skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
https://youtu.be/psL_5RIBqnY?t=6687

> Now, Find My combines Find My iPhone with Find My Friends... And it has a new twist because it can now even locate Apple devices that are offline... Let's say you have misplaced your MacBook. So, even when it's offline and sleeping, it sends out a secure Bluetooth beacon that can be detected by other people's Apple devices nearby. Now, they can relay your MacBook's location to the network and ultimately back to you so you can find it. Now, what's amazing is that this whole interaction is end to end encrypted and anonymous.

About two full minutes of Craig explaining it.
I miss a tiny thing: seeing when each comment was created.
They're not legal in CA
I don't think that's accurate at all. According to [0]:

> Federal employees, federal contractors and health-care workers at facilities that receive federal funding must show proof of vaccination, with no testing option.

> 80 million U.S. workers will have a choice between providing proof of vaccination or submitting to weekly Covid testing.

Your examples of France and Australia are also not accurate. According to [1]

> There may be circumstances in the future in which proof of vaccination will be required, such as border or re-entry requirements, or continued employment in particular areas. One example of this is the mandatory vaccination requirements for all residential aged care workers which will come into effect on 17 September 2021 in line with relevant state and territory directions.

For France there is no mandate like you described [2]. No one is keeping anyone from doing essential things like grocery shopping, I don't know where you got that from but I suggest you do some research.

[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/10/what-you-need-to-know-about-...
[1] https://www.health.gov.au/initiatives-and-programs/covid-19-...
[2] https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20210930-health-pass-becomes-ma...
We have something like those already. Primary and secondary education are free (and compulsory) and one cannot refuse treatment to individuals in the emergency room.

The appeal of free public transportation, to me, is that it allows more people to take advantage of public spaces and works and, marginally, allows people to bring home more money for the same amount of time worked.

Free public transportation fare incentivizes participation not tuning out like I feel many UBI proposals do. No one is going to look at, effectively, a free metro card then think "Sweet! I don't need to work!"
It didn’t used to bother me back when I could assume everyone else understood it was an industry specific title based on a metaphor! I even used to defend the title by saying, “Relax; it’s an industry-specific title, not a kind of engineer.” Like “Software Architect” is understood not to be a kind of architect. But over the last few years I’ve seen dozens of HNers lay out technical arguments for why they ARE engineers.

So, I never took a single engineering class, have no engineering cert, don’t know much about the ethos, and barely even know the definition without looking it up. But I’m supposed to not rock the boat, and claim to be one, like I accidentally became an engineer in the course of designing, planning, fortifying, testing, and measuring software? Like Daniel-san accidentally became a karate master by waxing cars?

Sorry, no. Our “engineering” is just another partially applicable metaphor for what software devs do. But software development is its own set of disciplines. It’s wonderful to pull helpful concepts from other disciplines, but I draw the line at coopting the whole designation.
Inconsistency in Conference Peer Review: Revisiting the 2014 NeurIPS [video]
Because the argument isn't for regulation, it's against lobbying and it's against having a government that's influenced by corporatism/ capitalism (because that's largely what lobbying is).

Which pretty clearly makes the alternative socialism / communism, depending on how you want to define them.
Weakly, without some rigour to the collegiate aspect. Collegiate in the widest sense, nobody cares if you live in college, but your group experience of sharing learning with peers in tutorials, seminars, is gold.

Most engineers hate the group exercises. Because of different levels of commitmeent: guess what - thats the real-world experience too!

Seriously: shared learning at Uni is a lot about the corridor conversations, and the group. Can be toxic, can be gold. Harder to manage remotely.
Tsafe: The missing built-ins (assert) for TypeScript
On hanami.run:

> Never lost your emails.

Should be "Never lose your emails."
Asciidoc looks too much like code.
To be clear, they are not currently—nor have they ever—landed on the Moon.

better: s/Is Using/Will Use/
best: s/Is Using/Intends to Use/
> recently put in

2019: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28712681
Once software capable of driving at a superhuman level (say 10x the average) exists, the regulatory side will be trivial. What regulator wouldn't want to save 30,000 lives?

Sadly, that software is still a ways away. Don't fall for the trap believing that self driving is at all a regulatory problem. It is only a software one.
It is, unfortunately, a relevant and important point. I've heard of plenty of nurses who got wrapped up in conspiracy theories and completely ignored the experts, but very VERY few doctors or pharmacists. Knowing how to take care of someone who is sick is a far cry from being an expert on vaccines or viruses.
ML News – Plagiarism Case with Plot Twist – Clip for Video Surveillance [video]
> I would go even further to argue that proposing a very unpopular control flow technique as a method of state management sounds like the #1 way to cause a library to have a steep learning curve and result in unexpected interactions, especially when being contrasted to algebraic effects.

Putting aside the fact that hooks are not the same as algebraic effects, I think it's funny that you believe algebraic effects are simpler to learn and reason about than generators. I'll grant you that it's pretty easy to get up and running using hooks, but I've met few frontend engineers who could actually explain to me the entire lifecycle of a complex functional component in detail. You can argue that those are not very good engineers, but I've seen this far too often not to blame the tool.

> Enough about this transferable business, writing a reusable pure function is as transferable as it gets.

But they're not pure! As soon as you call `useState` or any other hook, you lose all semblance of purity in your components, because the functions are now tightly bound to the React life cycle and can't be called or tested in any way without that context. Debugging and testing hooks means using React-specific tools that aren't applicable anywhere else, and stack traces become significantly less meaningful than they were with the class-based lifecycle methods.

> I really don't know what mental burden hooks are putting on developers either.

The "rules of hooks" are weird and counter-intuitive, and necessitate a lot more care with what would otherwise be simple refactors. That said, I could grant that it's not a big deal if that was the only gotcha, but hooks are full of them. For instance, I can't tell you how many bugs I've encountered related to the dependency array passed into `useEffect` and `useCallback`—it's very easy to have your component render too often or not often enough in ways that are not immediately obvious in a code review. Finding bugs related to these dependencies can be really painful, whereas class-based components let you easily debug updates by plopping a breakpoint into `componentDidUpdate`.

> I don't see how using unrelated solutions that require learning entirely new concepts not popular in the domain already will improve the situation.

Yeah, I think we can agree to disagree here, because this is exactly what I think about hooks: they are React-specific magic functions that require learning entirely new concepts that are meaningless outside of React. To each either own.
what you should really do, is solve the lending problem. as a startup founder it has been impossible to get a corporate credit card without personal guarantees, even if I asked for a low dollar limit (e.g. 10K). in europe, that was never a problem for me. not giving a personal guarantee has nothing to do with being a scammer or shady person, but preventing the piercing of the limited liability aspect of the company you are founding. also, do not ask founders to deposit collateral to solve this problem. that's just lame and uncreative. VC funding or proven revenue should also not be demanded.
Can you be more specific with where you think the risk is?

As far as I can tell, in this scenario, the journalist has powered off their phone, ignored the message about "findable when power off," and then is somehow tracked through the BT beacon and Find My network.

Were their phone to be on, all the same tracking would work.

Were they to read the message and go change the settings, this tracking would presumably not work.

That assumes you trust that the "always on processor" only does what it says it does, of course. But in that case, any proprietary device is just as bad as any other. (Many supposedly less-proprietary devices could be sneakily subverted, too, no?)
Wow, very well put!
IPv6 firewalls work the same as IPv4 firewalls.

You just remove the NAT from the equation.

The default is deny.

You have to explicitly enable inbound ports.

The difference is that you connect to the device address, not the NAT gateway address.

No more port conflicts.

No more split DNS.

Etc...
Good point. When there's already kind of a shortage, losing 2-5% is a massive blow.
Actually it was implemented in Nov 2017, but only deployed/enabled for GitHub Pages.

https://github.com/github/cmark-gfm/pull/64

See this comment: https://github.com/github/cmark-gfm/pull/64#issuecomment-401...
> In seriousness, there's a lot that goes into appreciating a concept like a monad, especially if you want to combine the FP understanding with a rigorous mathematical understanding

Unfortunately, I think this is what tends to scare some programmers away from Haskell. I think it’s worth emphasising: an understanding of the mathematical underpinnings of monads is completely irrelevant to using them in an actual program! I know very little category theory, yet I am absolutely fine with structuring a program around monads. It’s interesting, of course, but far from necessary.
KaoKore: Exploring Intersection of Humanities and ML Research Thru Japanese Art
The 'listen for music' feature on pixel phones is optional and off by default.
What language is GNAT Studio written in?
While this is kind of cool, it doesn’t bode well environmentally.

“Rogers and his team also designed the microchips to break down over time and dissolve in water to prevent environmental pollution.

“We don’t want to be in a position where we have to collect all these devices afterward,””

Just because something dissolves, doesn’t mean it’s gone (microplastics).

It’s typical of us to not want to be in a position to clean up our mess, but it doesn’t make it acceptable.
There’s plenty of GUI tools, but what about tools for writing SQL inside VS Code?

We usually write our DB migrations in VS Code along with any other code changes, but the PG support in VS Code seems to be lacking. Just some naïve validation of PostgreSQL code inside VS Code would be awesome!
How to Create a UUID in JavaScript
It's not odd at all. Reliance/Jio deployed a clean-build 4G network, and went dualstack. They also entered a price war which went gangbusters. Then the next big 3 providers decided to tool up. So now the top 4-5 ISps in India all "do" V6 and between them they have 80%+ of the Indian online experience.

Mobile is king in India. Low levels of Infra.

Korea (and China) dispute the measurement: they both say the external parties (Google, Akamai, APNIC (where i work) and others) mis-measure. I think the mis-measures agree so much, it can't be a mistake.
What happens when the car runs into a problem that it cannot address (Damage to car, blocked by obstacle in road) Does the passenger call you, or are you monitoring the car remotely for problems?
I don't think it's really about parsing/syntax. Or, rather, it is, but that has implications not just for the person writing a markdown parser or renderer, but for the person writing documents in markdown as well.

With HTML, I know that anything inside angle brackets won't get shown, because that's a directive to the rendering engine to do something. Put another way, only <, >, and I guess & are special and need to be escaped if I want to use them. Everything else will show up as I've typed it.

With markdown, a future feature addition could actually change the layout or structure of an existing document, because arbitrary characters (and sequences of characters) mean particular things. Previously, [^1] was a hyperlink to somewhere else (assuming I put "[^1]: https://wherever.com" somewhere else on the page). Now it's a link to that "[^1]: https://whatever.com" text on the same page. This change may have broken existing documents.
This is not true at all. How many chips do you think the car industry needs for car parts? How many cars do you think they sell in a year? It’s not hard to figure it out. People parroting this narrative have no idea what’s happening behind the scene.
It seems to me like most of the (alleged) benefits of scalpers would be equally well achieved by selling (some fraction of) the items in auctions, instead of just picking a price.

However, my impression is that consumers would view this in a negative light, and that the harms to the seller’s reputation would be enough to outweigh the initially increased income. This seems to be the source of the inefficiencies that scalpers exploit/address.

This leads me to an idea which, I don’t believe is typically done, but which I don’t know why not:
Why wouldn’t a company just, list a price that they are “going to sell it at”, and then “sell” a large proportion of them at that price to an entity which isn’t publicly connected to the company, and then that organization sells the items via auction (and returns a large proportion of the profits back to the company).

While on the one hand, I don’t see how I’d be able to tell if this was what was done, and therefore don’t see how to confirm that this isn’t what is being done in the cases where there are scalpers, I don’t think this is being done, and don’t know why.
No it's not.

Source: actual ADV engineer
Huh? How is that 'bravado'?
Make your desire known on the CommonMark forum topic on this: https://talk.commonmark.org/t/footnotes-now-supported-by-git...
Survey of iOS and Android apps finds privacy gaps and likely law violations
> Another reason that I observed is that large organizations are extremely afraid of mistakes regardless of expected loss.

Not what I have seen. Big companies with big profits will throw millions away on dumb ideas on the chance they make money, when they do not.
yes, replicate the experience in the metaverse.
> Does anyone know why?

Jio.[1][2]

[1] Leveraging IPv6 for Explosive growth – 306Mn+ Subs and counting (https://www.innog.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/01-Leveragi...)

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jio
- ACLs / object ownership (which aren't deprecated - https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/userguide/access...)

- IAM / Bucket Policies as mentioned

- S3 Block Public Access (yes this is the name of a distinct feature)

- S3 Access Points

The interactions between all four of the above need to be taken into account to determine the access a consumer has to a bucket or its objects.

I'm not taking a swing at IAM - it's a great system. My grudge is with AWS having disparate interacting security controls for different services (of which S3 is probably the worst offender).

To heave back onto the topic at hand, let's hope R2 can do better having the benefit of a clean slate to build off!
This is exactly what I do. I try out things and if they aren't mostly hands off they just not for me. But I learned enough that if I had the time I could grow other stuff too.

Cabbage doesn't do well without a fight here. Potatoes? Grow themselves! Carrots? Very finicky to get to grow at all here but if they do they are just so much better than store bought and hands off too. Cherries are awesome once I wasn't lazy enough to skip the netting. Not that much work in the end.
> In consumer routers, port forwarding is the exact same thing as an inbound traffic firewall. But when I turn on IPv6, what is the equivalent? Is my printer still protected from random inbound internet traffic?

Copy-pasting from a previous discussion a little while ago:

---

IPv4+NAT does not remove any more classes of problems than IPv6+firewall. Firewalls under IPv6 work exactly the same way as they do with IPv4.

An IP connection is started from the 'inside' to the 'outside', and the source-destination tuple is recorded. When an 'outside' packet arrives the firewall checks its parameters to see if it corresponds with an existing connection, and if it does it passes it through. If the parameters do not correspond with anything in the firewall's table/s it assumes that someone is trying to create a new connection, which is generally not allowed by default, and therefore drops it.

The main difference is that with IPv4 and NAT the original (RFC 1918?) source address and port are changed to something corresponding to the 'outside' interface of the firewall.

With IPv6 address/port, rewriting is not done. Only state tables are updated and checked.

New connections are not allowed past the firewall towards the inside with either protocol, and only replies to connections opened from the inside are passed through.

There's no magical security behind NAT: tuples and packet flags are read, looked up in a state table, allowed or not depending on either firewall rule or state presence.

The security comes from the state checking.

[…]

I have a printer with an IPv6 stack. I also have IPv6 addresses from my ISP. Yet somehow my Asus AC-68U prevents the public Internet from reaching my printer.

---

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28390634

IPv6 firewall on my Asus:

* https://www.asus.com/us/support/FAQ/1013638/

If you want to test, find the IPv6 address of your printer and try pinging it:

* https://tools.keycdn.com/ipv6-ping
How does it compare to Postico for working with PG databases? TablePlus seems very similar to Postico, but with support for other DBs, which we don’t need.
I mean, you're quite right.

It's true that historians have been talking about the myth of spartan excellence for over a century, with one of the key works being Le Mirage Spartiate, published 1933.

It's true that there is extensive scholarship analysing what is (and is not) known about Sparta and the Spartiates, and it's not positive for the Spartans.

It's true than Sparta has very few defenders among professional historians, in large part because the historical record to support such a defence is so limited.

And it's certainly true that despite all that, the consensus could be wrong! As you note, other consensus views have been shown to be wrong and have been overturned. But what is also true is that doing so took evidence.

Such evidence was readily available for showing that, eg, the earth is not the center of the universe, the sun does not revolve around the earth, and the earth is not flat. Such evidence is not going to be readily available about Sparta. We're talking about things that occurred ~2500 years ago; and in truth we likely have the bulk of all the evidence we'll ever have about Sparta. All that's left is to interpret it, and such interpretations seem fairly clear cut.

I wouldn't hold my breath for a major re-assessment.
> It’s interesting, of course, but far from necessary.

I think this right here is where a lot of people go wrong with understanding them. Really, the best way to get them is to work directly with them. The mathematics is orders of magnitudes more abstract than the actual practical aspects of using monadic functions.
Although there is a lot of data to suggest that per capita green house gas (GHG) emissions from urban residents are less than rural counterparts this is not the entire story.

Absolute GHG emissions and impact are higher for higher incomes. GHG emissions are a function of wealth not geography. Urban areas have much higher concentraions of wealth. They also outsource much of their GHG creation to rural areas but are still the cause/consumer of it (concrete, energy, minerals, construction materials).

Also the perceived reduction in GHG emissions for urban areas is only true of late stage developed nations. Developing nations, those building out new cities, do not share the per capita efficiencies of full developed nations. The reason for this is that perceived per capita GHG reductions in developed nations were paid for by high GHG emissions of their past. New data on urban sprawl (sub-urbanization) sheds doubt on the idea that even developed nations cities per capita GHG emissions are lower than rural areas.

Ultimately, urbanization is a bulk consumer of Earth's natural resources and not a producer of those inputs.

Put simply: Cities are eating the Earth.

EDIT: Added point about sub-urban development negating efficiencies.
Yes I've been indoctrinated into the horrible belief that the lives of other living things on this earth matter.
We're hiring remotely for most roles these days, so long as you reside in a country where we're set up to hire people (tax presence, etc.).
The fallacy is believing that a complete fantasy metaphor like burritos is as useful as a concrete example like "the [] type forms a monad with concatMap and singleton".

The latter actually tells you something. You can start from there, add a few more concrete examples, and start to understand what exactly monads abstract over.

The former is... Nothing. Nothing at all. It communicates exactly nothing. Or rather, it communicates so many hundreds or thousands of different potential metaphors that it doesn't serve to transfer meaning between two people.

And that's the point of the article. Monads are abstract at a level foreign to most programmers. When they first start to put the pieces together, they might enlist the aid of a metaphor, but the way they do so requires a lot of internal context. To others without all that context, the metaphor is useless.

It's easy to mistake metaphor for the understanding you've slowly built up. This article is a reminder that the understanding is the important part, not the metaphor.
The best application for formal proof is actually in lightweight sanity checks as opposed to "deep" review of your code. To put it very clearly, it should simply not be possible for a properly-engineered program to conflate feet w/ meters and crash a space probe as a direct result of that conflation. There's just no way that this is ever valid semantics.