skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
NASA and JPL and other ostensible civilian employers of rocket-scientists and other aerospace engineering experts has a nice side-effect of effectively giving the government a strategic-reserve of highly-skilled experts who can be reassigned to ASAT, ICBM and bomber weapons development at short-notice - and also means those same experts aren't employed by any rival or potential rival superpowers.

...kinda like how the US's civilian nuclear fusion programs were/are a way to keep people who-just-so-happen to be nuclear weapons experts gainfully employed and handily available after the cold war ended. Y'know... just in case!
They would've worked ok if Rare didn't put items only one Kong can get in areas you have to open with a different Kong. That was just idiotic. "Open this door, walk thirty seconds down the tunnel, see the wrong color banana, turn around, go change characters, come back, collect bananas, go change characters again to unlock the next area."
> Instead if you primarily work with non-dependent data structures and then pass in dependently-typed invariants as a separate argument, you can avoid a lot of the complexity associated with dependent types. This allows your dependently typed arguments to not have a runtime representation, e.g. they could be given zero multiplicity in Idris. This in turn allows you to easily substitute a property test or an external solver (or just a human "trust me" override) instead of being forced to always prove everything since you no longer require a true implementation of a dependent type.

I'll provide a counterpoint since i'm personally more of an "integrated" dependentist! Just to make things more clear, what you propose is to segregate computational data from propositional data (proofs) and i prefer "integrating" the two, writing "proofs with computational content" or "correct-by-construction code" depending on the point of view. Agreed, when separating you get (easier) solvers and escape hatches. But afaik a big reason for this separated style in Coq is that their support of dependent pattern-matching is bad (luckily now there is coq-equations).

If you want to write that "map" is size-preserving, in separated style you'll have the function
`map : (X -> Y) -> list X -> list Y` and `map-len : (f : X -> Y) (xs : list X) -> len xs = len (map f xs)`. First the verbosity increases with the complexity of your integrated datastructure. Second in integrated-style, you would have gotten this lemma for free since `map : vec X n -> vec X n` on vectors admits the same implementation as on lists [1]. In my experience, in separated style, you end up duplicating a lot of work. In language theory, subject-reduction (reduction preserves typing) is for free if you're working with intrinsically-typed terms. Eg stuff in my last coq work [2], where manipulating purely computational DeBruijn indices would have been error-prone whereas intrinsically typing terms enables to just auto-complete the single correct implementation.

Going a bit further, both approaches are equivalent: one can prove that `vec X n ≅ (xs : list X) × (len xs ≡ n)`. There is ongoing work on first-class datastructure declaration (ability to construct and manipulate data declarations from code) to actually declare such refinements and derive all the tooling (like [1]) automatically (search for "ornaments", a couple papers there by McBride and Dagand). This would enable to mix-and-match both presentations. There is a fun chain where vectors are a refinement of lists and lists are a refinement of (unary encoded) naturals, and vectors are actually lists indexed by the natural to with they erase (the so-called "reornament" of ornament list/nat, getting additional results generically). Very rich theory, very related to stuff like mathcomp's hierarchy-builder.

[1] With use of `erase : vec X n -> list X` (should get compiled to noop) and `erase-coherent : (xs : vec X n) -> len (erase xs) = n`.

[2] https://sbi.re/~peio/LCD.html and https://sbi.re/~peio/OGSD.html (code at https://git.sr.ht/~lapinot/ogs-coq)
Ask HN: Experience with remote.com for remote full time job
Has anyone worked with remote.com for working with an international company full time? Can you share your experience?
Games should not be released in early access because of a missed deadline. It's part of the release cycle: alpha -> beta -> early access -> full release.

And you stay in early access as long as it's needed.

I've seen a lot of AAA games do the following "Look the game is not finished, but we need the money, don't worry you'll be able to pay the rest as DLC"
Easily one of my favorite books of all time. It’s also always thoroughly enjoyable to reread, there’s lots of little details and foreshadowings you catch each time.
I particularly like the iterated development approach to teaching on this site. That is, one starts with some minimal working code, states a goal, and then modifies the code to accomplish that goal --- repeatedly.

This is a very powerful way to go through a codebase (when it is possible).
True, but not relevant to whether Apple should make parts available or not. Apple’s repairability policy isnt going to alleviate income inequality, but it could have an effect on phone theft.
This is funny!
This is a great topic. I have been working on TAO for many years. I am not very familiar with other graph databases; I assume fundamentally they are more or less the same. Here are some differences between RDB and a graph db IMHO,
1. sharding and transaction boundary
2. Secondary index support
3. How “join” works (eg. give me a list of my friends who follows Justin Bieber)

You’re right that graph db is very easy to use a lot of the times.
Pyxel: A retro game engine for Python
Seems like that market could also be hurt by apple just offering genuine replacement parts
I read this interesting article recently about all the security problems that static linking, bundling and pinning cause for Linux distributions:

https://blogs.gentoo.org/mgorny/2021/02/19/the-modern-packag...
Well, there are some in such misery that things going on tomorrow pretty much like today is intolerable. Which is to some extent both objective and subjective.

I guess how stable a social order is depends in part on for how many.

(Of course there are also societies in which an extreme minority who wants tomorrow to be much like today can keep it so by raw force; I guess that can be a kind of stability too, with enough force, maybe)
My personal view is that only standard core system libraries should be dynamically linked. Anything that is not totally ubiquitous should be static.

That seems to be the Go and Rust default approach, or close to it. Link libc and such, but build in more obscure things.

The idea of dynamically linking everything doesn’t scale. It asks too much of distribution maintainers and makes them the choke point for every little upgrade.
I do that quite a bit, but I have pots which are 12 inches deep. I want to know when the bottom has dried out.
I’m no historian, but indexed disk-based structures - upon which relational databases were built – have been around a very long time. For example, IBM brought out ISAM in the mid 1960’s, roughly contemporary with the publication of the relational model. I could be wrong, but it doesn’t seem likely to me somehow that that those guys had tape foremost in mind.
Is crime higher, or is it that crime is reported more?
If anyone's purchasing this as an ebook, note that there is (unusually) a DRM-free version available [0]. I'm not sure if this is the publisher (Tor Books) or the author's decision -- the publisher's DRM philosophy been discussed on HN [1][2] but I don't know what the current information is.

[0] for example (.epub), https://www.kobo.com/ww/en/ebook/a-fire-upon-the-deep-1

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5630104 ("One Year Later, the Results of Tor Books UK Going DRM-Free")

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3885513 ("More on DRM and ebooks")
DK64's use of the word "Hell" is notorious among American gamers of the N64 era, especially those with strict upbringings. I remember being mildly shocked by it as well.

Years later I learned that in the UK, where Rare was based, "Hell" was not considered a swear word as much as it is in the US. (God help you if you say "bloody" though - but I hear they've eased up on that too.) This was the first time I realised whether or not something was considered a "swear word" was cultural.
> I'd rather expect that the 'user-facing' GL implementation (GL2.x, GL3.x, ...) is identical and can be statically linked, and that only the graphics driver layer differs between machines (which would be similar to an executable which links the C library statically, which in turn talks to the operating system through syscalls).

The problem is that the "graphics driver layer" (except a small amount of security-sensitive pieces) runs in user space, in the same process which is doing the OpenGL/Vulkan/Metal/etc calls. The way modern graphics hardware works is that the application writes a very complex and hardware-dependent set of command buffers, which are then submitted to the hardware, and only this final submission goes through the kernel (for security reasons). If the application had to call the kernel for each and every step of the creation of the command buffers, it would kill the performance.
Not necessarily thrown to them, but sometimes they were looking for. The "study" does not tell how to become THE CEO of a Fortune 500 company, but how to become "a CEO somewhere". If you want really bad to become a CEO, you can be the CEO of a free falling former big company, like a former director of mine is today: it checks the CEO box, nothing more.
I've never really liked the standard 2D political compass, and I think the issue is that the two axes aren't actually independent.

Right v. Left basically boils down to one's opinion on hierarchies. If one views hierarchies as good, they're on the right, if they see them as evil, they're on the left, and there's a whole spectrum of "necessary evil", "acceptable", etc, in between.

Then you've got the Authoritarian v. Libertarian axis, which essentially boils down to "how much power should higher-ups in the hierarchy have over those who are lower?". With Monarchies and Dictatorships being "guy on top controls everything" to Anarchism saying "no one should control anyone".

The problem is that, defined that way, certain areas in the space become absurd. What does it mean to completely reject hierarchies as evil, but think that people on top of the hierarchies ought have absolute power? What does it mean to think that hierarchies are good and just, but that there should be no power vested in them?

This manifests outside the philosophical, in the real world as well. As you look at increasingly authoritarian ideologies, the differences between left-leaning and right-leaning ideologies shrink. Comparing the conditions of Hitler's Germany and Stalin's USSR reveals far less difference than you see even amongst the spread of Liberal states today.

Likewise, the number of hierarchies you hear objections to shrinks as you move right amongst Libertarians, until you basically only hear complaints about the government.
Considered harmful essays considered harmful:

https://meyerweb.com/eric/comment/chech.html
It is technically a yacht, as it is 65 foot long, and the threshold for a yacht is only 40 ft. Manchin bought it second hand for $220k in 2013 [1] from a liquidation broker.

[1] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4946155-House-Boat-4...
This isn’t unique to Netflix. The replays in syndication are also 16:9. As are the blu-ray releases. I finally bought the full series on DVD as I’d rather the original aspect ratio.
Or no battery charge at all! :)
>> traditional media just deals in half truths

>> I trust most of the podcasts I listen to

But so does pod casters, even Joe "Vitamin D" Rogan does it. Half-truths sell magazines.

It seems we've created a society where being "right" and pointing fingers are highly lucrative ways of conducting ourselves. It seems we have forgotten the ways of the past where even the most unalike could find consensus around basic matters and have fruitful discussions around your point of view as well as mine, because we knew, we're both far from being 100% "right".

The arrogance of the human race, it makes me so sad.
There was a story many years ago about an answering machine talking to an advertiser machine.
How a graph DB index the data to support this query?
No prob. I did not mean to be vague, I wanted to specify the principles.

Suppose that John was waiting for the availability of some treatment. Then John is reached by information about side effects of concern. It is normal that John will see something outside initial expectations ("a few days of distress owing to bodily reaction") around him (say, persistent inconveniences of some, maybe a few critical occurrences of somebody else - "Mary has been itching for three months", "Lucy's mother fell out of the window"), and by looking for further information he will reach extreme but unreliable information ("Anon wrote on a web billboard his cousin caught fire within four days of inoculation"). The expectation of John will probably be that these cases will be actively explained by theory and assessed case by case, at least in a representative sample (e.g. subject to active monitoring). What he will encounter will easily be worlds with little and scarcely effective inter-communication: publications for academics containing large number of pages relevant to general topic but none apparently assessing the questions emerging from his experience; "renegade" researchers speaking of toxicity; no mention of said toxicity elsewhere. Adding to that, the scenario is made more complex and/or confusing through the message of articles like "The final nail in the coffin of medical research";, through increasing diffusion of lapidary password constructs (take 'safe and effective' - which is not per se meaningful as its two members are not absolute, yet it is proposed (even here, nearby) as a final judgement); through the usual lunatics making extraordinary claims; through a public debate that obsessively refers to the usual lunatics, factually honouring them as The Interlocutors of choice; through censorship (Lex Fridman denounced it and went on to say that at the MIT researchers have started preferring to remain quiet and silent); through the extension of the same into principles that e.g. forbid the statement that 'vaccines are dangerous' (YouTube), which is a complete reinvention of the language, so even the common ground of communication is gone (as now for "dangerous" an arbitrary threshold is set and in the new vernacular fighting for dominance paracetamol, water, the sun are not dangerous anymore); through a defence of a principle of responsibility about the consequences of how a tick and a mouse may interpret your words (but not the consequences of how intellectual profession and principles bend under the weights of a tick and a mouse).

In all of that John will continue wondering "how and why had Mary been itching for months, and why was not that brought clearly to topic: all of that cannot be normal". John will not only expect explanations that put his experience into theoretical context, but also a slice of some system in which problematic experience is treated as expected: as something pending waiting for answers.

--

Edit: your post now reads, «Its a start at least, but that's still very vague»: you must have edited while I was writing: you know this is not the original poster writing, right?
> Your mom appreciates a $600 weekend getaway with her son/daughter infinitely more than a $600 fancy bluetooth speaker.

Your mom appreciates a $600 weekend getaway with her son/daughter infinitely more than a $6000 fancy dohicky
There is no way experts believed virus could not be airborne. Perhaps they did not initially believe corona-virus was airborne at that time but it seems more likely one of those things where an expert was politically bullied into saying half truths for plan expediency.
I watched this in 16:9 on Amazon Video (it's been available for years) and I disagree it's a problem. I think they did a great job. Yes, some things were cut out, but you could count them on one hand. Having said that they should've offered a 4:3 version. I would have watched that one version had they offered it.
Exactly because you could have a fake camera that could collect your info and make it accessible for an installed app that would upload it for an hostile server. The original camera doesn’t give you access to this data, a counterfeited one possibly could.
The series was filmed in... film. There is no need for upscaling. They digitalised it from the film and it looks as if it was recorded yesterday.
This example doesn't demonstrate any of the power of Cypher, the whole point is matching a pattern than corresponds to a traversal, which as it happens is much much more elegant than recursive SQL
No- it's really not, but that's irrelevant.

Sacrificing your personal interests and goals because you want to be in a place with people where you fit-in is the very definition of popularity, regardless of your social rank within the group.

That's not necessarily bad, but it's not nerdy.
Not a rumor. This is very common. For instance, an example from a marketplace advert.

https://postimg.cc/hfQbS6bQ

PROHIBITED: a) UKR, RU, CIS - BAN
And married a younger women and had kids later.
A better question: was Robin Hood a real person whose behavior could serve as evidence?
Looking for interesting projects - tax, legal | Remote | Part time/contract/etc.

Tax (tax attorney) and technology consultant. Happy to lend a hand on any projects at the intersection of the two -- from crypto to compliance, entity choice/formation, etc.

Experience with data privacy and technology transactions as well.

Email in bio etc.
It's interesting to think about the possibilities... On one hand, wagon travel to the west didn't totally die off until the late 1890s, so the woman could easily be part of the greatest generation (WW2 generation) and the encounter could've happened quite recently. OTOH the earliest the encounter could've happened would be the end of the 1950s, and if it did happen that early that makes it plausible that her father traveled west at the peak of the Oregon Trail in the late 1840s to 1850s. It's mind blowing how much we've advanced in such a short time.
Twitter is already Twitter with AIDS.
Meteorologists have it easy, because weather doesn't react to the forecast and modify its behaviour to invalidate it.
Still using a 6s as my one and only, it’s a great phone.
Then you would expect the value of cryptocurrencies to drop like a stone and never recover, but it hasn't worked out that way. Maybe markets aren't quite as agnostic as you think.

Seems to me we're actually heading for the competing private currencies advocated by Hayek, who thought the result would be long-term price stability without the need for top-down control.
Bittensor | Fullstack Engineer | Remote | Full time

Bittensor is a peer-to-peer marketplace that commoditizes machine learning intelligence using a blockchain. It aims to truly decentralize AI and take it away from monolithic GPU deep learning machines. It will spread it across the internet, allowing everyone to have access to the network and create or collaborate in the collective intelligence -- without needing expensive mainframes that, at the present, only very well funded labs or top companies have access to.

We're a small but growing outfit of about 5 engineers that are all completely remote, and are hiring for a full stack engineer.

## Ideally you will have...

- 5+ years experience working with Python and Javascript.

- Experience working with React JS and Node JS.

- Experience in building high performance applications.

- The ability to work independently, desire to write efficient, scalable, and clean code.

- Experience putting on multiple hats as this is a fast-growing startup.

## Very strong candidates can also have

- Familiarity with Polkadot stack (Substrate, Polkadot blockchain).

- General blockchain development experience in an industrial setting.

- Pytorch.

If interested, please send a brief intro and your resume to operations@opentensor.ai.
Could it be similar to imperative vs functional languages? Imperative style being closer to the hardware instructions and having the first-mover advantage in gaining popularity, while functional style being more abstract, but trailing behind the imperative languages in adoption.
shared ram too. it adds up.
google "monadic interpreter"

One thing monad/bind can do that macros cannot is make arbitrary runtime decisions about what to do next, with runtime information. A macro is constrained by what is known statically in the AST. This is why compiled languages are far easier to optimize (it is merely algebraic rewrites of the AST) whereas dynamic languages have runtime eval.
Production Issues: The Owl Effect
Maybe XML could be the right tool for some jobs, it's just that the entire industry have searched for these jobs for the past two decades, and very few have turned up.

In other words, it's a solution looking for a problem, and it's still looking.

GUI construction? XML is the wrong tool here again, but not for lack of trying. Tech powerhouses Google and Microsoft got caught up in the hype as well. The results, the Android API and XAML, speak for themselves, negatively.

> XML is like democracy

No it's not. Please don't bring politics into technical discussions, it clouds your judgement.
I know you’re being hyperbolic there, but if I take it at face value, I’m left wondering if that would pass First Amendment protections. I suspect most such policies would be in violation of 1A.
Yes, that's what Kirilrogovoy said that I was replying to. Yo can can do those things in a graph database, so I'm speculating that the original commentor didn't mean "CRUD" as literally "create read update delete" but in the sense of "most uses of databases are unexciting". Crud doubles as a lightly rude word, covering low-end drudge work. "another cruddy web database today, I'm sick of this".

When someone needs to store today's office visitors, they don't need to know who shared the visitor log on Facebook and how many people liked it, or how many visitors removed from Kevin Bacon they all are, it just needs a list with a bit more structure than CSV, and that kind of use dominates what people do with databases.
But Apple literally does repair my phone when I drop it?
That's wrong. Since its inception, on of the main points of the relational mode is physical data independence.

No assumptions on how or where the data is physically stored is made by the model. Besides, it seems more plausible to me that Codd would be working on machines with disks, not tapes, by the time he proposed the model. See this, for example: https://www.theregister.com/2013/11/20/ibm_system_r_making_r...

So my understanding is relational databases were born on disks, not on tapes, but that distinction doesn't really matter to it. Additionally, it is the physical independence of the model that let all implementations based on it adapt when SSDs (and newer) storage systems arrived.

Finally, saying "the paradigms have outlived the hardware" doesn't make sense in this context. To repeat: the relational model was proposed precisely to isolate logical database design from hardware details. As a paradigm, it has been independent of hardware from conception, so of course it would outlive any specific hardware incarnation.
This is a no true "no true Scotsman" statement: yet there are Scotsmen; there are still always excess of anything; despite the caveat that this can be abused as "any question can be dismissed as pathological". Do not overthink it into pretzel-logic. My other comment outlines the situation that I think clearly qualifies.
Well. They should go to the police!