skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The replacement fees aren't changing at all.

This is solely about eliminating late fees.

If someone is going to be stealing books from the library and selling them under the new system, the incentives to do that would be exactly the same as under the old system.
This is just an announcement saying that they have given the treatment to the 1st of a planned 200 patients in a trial. They will use that trial to determine the efficacy but they don’t have any results yet. There is no indication in the article for when they expect to see results.
It's definitely too simplistic, and we could argue all day over which side is worse, but I think it's hard to argue against the fact that, right now the, left control the levers of power and are the most immediate threat to American liberty and constitutional government. If we are fortunate enough to vote them down to the minority, we can address the next immediate threat?
What are the alternatives now? I never really liked the Yubico stuff, though I have to admit that their hardware is well made.
Whilst I'm pro Bitcoin, I think a carbon tax is an excellent idea, and a fair idea.

Miners already are self regulating to a degree by increasingly mining using renewables and where possible, stranded renewables (excess remote energy). This isn't really seen by the media as they love to make a story out of a very dirty exception, like an old coal plant.

However, it's very hard to get a holistic view of this progress. I recently read a pretty credible article that completely undermines the conclusion of this HN article. It stated that Bitcoin's energy mix is 3 times greener than most other industries.

Whom to believe? I don't know. Back on point, a carbon tax makes the green incentive hard, instead an optional moral consideration.
I think the parent is making a point about definitions - that the word fraud can only refer to illegal actions by definition. I think this is an overly literal interpretation of language' though.
>>There is no need for late fees when libraries can use much simpler and more effective incentives like not allowing you to check out more books until you return the ones you have.

You just come back and get a new library card under another name...just keep taking out more books and selling them on ebay; that will become a cottage industry. suckers, i mean taxpayers, will just have to make up the difference.
Me too. OpenPGP is super flexible and this would've been an upgrade to 3FA for everything I use it for.
I hired someone well educated from a Top Ivy League university but they had no motivation whatsoever. I tried my best, gave them everything they wanted (money, work style, tools, training) but they just wouldn't want to be motivated and we failed collectively. They were very smart otherwise and definitely could learn the skills.

When I am hiring, for me the biggest things are motivation, curiosity and caring for your own career. If you don't show me those traits, I am very hesitant to hire you. I meet a lot of candidates who have no idea why they applied, what they want in life for themselves but are just randomly sending their Resume hoping it sticks.
If we are going to decide some carbon emissions more essential than others. Why not just exclude them from the carbon taxation to begin with?
People that have to pay late fees on the max number of books now just don’t return. The library doesn’t get its books back AND loses a patron.
This might sound dumb, but it's crazy to me that we're actually (going to) use superconductors in real projects. Still sounds like science fiction to my ear... but I'm getting old :)
I was about to, but they mentioned they’re releasing a collector’s box set of 19 issues in November. I figure if I’m paying international shipping I might as well wait.
This only applies to entry level jobs for new grads. What else do they have to go off of? After 5-10 years they don't care about your formal education.
Haha - I dislike how much of a black box it is, despite the statistical basis (for example, the back and forth on batch normalization rationale). But lots of interesting problems and tech to dig into.
I don't know this for a fact, but I'd wager a guess that interest in rental movies is mostly concentrated around a handful of titles at any given moment, whereas interest in library books is more evenly dispersed. This means that two people are much less likely to want to rent the same book at the same time, as opposed to the same movie.
> It is still a walled garden that limits hardware access, preventing the user from getting full performance out of the device.

What limits are you referring to, and by what performance metrics is Boot Camp unable to make full use of the hardware capabilities?
I'm more of a C programmer, not C++, but several years ago I switched to BSD/KNF style for function definitions because it improved consistency and diff-friendliness when managing qualifiers and attributes. BSD/KNF style is,

int
foo(int a, int b)
{
...
}

This lends itself to prepending and appending qualifiers as separate lines, like

__attribute__((unused))
__attribute__((format (printf 1, 2)))
static inline char *
sformat(const char *fmt, ...)
{
...
}

Often I'll split linkage qualifiers (static inline) from return type (char *), especially when linkage is controlled by a macro.

K&R and Linux styles are similar:

int foo(int a, int b)
{
...
}

Function prototype styles are the same across BSD/KNF, K&R, and Linux, keeping the return type on the same line as the identifier, but I'll often put linkage qualifiers and sometimes even return types on their own line, especially if there are other attributes as well.

Note: All these styles normally place braces on the same line as control flow statements. Function definitions are treated differently for what I understand in hindsight are good (if possibly serendipitous) reasons.

C++ complicates things with methods, template, etc, so I'm not sure how well the above styles fit C++. In what little C++ I've written one of my first gripes was with difficulties controlling linkage, period.
This change is only about late fees. People who don't return books are still subject to replacement fees under the new system.
Why web3 distributed libraries will change the world
Remember as a teen renting and returning two movies from Hollywood Videos. Me and a friend walked to Dropbox late at night so we were positive they were returned.

Got a 245 dollar demand letter a few letter a couple months later. For 2 unreturned movies.

Got a lawyer dads friend help me write a letter and the matter was dropped.
Went from multiple rentals a week to never renting another video again.
The $200 deposit would effectively never be refunded though right? I think libraries would see a huge decline in usage if a library card cost $200, even if it's a lifetime membership.
Passive Income Through Staking as an NFT Feature/Benefit
This is just embarrassing.

> the M1’s CPUs are so powerful that a software-rendered desktop is actually faster on them than on e.g. Rockchip ARM64 machines with hardware acceleration.
In essence, you require both the Yubikey in question, and the information supplied by the fingerprint reader to the Yubikey, in order to abuse this system.

From the perspective of a U2F token, which uses a regular button, this is an increase in security for most users -- if their token is lost or stolen, or left in their device, someone cannot use their token by tapping the button.

This doesn't address the inherent problem of irrevocability/unchangeability of biometrics, but it presents an interesting usability trade-off that could help non-technical users to keep their systems more secure.

If you capture the wire signal between the fingerprint reader sensor and the module, it is likely that you could replay a valid authentication. If not, you could delve deeper into the sensor until eventually you are able to inject capacitive data from the sensing surface itself, and do this.

In this case, by combining the use of a biometric with strong cryptographic authentication through the token, you require both to compromise the user -- no biometrics are shared with a server, it's all local. However if you lose either the token, or the ability to use that fingerprint (i.e. scratch or damage), you will lose access to the key the Yubikey has protected, absent some kind of backup password. For many users, that backup password will be the weak link, but a Yubikey should at least be able to rate limit attempts and erase its internal state if there are too many attempts.
Yes, the smear is against Facebook, and not the person releasing internal research from Facebook itself, that was not written by the whistleblower.

And obviously, discounting someone presenting factual evidence that at the moment is unchallenged based on perceived personal politics is fair game, reasonable, and the measure of good faith discussion.
None of the books you could check out on a library card would be worth it. You'd be checking out circulation material, not special collections items (rare manuscripts and such), and they'd all be clearly marked as library materials, so of much lower value on the secondary market than a regular used copy of the same book would be.
There are different kinds of "investment income". Selling cryptocurrency (or exchanging one currency for another) generally results in capital gains, for which you need to track and report each individual tax lot along with its cost basis.

In contrast, if you receive a bunch of interest or dividend payments from stocks that you own, you generally only need to report the total from each brokerage or other account.
A broker typically sends both you and the IRS a 1099-B reporting the details of the sale of stocks, etc. Having this form makes your tax filing relatively easy.

Cryptocurrency exchanges don't necessarily issue these forms, which means that the taxpayer has to report the details themselves. In particular, the IRS wants each transaction reported on a separate row of Form 8949, which may be laborious for those with many transactions.

(Note that an acceptable alternative is summarizing on Form 8949 itself and attaching details of the individual transactions separately. See "Exception 2" at https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i8949#idm140393400093152)
If God is for us, who could be against us?
I'm getting ads for my Mom's toothpaste here's why
This is already possible today, and yet it doesn't appear to be an issue plaguing libraries.
Can you point me to a stream / site to buy the film "we are as gods"? I don't see any button on the the stripe press page nor anywhere else on the net.
> rich Corinthian leather

What does this mean? Is this a metonymy for skeumorphic design?
> What confuses me is that people in democratic countries are calling a tool of democracy "anti-democratic". It's completely illogical.

It depends on whether the word "democracy" has any meaning. In a democracy, we get to vote on how economic activity is regulated. Crypto is a tool to avoid democracy.
Click on one of the nodes to see the original tweet.
As the amount of commerce on bitcoin increases, it becomes more desirable to reverse transactions, so there is indeed some ratio of "GDP to energy expenditure" that needs to be maintained for a sufficient level of network security.

So yeah it doesn't need constantly increasing energy expenditure as long as the amount of commerce using bitcoin stops increasing.
I disagree that your local library ended all late fees. They capped them and privatized enforcement.
Have I got a product for you!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWZUp2KF5ls
I think this just matches human behavior a lot more too in terms of how late books happen - usually just because someone forgot or it was inconvenient to return it on time. Eliminating late fines and instead blocking checking out more books means that the person is incentivized to bring the book with them next time they go to the library, so that they are rewarded with being allowed check something else out. Late fines tend to do the opposite... once they realize the book is past due, they are incentivized to avoid going back to the library, because once they do they'll be punished. The incentive of being able to check out another book is likely not enough to overcome having to pay even a relatively small fine. It seems fairly intuitive to me that this creates a perverse incentive that will often discourage people from returning books at all, rather than encouraging returning them on time.

As mentioned elsewhere, this seems like the same discovery Netflix made back when they were mailing DVDs: it is more effective to incentivize returning by making it a tit-for-tat trade than by fining non-returners. Sure, this approach might end up with people never returning items if they never want to get more (move away, etc), but that's a relatively uncommon situation for a library, and doesn't seem to have become a major problem for Netflix.

More subjectively, I also think that charging a replacement fee to patrons that truly cannot return the book feels more fair than charging a per-day late fine until you hit replacement. It's more of a direct indemnity sort of situation.
Ask HN: Middle/High-school Computer Science/Informatics curriculum/materials?
In some countries and some schools, CS/Informatics/Programming is a mandatory subject. Lets share here some materials, curriculum, syllabuses, textbooks, etc... Thanks!
Possibly the various kaggle image recognition challenges would be one way:

https://www.kaggle.com/competitions

but there are plenty of others there that you might be able to relate to.
Do decay and rot, as processes, capture carbon? (I mean that I do not know)
As far as I can tell, Supermicro's multiple headers are all duplicates; as in, for example, it gives you like 4 case fan headers all driven off a single 2A+ PWM controller. So, basically, an onboard PWM splitter.
We’re going to need as much carbon neutral energy as possible no matter what. (If only we had somehow invented an extremely plentiful, carbon-neutral energy source in the 1940’s, we might not be in this mess right now….)

Once you get to the hardest marginal cases, I’m not actually sure what the most efficient way of offsetting the carbon emissions of airplanes is. It might actually be more efficient to just capture and sequester enough CO2 to offset the emissions of jet engines than to find a new energy source that works on airplanes.
Is there any work on smaller scale, "home" or "neighborhood" carbon capture technologies that could work with some extra energy laying around?

The power system on my solar shed is, admittedly, somewhat overkill in an attempt to get through the winter without having to light the generator (so far, I've failed at this, our inversions are nasty). The flip side is that I have quite a bit of surplus power most of the year (on the order of 10-15kWh/day). If I use it, great, if not... it just doesn't get pulled out of the panels. The office is standalone (and way more trouble than it's worth to grid tie), so when the battery bank is full, there's nowhere to stick extra energy.

I've considered various methods to use some of the surplus in useful ways, which so far has looked like donating a lot of compute to various BOINC projects (including cpdn, which is now out of work...). But I've not seen much work in the way of "things that could actually capture concrete amounts of carbon and store them" at this scale. It's all huge facilities, big multinational investment, etc.

I've considered an algae grow system that would cycle air through some grow tanks (I have a lot of sun, growing algae in containers is sort of the default around here) and then bury the algae down some holes, but I'm not sure it really accomplishes that much.

Another option I've considered is making use of some of the basalt laying around, getting a rock crusher to grind it into powder, and then either spreading it on the hill, or trying to find some sort of more rapid system for weathering it (tanks of water with airflow through them?). Of course, if algae likes basalt... I could combine the two!

I just can't find any information on smaller scale systems like this, and I lack the bio and chem background to really be able to do things like analyze rock dust for carbon content.
This isn't bypassing congressional authorization -- it already has it. Congress has both authorized and forbidden the spending above the debt ceiling.
It makes me wonder if in the distant future, AIs will research biological forms as a somehow correlated precursor to life as they know it.
This. Only paying for a browser aligns the incentives of the browser company and the user. As long as customer of the browser != user of the browser, there is ample opportunity for conflict of interest.
For me it ranges. Some people are opposed to the covid vaccine mandate, some people don't want it for themselves, some people (I think only one or two) are anti vax types, some have it but don't think others should have to and some think you're evil if you disagree that everyone should have to. Precisely what information people internalize on Facebook isn't the common thread there, the common thread is that it consumes their social life and has a near monopoly on their information availability and therefore worldview. Facebook's problems go beyond what information is available on it.
Someone once told me “continuations are isomorphic to monads” and I eventually realized that the best way to do something monad-like in JS was to write functions that take a callback as their last argument and then higher order functions that manage threading the callbacks around, occasionally transforming it to slot in impure behaviors.

I really disagree with the notion “HKT are necessary for monads”, though: they’re necessary to statically check that your monadic code is correct, but asside from things that rely on return-type inference, you can just implement those type-checks as runtime checks (or leave them out entirely): if the architecture of side-effects in your app is arranged around monadic principles, you can write all the same generic transformations (and, in fact, designing your dynamically typed code this way can get you a good fraction of the correctness benefits of static typechecking)
I don't know about NYPL but where I live getting a library card requires more ID than registering to vote. I wouldn't be surprised if they already have measures in place against patrons opening multiple accounts.
The US suspended convertibility during the civil war and then fought the resulting inflation by reintroducing it later (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_monetary_policy_in_...)

European nations dropped the gold standard during WW1 and then mostly returned to the gold standard afterward[2]:

"During World War I, most major countries abandoned the gold
standard in order to use fiat currency to fund the war effort. As a result, those nations experienced high rates of inflation. The desire to bring inflation under control and restore monetary stability led most countries to plan on returning to the gold standard at some point
after the war. Unfortunately, many of the international monetary difficulties of the late 1920s can be traced to decisions regarding the resumption of the gold standard in the mid-1920s. "

There is an interesting history here[1]:

"Britain had left the gold standard in 1914 and responded by increasing the supply of money to stimulate the economy. Production was limited due to substantial decreases in working hours agreed at the end of the war. In 1919 increased consumer demand caused inflation and a price boom.

By early 1920 the Government was more concerned with a desire to return to the gold standard and with the high rates of inflation than with unemployment. In December 1919 the Cunliffe Committee on Currency and Foreign Exchange Rates recommended an early return to the gold standard. The overall objective was to restore pre-war British predominance in international trade, which depended on stabilising the value of sterling around the pre-war dollar exchange rate. This required equilibrium in the balance of payments and the reduction of the money in circulation..."

[1] https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/themes/eco...

[2] https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.dartmouth.edu/dist/c/199...
> We'd have to figure out the details of how that would work exactly

Good luck with that.
Tying our economy to digging up fossil carbon is not working out much better.
Isn't this basically selection sort with extra (useless) iterations in the inner loop?
As Facebook Crumbles, the Case for Breaking It Up Is Weaker Than Ever
The XMPP Newsletter September 2021
No, GGP is incorrect. To be clear, they wrote:

> Letme re-interpret what the i-th iteration of the algorithm does:

> 1. for j = 1..i-1, we're trying to "insert" a[i] into a[1..i-1]. Try simulating it yourself. I believe you will find out it's insertion sort.

> 2. for j = i..n, we're replacing a[i] with the smallest element among a[i..n].

That is, they're saying in (2) that after an iteration of the outer loop, the ith value will be the smallest of all the values that succeed it in the sequence. This is demonstrably false. It is always the maximum value of the sequence itself, regardless of its initial position relative to i.

The following Python code is used to print out the result of running the inner loop on an arbitrary sequence but without altering the original value (so it won't actually be sorted at the end). The point is to demonstrate that the maximum value always ends in the ith position:

def inner(a, i):
for j in range(len(a)):
if a[i] < a[j]:
a[i], a[j] = a[j], a[i]
print(a)

def outer(a):
for i in range(len(a)):
inner(a.copy(), i)
a = [5,4,3,2,1,6]
outer(a)

[6, 4, 3, 2, 1, 5]
[4, 6, 3, 2, 1, 5]
[3, 4, 6, 2, 1, 5]
[2, 4, 3, 6, 1, 5]
[1, 4, 3, 2, 6, 5]
[5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 6]

Note that 6 ends up in the ith position after finishing the inner loop. If we let it sort (so remove .copy()), after each iteration the maximum value is, again, always at the ith position:

[6, 4, 3, 2, 1, 5]
[4, 6, 3, 2, 1, 5]
[3, 4, 6, 2, 1, 5]
[2, 3, 4, 6, 1, 5]
[1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 5]
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

GGP is correct that it's basically insertion sort otherwise, (1). To illustrate, the behavior if you don't compare every pair is the same as insertion sort:

[5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 6]
[4, 5, 3, 2, 1, 6]
[3, 4, 5, 2, 1, 6]
[2, 3, 4, 5, 1, 6]
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

This is done by stopping the inner loop once j reaches i.
lol it's no problem.

I've noticed the same animation issues in safari, and tbh, its very unlike apple.

There are other apps in macOS which have collapsible sidebars (preview and finder come to mind), but they don't suffer with the same icon lag issue.

And as far as I know, catalyst (which I assume is what's being used now for almost all of the new mac apps with the blurry sidebar) should handle these things inherently, it's strange that this seems to be a safari exclusive problem.
Knowledge about complexity classes is an issue that at least many hobbyists seem to miss.
So what's to stop you doing this today? If you're able to use fake names why would you care about fines that can't be tracked to you?
> Is there a practical method to achieve sub-atmospheric CO2 concentrations indoors?

why? just because there's cognitive decline when co2 is above atmospheric levels, doesn't mean you get super-intelligence when it's below atmospheric levels. In that case you're better off ventilating your building than to scrub co2 from the air.
Yes, please. Low tax on essentials. High tax on the overconsumption of carbon intensive economic activity in the rich world.

Market value says very little about true value of goods and services globally. Why should we let it decide how to prioritize the little carbon emission we can afford?
Looks like 50 unless you're a teacher. Still not worth the trouble trying to find someone to buy a copy of Harry Potter that says "property of NYPL" on it when they're a dime a dozen already.

https://www.nypl.org/help/borrowing-materials
I am increasingly of the opinion that there is little difference between doing and learning. In fact I would argue that anyone who thinks you can learn without doing is simply wrong.