targeting and killing black men and getting away with it then yes they system needs to be over thrown and the argument to use violence is easy to make.

But many don't believe things are that bad. I don't know as I don't live in these neighborhoods. But I think it's valuable to examine why people disagree on the issue.
does anyone else think that this is sort of the intended goal? not necessarily by YouTube in this case specifically but in a sort of meta sense, for many things such as this, in the past decade or so. it's almost as though those in power benefit when those who aren't in power are divided along ever more axes, axes which didn't exist only a few short years ago, but whose division is more significant than anything we've seen in many years.

for example, I'm reminded of how contemporary identity politics seemed to sprout up out of nowhere conveniently around the same time as the #occupy movement(s). since then, I haven't been able to shake the feeling that the powerful people in the world are maintaining power by dividing the populace.
Frogpelt has an understanding that so many lack. I wish there was some way for this middle ground to speak and make itself now.

This "tribal" devolution of everything to two sides on an issue with interlocking viewpoints on all subjects is a major problem in our current climate.

I agree the nuance of this situation is lost when there are so many people who do not see the nuance to begin with.

A culture that cannot understand nuance is a culture more likely to go to war. To see others as "other", not seeking common ground, but seeing things that differ as reasons to hate
"Dishy" size is because its a two-dimensional phased-array antenna. It has a lot of small antennas on it to steer the energy released from the antenna directionally through interference patterns. If you're only going to receive and the signals are powerful enough you don't need that big of an antenna to receive signals at these frequencies.
The vaccine limit the spread of the disease, that's a fact. By how much is up to debate but it is not just effective at making the disease less severe.

The wave of infections caused by the delta variant is faster, larger and deadlier in places with low vaccination rates. The vaccinated are less likely to test positive by about half, symptoms or not.

Not perfect but the vaccine protects others. If the unvaccinated took the necessary precautions to avoid infecting others, it would be their problem (if healthcare is not overwhelmed...), but usually they don't. Just look at anti-vaccine protests, you don't see a lot of masks...

And of course, if almost everyone in your area is vaccinated, most cases will be breakthrough cases.
In this case though, vaccines save lives and aren't a different narrative, so it's fine to delete disinformation that is getting people killed.
Part of it is a hope to get back to normal. The other part is that their "bodily choice" isn't self contained. If someone has ebola, is it their "bodily choice" to walk around infecting others? The unvaccinated are showing an extreme lack of empathy.

Also, go read some of the countless reports about how hospitals are overwhelmed, how states are allowing the rationing of care, how ICUs have no beds for heart attacks or normal pneumonia because the beds are full of people who don't trust doctor's enough to get the vaccine but want life sustaining help after getting covid. I predict we are going to see mass resignations from hospital workers who are burned out because one political party convinced its supporters to not take basic medical advice. I've lost two uncles from this disease. It sounds like you haven't. I hope you take a step back and think about what happens when someone you love needs ICU care but the staff, equipment and resources are full and your loved one can't be treated.
Cool, that's helpful, thanks!
> I'm just there to try and help people with depression, anxiety and other issues.

Then it's mostly like because those topics aren't "advertiser friendly." Youtube did something similar during what was called the "adpocalypse." Advertisers don't want their products to be associated with the things you talk about, and reddit cares more about selling ads than helping you help people.
This is terrible advice. Dithering should not be used for compression. Real world example:

Here's his dog picture encoded to webp using default settings (11KB): https://image.non.io/dog.webp

This is smaller than all but his two color and his four color examples, at a tremendously higher fidelity. Just for comparison:

webp vs original @ 11KB: 2.1% difference from source image.

gameboy vs original @ 8KB: 18.2% difference from source image.

4 color vs original @ 9KB: 15.2% difference from source image.

Even if you compress the webp down to 8KB, you only encounter a 3.3% difference from the original.

TL;DR - use modern image formats. Don't use dithering for compression.
You make a good point, but to be clear a lab leak is not "the leading theory", it is a plausible theory.
It might also mean "higher quality recruits".
They're banning a set of channels that are known to be spreading vaccine lies and then they're also banning videos that are claiming that vaccines aren't safe.

We know they're safe because they undergo exhaustive testing. Banning videos from people that are lying isn't stifling debate, it's banning lies.
Related article: "Why Science cannot be Value-Free"

https://www.kul.pl/files/57/wydzial/lekka-kowalik/Lekka-Kowa...

(HN submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28697385)
This is true, there are no absolute rights. However, the examples you cite have no resemblance to the stifling of careful discussion which might, in some way, question the wisdom of universal vaccination or inquire about the long-term effects, etc. That kind of speech is qualitatively different from incitement to violence and other clear and present danger cases. So I'm not sure how pointing out that in some abstract sense rights are never absolute has any bearing on this discussion. The chilling of speech in the public square that we are currently witnessing has no clear limits and the logic used to justify it ends up making this tantamount to setting up some kind of a wrongspeak standard. In a free society, individuals must be uninhibited in their investigation of the wisdom of public health policy. Equating this to the "yeling fire in a crowded theater" case is silly.
<sarcasm>You know, if we legalize cannabis we'll have to legalize driving while black next. How will we legally enslave black people by convicting them of crimes and forcing them to engage in prison labor without laws we can selectively enforce against them?</sarcasm>
1. Assholes will be assholes under their real names.

2. The politically, economically, and/or socially disadvantaged are further disadvantaged under such regimes. Yonatan Zunger, chief architect of Google+, put that quite clearly: "In practice, the forced revelation of information makes individual privilege and power more important. When everyone has to play with their cards on the table, so to speak, then people who feel like they can be themselves without consequence do so freely -- these generally being people with support groups of like-minded people, and who are neither economically nor physically vulnerable. People who are more vulnerable to consequences use concealment as a method of protection: it makes it possible to speak freely about controversial subjects, or even about any subjects, without fear of harassment."

https://web.archive.org/web/20180903205908/https://plus.goog...

3. Laws and regimes may change. Ask the inhabitants of Germany circa 1933, or those of Afghanistan circa 2021, among numerous other examples.

4. Groups themselves can lead to and engage in destructive activities. See the case of Reddit's increasing problems with brigading and other hostile activity amongst subreddits, resulting in the banning of numerous of these.

5. The consequences of a toxic media landscape at scale are felt by those considerably removed from the platform(s) themselves. Twitter cheered the Arab Spring protests. Facebook are attempting to distance themselves from their very active role in the Myanmar genocide. History shows that changes to media landscapes are often very disruptive socially and politically, often at a horrific cost of innocent lives.
This reads more as an argument against dithering. Sure, it saves bandwidth, but all the images in the post look awful. If I saw pictures like these on a professional website, I’d assume the people behind it were incompetent.

If you really want to save bandwidth, you’d be better off looking at better formats like AVIF, and WebP.

Those will shave off a lot of extra bits, especially AVIF, although that is not universally supported yet.

Combine that with making a the images a little smaller would save you a lot of bandwidth, without making your pictures look like they are 20 years old.
I like MQTT and we use Mosquitto in our product but I always wonder if MQTT pushes TCP into areas where UDP would be a better fit.
You were very clear in the first post, now you changed the meaning completely.
Thank you! Those links are exactly why the Ask HN section is my favorite part of HN.
In the article, Victor brings up a good point that the GIL can lead to some nasty scheduling with IO. If you have some thread doing computationally expensive stuff and other threads responding to HTTP requests, the computationally intensive thread ends up hogging the CPU.

When a thread has been waiting for IO, you often want to switch to it as soon as the IO is finished in order to keep the system responsive. So the biggest issue with the GIL seems to be more about scheduling and less about actually having true concurrent threads in Python.
Adobe Photoshop CC 2021 Version v22.5.1.441 Serial Key