skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
What country uses WhatsApp for emergency services??? That sounds like a terrible idea completely independent from Facebook Corp.

Critical emergency services still have the plain old telephone services to use, no?
Ological is his personal site!
Yes https://discussions.apple.com/thread/252621788?answerId=2554...

If you’re wondering why “Access is denied” then that should inform you about how Apple deal with negative customer feedback these days.
It’s not survivorship bias when there are vast swaths of US cities with century old wood housing.

If I had said “SF has a few examples of 100+ old homes” then sure.
Why bother with compiling when there used to exist a Solaris package repository for most of them?
Sending newsletters should cost something
"Religious roots", hah. The Catholic church was opposed to teetotallism, as were lots of conservative denominations. Modern Teetotalism started as a secular movement out of dismay at the visible damage of alcohol use, just like socialism started out of outrage against industrial labour exploitation, and the sanitation movement started out of literal physical disgust at foul smells. The common thread wasn't religion, but progressivism: seeing society change immensely around them due to technological process, they believed (far more than we do today, ironically) that society could and should be consciously reformed.

And of course, what those "studies to death" you mention have established is that alcohol is even nastier than suspected, causing birth defects and cancer like no comparable substance we consume, in addition to all the obvious negative health effects we all can see.

The supposed dip at the low end, for only a few of the nasty effects, is a counter-theory to distract from the (pink?) elephant in the room. And even that counter-theory has been discredited by mendelian randomization studies.
6 cents is infinitely more than I've ever paid for whatsapp.

The pay-per-message model has simply no place here.
Taking a look at Syukuro Manabe on Google scholar, one will find that his most cited work is decades old. They could have given him the prize years ago or years from now. Climate change being the biggest topic currently certainly was a contributing factor to the decision.
Maybe dn42.eu?

> Experiment with routing technology

> Participating in dn42 is primarily useful for learning routing technologies such as BGP, using a reasonably large network (> 1500 AS, > 1700 prefixes).

> Since dn42 is very similar to the Internet, it can be used as a hands-on testing ground for new ideas, or simply to learn real networking stuff that you probably can't do on the Internet (BGP multihoming, transit). The biggest advantage when compared to the Internet: if you break something in the network, you won't have any big network operator yelling angrily at you.
Its better than a project having no notes and trying to identify the range of commits manually, especially when there are breaking changes and trying to figure out how to update.
I am talking about career politicians here, who usually use social networks to keep in touch with their electorate. Though they often have staff to do the lowly comment/response work.

Maybe it is a bad idea and a NNTP newsgroup would be better. Should be tried.
It just refuses to learn!

This is inarguably worse than what we had with T9 like 20 years ago, all running without cloud support on a limiting embedded platform.
Thanks for sharing that link. It really is an eye opener.

Although, this number seems wrong. Is the entire fashion industry only valued at 2.4B?

> The fashion industry is key for economic development: it is valued at some USD 2.4 billion globally and directly employees 75 million people throughout its value chain.
> the most I've been able to gather from this article is that the author doesn't know either and is unable to interpret any of the relevant literature.

I got the impression that the author is very familiar with the topic and wrote this for shits'n giggles. The "article" is a string of entertaining nonsense that doesn't go anywhere and seems to purely mock some of the typical philosophical musings filled pseudo-tutorial articles that crop up on HN from time to time. Especially comparing it some other stuff on that site[1].

The witty writing style, completely silly analogies and puns somehow remind me of a certain Unix-grey-beard that I had as a high school teacher (the "FerdiNAND" line would be spot on for the guy).

And yes, I have read the response from the author below yours[2], and I believe there's some brilliant trolling going on here at the moment. ("oh yes, you're right! I actually am utterly clueless.")

[1] https://sebastiancarlos.medium.com/from-ai-to-zi-an-encyclop...

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28757743
Love it when it replaces a correctly chosen word while swipe-typing the next few ones because it would fit better in the new context.

Boggles my mind how you can let something like that into prod. The things it leads to are

- Errors that make the message hard to understand that are (here it replaced “that” with “they and “here” with “get”) only caught while proof-reading or not at all

- Having to go back and re-type 3 words for correction.

I check the word I just swiped for misrecognition, not one that was previously correctly recognized, god damn it.

The actual success rate of that piece of garbage is maybe 5%.

That said: Of course I’m happy they have a swipe feature at all, albeit significantly worse than Google’s (about on par with Microsoft’s). But you don’t have to make the feature intentionally worse, do you?
What's going on is that UI designers keep thinking people care more about balancing negative and positive space than seeing all the information they want. At the same time, UI customizability has gone out of fashion. So we get lowest common denominator mediocrity that looks good in a slide show but is awful to use for serious work.

No company should have full time UI designers on staff. Eventually they look for reasons to justify themselves, and start ruining things that were perfectly fine.
This is a little silly because this assumes that BitLocker is configured for TPM-only rather than requiring a TPM PIN/password.

If there's a TPM password, this attack becomes infeasible because the TPM won't release the keys without the password. And you generally can't brute force the TPM without triggering the hardware lockout.

The company's IT department can require TPM+Password in Group Policy so that every system in the organization uses TPM+Password, but I guess you could have a stubborn CEO who demands a less secure policy.

As of Windows 8, it was possible to replace ciphertext on a BitLocker-encrypted drive to compromise known Windows binaries.[0] This would allow the attacker to take control of the system on next boot, though I don't know if those attacks are still practical.

[0] https://cryptoservices.github.io/fde/2014/12/08/code-executi...
don't think the parents (target audience) would think he sounds condescending.
France has no State/Provincial level taxes. They also do not tax global income.

These add major complexities to the US tax code.
What it 'really is' is mostly a construction, an amalgam of perceptions that are usually descriptions of observers of what other people seem to do when they find things out or how they've got to discovering something. What you call trait curiosity is, it seems to me, a consequence of the fact that curiosity is of course sexy and highly desirable. If you read popular science books that's what they tell you, there are some people that are curious and just wanting to know stuff and just like that they get Nobel prizes.

I think trait curiosity works similarly with other traits that people can fall into the trap of ascribing to themselves. For example, telling others that you are hard working, never giving up, always being there for people or whatever. Once you start repeating to yourself and to others such statements you can in a sense 'lock yourself' into it. You get into situation where you start thinking 'well, a curious person in this situation should do this, I better do it or else I'm not curious'. I think this is the difference in outcome in trivial pursuits as you say.

On the other hand it's very difficult to be curious about something you really know nothing or very little about. It really makes little sense to be curious about cryptography or quantum computing if you struggled with high school algebra and never made any serious effort to improve your skills and understanding.

Of course none of this is to claim that there is no such thing as pursuing knowledge or ideas without seemingly any external motivation. The way it looks from the inside I think is usually you have to have some idea of what you're doing and you want to see if you can apply this to something else. Counterintuitively, here you're trying to see if something that should be considered different is in fact some slight modification of what you already know. So it's usually not "let's learn something completely new because I like to learn things and am curious" but "let's see if I can reformulate this thing that looks unknown to something that I know". This is the creative part where you are actually learning. The process of reformulating or restating something with a language that you understand and you've built for yourself, bringing in the new idea, often not explicitly stated to be connected with what you know, is what gives you the kick.
Coding with the CEO: Full Transcript
>(similarly to how email or matrix work)

Or phone calls. There are tons of telcos and they are interoperable.
If you have to update multiple files (say the main executable and a few shared libraries that it may only load when it needs them), you’ll need a transactional file system.

Even then there’s still downtime when you restart the executable (could be seconds, but also minutes). Preventing that is possible, too (even on a single machine), but the cost often doesn’t make it worth it.

And nitpick: I think you know it, but for others: “unlinking and replacing” is essential. “Overwriting” (keeping the inode number the same) can be problematic.
A link to a substantive critique of this prize by a working theoretical physicist should not be downvoted.
It is odd that a company so focused on diversity forces everyone to adapt to the information processing capabilities of the stupid. Or maybe not odd at all.
> Governments could have used the last two years to execute on policies to reduce these chronic diseases: better food, better air quality, better water quality, a less stressful lifestyle.

Governments have been working on these problems for decades already. Food/obesity is only getting worse in rich countries, air quality and water quality have seen marked improvements over the last half-century from lead reduction, decommissioning coal plants, emissions regulations for cars etc.

However expecting government to dramatically reduce the number of overweight people suffering from diabetes in just 2 years without extreme authoritarian measures (e.g. concentration camp where they monitor your food intake) is pretty much just fantasy. Many different methods have been tried all over the world like education, food labeling, soda taxes, etc. and people continue to be fat when they can access and freely buy modern foods.

The nice thing about a vaccine is that it’s far easier and cheaper to use and deploy than any of these other improvements. A vaccine costs $1 to $100 per person, while transitioning the entire economy to solar, wind, and nuclear power within a few years to improve air quality would cost what, $10,000s per person? If even possible at all.
>“Nature is a master of design. Studying the structure of biological materials and understanding how they work offers inspiration, and sometimes blueprints, for new materials,” explains Ehrlicher.
Isn’t that the problem? Because for most people, believing in it is the only option? They don’t have the tools or the ability to either refute nor confirm it.
He's actually done some great videos in collaboration with the parent comment's recommendation, which you can find for free on their YouTube channel.
It should certainly be possible to develop and use a cheaper anti-drone system than a Phalanx, but that requires a static specification to develop against. The attacker's advantage seems to be that defenders doesn't have that yet.
To me, I find that China stopping internal travel while allowing International flights to continue to be more damming than whether or not the source was a lab.
> anyone with a computer could connect to the Internet, publish a website, and communicate with people across the world

It’s funny how obvious it is with hindsight, that there could be downsides to this
> computer-based climate simulation

I'm no scientist by any stretch of the imagination, the last time when I read something related to higher physics was ~20 years ago, in college, but I have to ask how is that topic related to modern physics. You're correct, it sounds like like a worthy Nobel for an Earth Sciences Nobel, or a Meteorology one (to be more direct), if those two things existed (maybe they should), but, again, don't know how meteorology (what computer-based climate simulation basically is) is the same thing as higher physics.
Lawyers are paid in both scenarios.
Netsniff-Ng Toolkit
For those who want a real deep dive, I recommend this video course on Analysis of Boolean Functions from Ryan O'Donnell:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIruJ8edYYM
https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~odonnell/boolean-analysis/

And his book:
http://www.cs.tau.ac.il/~amnon/Classes/2016-PRG/Analysis-Of-...

Some recent progress in the field includes the amazingly simple proof of the Sensitivity Theorem by Hao Huang: https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.00847

Here's Knuth's one-page proof:
https://www.cs.stanford.edu/~knuth/papers/huang.pdf
A parent suffers from a genetic condition, which makes that an accurate description of their lives when symptoms are bad. Very sadly, their response to the AZ vaccine has made that a daily occurance for the past 6 months.
Who said I tested non-live?

The actual beta builds/sanity checks were done just with two VMs peered with each other, but the live internet one was done in one take (and never again, at least by me)
As a physicist primarily working in complex systems and machine learning, I was happy that complex systems were finally getting recognition.

From the get-go this article was definitely the opposite of my opinions but I wanted to see what other people who obviously don’t like the field don’t like about it. His posturing using a Feynman anecdote left me confused but this quote just made me realize that it’s not complex systems he doesn’t like, it’s the message of the study:

> The other types of Nobel Prizes, especially those for peace and perhaps literature, have a track record featuring lots of terrorists and communists who got their award for something disgusting that was however popular among some leftists or haters of the Western world and similar folks. The late terrorist Arafat had to get one because he was a darling of many such people. Obama got a prize for peace before he did anything of substance and before he started dozens of wars (Trump would have deserved the Nobel Prize in Peace about 50 times more than Obama but for obvious political reasons, he didn't get one). Al Gore got his one-half of a Nobel Prize for a fraudulent PowerPoint presentation about the catastrophic global warming because tons of dishonest leftists loved these kinds of anti-scientific lies.

It is terrible when people who posture themselves as thinking scientifically suddenly throw out all logic when the results don’t fit their narrative.
World’s first commercial plant for making synthetic kerosene
PostgreSQL: Kubegres is available as open source
I question his impartiality on making statements such as this. I wonder about what he gains from making statements like this? If he was open about questions put to him in the past then I would be less suspect, but given he has hidden his financial interests related to his work then I suspect he has some hidden motivation here too.
I think most of the time we talk about curiosity it's how we see it's evidence in others which is not the desire itself, just purely the act of spending time and focus on something not 100% necessary.

Then there's the desires behind this action which can be hugely different and vary one day to the next. I think people who focus their curiosity on a single area tend to succeed outwardly for it. But people who have broad curiosity ('trait curiosity' as you put it) have enriched and possibly happier lives for this.
> If my generation hadn't made tech such a toxic work environment by ensuring that people had little or no recourse when treated unfairly by employers, I'd be tempted to feel sorry for us.

What is this referring to?

Anyway, the usual response to this topic on here is someone in their 60s talking about how they’re still going so you should suck it up and this problem isn’t real.
I'm 30s and feel old. The biggest thing is that I don't have the motivation to be fast and work extra hours. I look at the new college grads and remember those days when I didn't have a family and could put in extra hours, believing I had a career.
Yes, but in this context, everything depends on the interaction with the merchant. While most merchants are not pricks, they are businesspeople and won't unconditionally accommodate any claim even if it is reasonable. Based on my experience, the worst are not necessarily the small merchants unless they are just fraudsters but the semi-large online stores like Otto/Saturn/MediaMarkt which will do everything to make a return and refund as impossible as possible.
Yeah, I didn’t mean to convey that battery voltage measurements would be the only factor, but I didn’t end up actually expressing that. Thanks for the clarification. Certainly the concept still applies: it’s driven by physical factors, not just time.
> If my generation hadn't made tech such a toxic work environment by ensuring that people had little or no recourse when treated unfairly by employers, I'd be tempted to feel sorry for us. Instead, all I can say is, "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."

This feels like a category error.
I think it's true that many products created in Eastern Europe were of a more durable nature than the average product in the west. This goes from vacuum cleaners to glassware.

But when people say things like "capitalism has no need for X", what they are bemoaning is that the bulk of the market is choosing different tradeoffs.

You can still buy highly durable drinking glasses, it's just that the cost of producing these glasses isn't worth the additional durability for most people - so they are a niche product. You wont find them in the average restaurant, for example.

There is no need to make this about capitalism versus communism, it's about market-based solutions versus solutions by a party dictatorship. Anti-smoking campaigns and autobahns are fantastic, but we don't (I hope) ascribe good roads and public health to fascism. The point being, when you have a party dictatorship that controls the economy and can direct it by political aims, you can snap your fingers and say "I want unbreakable shot glasses", and you will get it done. That's the advantage of totalitarian control, and there are many, many people who are led by their inner totalitarian. These are the ones genuinely upset that their neighbors are making different trade-offs. For them, it's not that they can't buy durable glasses, but that someone, somewhere, is allowed to buy cheap glasses. That is what bothers them. These are the people who must never again be given power in society.

I hope that we all understand that when comparing totalitarian systems rather than market-driven systems, the yardstick of comparison should be the overall effects on efficiency and freedom, not whether people are free to make their own choices for glassware, or even free to make bad choices.
Manabe's work was predictive. It's only in recent years when we've started seeing those predictions come true.

Less "politics" and more "hey his models were right."
> International "law" is essentially "might makes right", nothing else.

All law is "might makes right" if you want to be completely reductionist about it.

A more nuanced take is that, just as civilised people choose to submit to a system of laws which punish those who break the social contract between people, so civilised nations choose to submit to a system of international law which can pass rulings against (and occasionally punish) nations that fail to respect the accepted boundaries that apply to the actions of nations.

What we see in practice is that, of course, nations don't like being particularly limited in what they can do, so international law only tends to cover things that almost every nation almost never wants to do (like commit genocide or bomb foreign hospitals). In the rare cases that a pariah nation does transgress one of the few constraints on it, though, the international community has various means to bring the nation back into compliance, such as economic sanctions.

The fact that America wasn't convicted in an international court for the Crime of Aggression when it invaded Iraq, for example, isn't so much a failure of international law as it is a reflection of the support the US received from countries who would in some sense constitute the jury of its peers (even though that's not exactly how international law is intended to function).
I feel like this comes up a lot and it's something I think / worry about as a developer at the 'old' age of 40. I posted this comment below on a similar thread

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28294734

Essentially I think this is hopefully a temporary effect of the doubling of programmers every five years for the past twenty plus years. I expect this to level out and thus shift the ratio in favour of older developers.
Good idea. I think email should be save and participant-transparent. This would also avoid a lot of scam and phishing.
I can't believe so many commenters here are crying out for a nannier nanny state where all of their financial transactions are monitored by the government and once a year they have to sign a paper agreeing that the government has watched them correctly.

That flies in hte face of the usual comment torrent decrying centralized spying from any agency, government or otherwise.

In the 40 or so years I have been doing taxes I have not once seen the amount deducted as taxes match the amount owed. After various deductions (retirement savings, medical expenses, charitable donations, political contributions, governmental program incentives, etc) and jurisdictional disagreements (employer in one province, residence in another), I and those I do taxes for always get money coming back.

Requiring every financial (and otherwise) transaction I undertake to be registered with some central government authority to they can (in theory) correctly prefill my tax forms is anathema. Be careful what you wish for you might just get it.
> Most notably, they create various sorts of airborne nanotech robots -- known as mites -- to infiltrate one another's territory and perform espionage or sabotage

I suggest Stanisław Lem’s “Weapon systems of the 21st century.”
I was just cogitating this morning on how the internet is also drifting towards centralised infrastructure. The mesh is becoming a star. It may be more efficient to stick a tube in my body to feed me. I am not sure this is progress however. In the same way "easy" communication and infrastructure may not always be progress.