skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
SpaceX is Moore’s Law for space - as cost per ton to orbit keeps getting lower, qualitatively different tech starts getting relevant.

- Space tourism: luxury zero G hotels, etc.

- Space construction: robots and materials for building large structures in space

- Mining operations

- Zero G manufacturing (I’m not expert but I understand it makes creating certain materials, semiconductors, biopolymers, etc much easier)

- Communications (every country wants to build their own Starlink now)

- Edge compute (once a billion people are serviced by Starlink-type comms, they need low latency access to stuff which should be colocated in space)

- Base building: moon base, Mars base. Every advanced country wants one, soon large corporates will want them too.

- Military operations (refuelling, cargo, surveillance, etc) - every advanced country needs lower cost access to this

- Next generations of existing tech - as cost per ton to orbit goes down, the appropriate tech for building stuff in space will change. Sort of like software radically changed as CPUs got faster. So eg satellites can start using heavier but cheaper or more performant materials.
thank you, that's a really helpful link
> Would anybody use a doubly-linked list if they care about performance?

That's probably the only reason to use them. If you don't care about performance there are simpler data-structures available.

If you need to implement an algorithm for which you need O(1) splice, then doubly-linked lists are a data-structure that give you that. If your objects are very big the cache misses might not matter that much, and neither would ref counting.

If you go one step higher, and can modify your object data types, and are careful with how you allocate your data, then intrusive doubly-linked lists can give you equivalent performance to a vector with better algorithmic complexity for many insertion / removal / splice operations, etc.

The stars do however need to align a lot for a non-intrusive doubly-linked list, like the one being discussed above, to be the best answer for whatever performance / algorithmic problem you are having.
You can't pick one or another. It's all about scale.

When you're small, you usually don't want to commit to e.g. 3-year cloud spend. What if your business doesn't take off? Early on, long-term commits are a liability.

At certain scale you're inevitably going a fixed subscription (committed use) in order to get volume discounts. Depending on how high in 7(8)-figures spend territory you are per annum, these NDA'd discounts will be larger than many think.

At the same scale you also use commits to protect your business from stockouts during events like holiday season.
You get a TAM (or a team of TAMs) that will help you bypass some standard support procedures and escalate your requests fast. You work with them on capacity planning for the next 1-2 years, etc.
Schools are closing because there are no kids because nobody spends the child raising years of their life there, they spend them chasing money. Houses are empty because they are owned by out of state couples who spend 3wk/year there and have grand plans to retire there.
>But some else's child will not have to care for them.

Generally it's considered a burden of society to take care of their elderly. Thus 'someone else's child' will have to take care of the childless elderly in some form or another.
I expected it, to be honest. HN is a place where threads settle into orthodoxy quickly.
No, colonialism very much happened, it’s just the impact of colonialism on colonizers was much smaller than on the colonized.

All of the colonizer countries were much wealthier and technologically advanced before they started colonizing. The disparities were already enormous in 1500, before much of colonization happened. English, Dutch and Spanish became colonizers because they were more developed, not the other way around.

The “plunderers” had way more resources than the “plundered”: look at the trade volumes between England and its Indian colonies, and compare them with the volumes of domestic production in England: the latter has always been orders magnitude bigger than the former. It’s even more lopsided with African colonies.

Next, the little that the colonizers got out of the colonies were not “treasures” that were “plundered”, hindering development by victims of colonization. Spanish got a lot of silver from Argentina, but the silver was basically worthless to the natives, and had they kept all of it, they could’ve made more plates and jewelry, which in no way could have made them richer and more developed. In fact, metal oriented policy of Spain probably was detrimental to them too. But, if not the Spanish, the indigenous would not have worked Potosi mines anyway, so it’s moot. Most of physical resources that colonizers removed from colonies were like that: of what value are minerals in the ground, if the natives cannot extract them or make use of them?

Most of the actual use of colonies was cultivation of land and exploitation of human labor, often forced. These were overwhelmingly seriously underutilized by the natives. It should not need to be said, but knowing how obstinate some people are here, I’ll say it anyway: this underutilization in no way justifies colonization. Rather, the point is that the colonizers did not “plunder” land from colonies (because you can’t carry it away), and the amount of labor exploited was in almost all cases very small relative to the total workforce of the natives.

Finally, there are many countries that successfully developed without serious colonization effort. Consider Germany: it had some colonies, but only got them in late 1800s, and only keep them for three decades. It would be ridiculous to argue that Germany is now rich and developed thanks to these three crucial decades 1890-1920, when they held some colonies in Africa. In fact, they not only did not get wealthy by exploiting these, but most likely it was a net loss to them, considering the expense required to set them up.

All of this is not meant to excuse or justify colonization. Clearly, conquering and subjugating other nations by military force is wrong, according to our today’s moral standards. The point here is that the idea that it was the colonies that allowed some nations to become wealthy and developed, is simply wrong, and betrays lack of familiarity with economic history of the world.
Totally agree with you. The article that opened my eyes was this[0] one. This[1] video is also very good.

[0] https://colah.github.io/posts/2014-03-NN-Manifolds-Topology/

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5xKayCBOeU
From the company’s perspective, either case is a success story: you walk away with $999,999,999 or $499,999,999.50.

From the investor’s perspective, while certainly not a resounding success, not necessarily an abject failure either. Perhaps in those two years the nature of the market the company competes in becomes clear and the investor realizes that they had grossly overvalued the company. Perhaps the company is actually worth $10. Then, by some miracle, someone offers to buy the company at something close to its initial overvaluation. Breaking even or even losing 50% of your investment is preferable to losing 100% of it.

In this particular case, given that both Apple and Facebook were both able to implement this company’s entire product in a matter of weeks, I’d say the investor’s initial valuation was inflated, and they should have been happy to break even.
"Lean" is an idea that worked so well at first that it transitioned from being a brilliant insight into finding "stale" capital hiding in in-process inventory and parts to being a management fad, applied to things that do not actually benefit from the approach. It's not the only thing that went that way.
> The premise that Rust does not intend to replace C and C++ is not true.

My point was that Rust wont replace C and C++ as long as the Rust community is as it is now. And from your comments it seems like Rust isn't intended to replace C or C++, but act as a low level language for people who don't know how to write low level code, like javascript programmers.

> Your tone that the large majority of programmers in the world are somehow "doing programming wrong" by learning higher-level and safe languages first, and delving into low-level details as they need to, sounds very elitist and I personally find it disgusting.

I didn't say that everyone has to learn rust by learning how to write the low level parts. I am saying that if someone wants to learn how to write low level parts of rust rather than the safe parts because they are used to writing performance critical bits of code in C or C++ then you shouldn't discourage them from doing that. Please don't put words in my mouth.
The number of people solving a problem scales with the number of people available to solve it.

Besides, if it's feasible to earn enough money to offset your own carbon footprint (e.g. by paying for carbon capture), it's possible to scale the solution by having more children who then offset their own carbon cost and more.
You really find large n-dimensional transforms easier to reason about and visualise, as opposed to layers of neurons with connections? You don’t find it much more intuitive to see it as a graph once you start adding recurrence, convolutions, sparsity, dropout, connections across multiple layers, etc., let alone coming up with new concepts?

I think it’s useful to understand it in both ways, but our intuitions about transforms are largely useless when the number of dimensions is high enough.
Translation: “We did something, and while it wasn’t hugely successful, it was definitely a step in the right direction and deserves more research.”
I'm a physician and I've thought a lot about this in the context of the US healthcare system. Step foot in a hospital and the first thing you notice is that everything is single-use, thousand-dollar widgets. I've been into the idea of open-source medical hardware and software for a while. The unfortunate reality, however, is that the obscene cost of getting FDA approval for even the simplest medical device makes these types of initiatives a non-starter.

The way the marketplace is organizing, most local hospitals are being purchased and re-organized into large regional state-wide networks. At this scale I wonder if it might become economically feasible for a hospital system (or systems) to invest in getting open-source designs through the approval process and then have an in-house engineering department that could manufacture parts for the regional system.
How credit card processing hasn't been classified and regulated as a utility is truly baffling to me. Especially with governments explicitly recommending contactless card payments instead of cash during the pandemic and many doing things like taking large bank notes out of circulation for years now.

We don't need crazy things like crypto - we need decentralised and accountable banks and payment processors (not that the distinction between the two makes any sense either). Speaking of credit card companies: why do they exist?? Why can't my card just sign a digital request for transfer and tell the POS terminal to send it to my bank to be executed. A room of computer science students could write an open standard for that in like a month and have a working implementation within the year.
If its running on your server, then you aren't distributing it. There are licenses like AGPL that do try to limit that usage but GPL does not. Now if it is a web app that has client code that gets executed in the browser, that is distributed to the end user and GPL would apply, so you would need to include license notifications for that within your app or as part of the source code distributed. In that case you are already distributing source but you may need to make an unobfuscated source available if your distribution is minified/uglified.
The problem doesn't really exist in Protobuf, as protobuf (de)serialization is performed based on an IDL definition of the message type. Whatever that IDL specifies, a corresponding typed definition and (de)serialization function will be generated for your programming language, and that implementation will ignore any fields that weren't part of the IDL. The (de)serializing code is statically generated ahead of time, and is treated like any other code that operates on potentially nested data structures.

What this means is that if your IDL specifies deep nesting (or recursive nesting), then it means your application is expected to handle this “by contract”, and attempts to deserialize will rightfully fail in case of out-of-memory / stack overflow errors. There's no danger of an implementation 'accidentally' deserializing something nested that was passsed from the outside, as anything unknown to the IDL is simply ignored.

Finally, there's no XML-like self-references in Protobuf, so it's not possible to have an infinitely deep structure, or a combinatorial explosion like with billion laughs - just a very deeply nested one, and only if allowed in the IDL, and only up to whatever message size limit you're allowing.
If you need a grid that has, say, three 9s of reliability (US grid) or four 9s reliability (European grid), then it can only happen for like 15 minutes per year in Europe or 150 min per year in the US.

Now if you are only using wind for 10% of your power needs, a 10% drop in wind is not a big deal. But when you are using wind for 30% of your power needs, then the same variability becomes a bigger deal and might start to impact reliability, even though the wind itself is not more variable than before. Same for solar.
The objects don't have to be big. They have to be expensive to copy. These are related but not always identical. Objects that refer to things in the real world (or in a complex model) can be either actually non-copyable or just hard to copy.
There's actually a movie about the idea:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1389072/
Over the last decades, capitalism was not regulated very much and, as a result, companies cut costs - and one of the easiest ways to do so is to cut resiliency measures like having a standby plane and crew at every major airport to cover for delays, technical problems or staff calling in sick.

Nowadays, no one runs with any sort of buffer if that isn't explicitly demanded by government or other regulations... and when the shit hits the proverbial fan, it hits hard as a result.
Reproducing is our biological imperative, but I am still surprised how blasphemous is to people to mention having fewer children. It's a taboo and people hate you for it just for mentioning it.

There's much better ways of solving climate change, but fewer people on planet Earth would help.
Vector Search Engines Podcast
Indeed, more people means more people to solve problems is ridiculous optimism. We don't have a shortage of people whom could solve these problems, we lack the political will to solve them.

It's not related to the amount of people, people just generally optimize for short term economics, at the expense of everything else, even existence.
The argument in your original post:

>So I would say we need more kids in the world if we want to have a better future.

is funny because birth rates are at the lowest they have ever been. So it is brings up the question that if insufficient kids are the problem, then how did we end up in the current world?
Really?? I believe in global warming and climate change, but it seems a bit extreme to forgo having children for that reason alone. Almost comically.
What good is low inflation if people have even less money to spend so they can't afford the prices?

Prices don't exist in a vacuum. Low/no wages and low inflation means purchasing power is dropping aka the economy is collapsing.
Sorry, what is a UA?
I find it hilarious that you are echoing made up statistics about black New Yorkers to claim that I, a black man who grew up in New York, is living in an ivory tower.

Only when black people are tool to prove a political point is when you start caring about healthcare for black New Yorkers.
U.S. imposes Nord Stream 2 sanctions; opponents say they won't halt project
I'll disagree. No individual should ever be judged on the facets of life they don't control, like country of birth.
That's probably the main reason behind the Chinese crackdown (China having strict limits on capital transfers):

> "Another concern inherent in decentralised cryptocurrencies is that they make it easy to circumvent China’s capital controls, which restrict people from converting more than US$50,000 worth of yuan into foreign currencies each year."

> "Without restrictions on bitcoin trading, it is easy to buy large values of the digital token and quickly convert it into other currencies. Still, the fees associated with that are typically much higher than what people would pay through bank transfers."

1. https://www.scmp.com/tech/big-tech/article/3141253/chinas-bi...

Institution of capital controls in Britain and the USA would represent an inversion of the actual political power structure (which is currently basically a top down oligarchic power structure run out of Wall Street and London, a system in which most major economic decisions are made by a 'Central Committee' of billionaire shareholders and CEOs, not by their paid-off and subservient bureaucrats and politicians).
How to use knotend to make flowcharts with keyboard shortcuts in 1min [video]
I'm not saying we shouldn't set aside land in the way you're describing. But continuing to use the pesticides at the same time seems deeply counterproductive.
Naive finance works that way. Sophisticated finance prices-in downside risk.
Why would he do business with someone who had just lost his trust? You wouldn’t want to acqui-hire that team.
The key part of this is that they surveyed 16 to 25 year olds. This is not the typical age demographic, particularly at the lower end, who are prioritizing having children anyway.

If you've been on this Earth awhile you start to realize a few things. Here are two:

1. It's the nature of young people to think the world is going to Hell. Today it might be climate change. 50 years ago it was the Vietnam War. Make no mistake, these things matter but, in my experience, the younger of us almost always think things are far worse than they really are. Still, this is generally a positive as it's an agent for change; and

2. The older people also think the world is going to Hell but for different reasons: because it's changing. Older people get increasingly concerned with their legacy and fighting change, summarized nicely on Mad Men [1].

I have zero faith the world will come together and act altruistically on climate change or any other issue. You've seen ample evidence of this in the past 18 months where a significant portion of the population are willing to minorly inconvenience themselves (by wearing a mask and/or taking a vaccine with <1 in a million chance of a serious negative outcome) so they and other people won't die from what is now a preventable disease.

And we expect these same people to pay the massive cost to fix climate change? There's literally no way.

The only way climate change will be solved is if it becomes economic to do so. We'll replace fossil fuels with renewables when it's cheaper and not a moment before, as just one example.

Circling back to the issue of worried young people: many people had children so someone would look after them when they're older. In the developed world, this is rapidly disappearing. Now what generally stops people is they simply can't afford it. Not big issues like climate change.

I compare how cheaply I could live when I was in university and it's so much worse now. We're making living so expensive that at some point there'll be no one to hand all the accumulated wealth down to.

[1]: https://twitter.com/madmenqts/status/739854907918946304?lang...
And all these problems trace back to Douglas Crockford. He didn't know how to make a proper serialization format [1] and also an interoperable standard (for the latter, Tim Bray tried very hard to make it slightly better [2]). He just noticed that a (supposed) subset of JavaScript can be easily turned into a serialization format with `eval` and went to publicize it, only noticing the issues later and still pursuring its standardization as is. I hate him.

[1] My additional complaints: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24953981

[2] https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2014/03/05/RFC7159-J...
People still had kids during the cultural revolution. People still had kids during the 80s famine in Africa. People are certainly still having kids in Afghanistan today.
I agree with you, and I think that they're preparing for the season as they need energy. Loss of further resources might greatly affect China.
According to clause 4, you either provide enough source to compile and load a modified lib, or you use a dynamically linked lib. If you go the dynamic linking route no source distribution is required. I guess they figure the end user can get source from the library project themselves.
Todays finance regulators require you to not do business with some people, often without good evidence.

For example, if you do business with wikileaks, you will get a nudge from the regulator to 'reduce the number of high risk clients' you work with... They're not saying it's illegal, but they're also saying they're going to find some regulation to prosecute you with unless you do as they say.

It's a sad state of affairs when these kind of regulations aren't written in stone, but instead are flexible and applied on a case-by-case basis.
O.T. but every time I see "baited breath" I imagine the Sardine Bait and Tackle" shop in "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs" putting a lure in the speakers mouth. What's worse, "bated breath" doesn't mean what the speaker really intends - https://www.thefreedictionary.com/bated.
You mean the US actively tries to prevent NS2? As in sanctioning companies working on it?

I just submitted https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28828492
There is always a long tail of optimizations and tweaks that must be done to get a language that last 5% of the way to parity with a language like C. Building on LLVM gets them 95% of the way.

BTW Rust has some features that make optimization a lot easier, like the ability to assume strict aliasing in more cases. It’s safety features also make it easier to write zero copy, copy on write, and other optimization patterns without making mistakes. This enables some bold performance optimizations at the code level that would require serious bravery in C.

Long term I expect that Rust will be faster in some cases.
Why 7z and not the fully public-source version 7za? I'm really confused here, there's a way to avoid this problem, and Malwarebytes just failed it. I don't think that they need to use other decompression methods.
I’m thinking about getting a plug in hybrid Jeep. There are tons of forum posts bashing them and complaining about lithium mining or what your electricity providers are using for power generation. They also complain that the diesel gets similar mileage as the 4xe. It’s missing the point entirely. Dino fuel production is a dirty dirty industry. My next car will be a hybrid and after that I expect they will be full EVs.
User agent (browser or some other web client).
Hadn't connected the Bitcoin ban to the power shortages but in retrospect it seems obvious
In context of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28825066
If you're familiar with Go, there's Colly too [1]. I liked its simplicity and approach and even wrote a little wrapper around it to run it via Docker and a config file:

https://gotripod.com/insights/super-simple-site-crawling-and...

[1] http://go-colly.org/
Really enjoyed your article! I usually write my API's in Go and always reach for NextJS for my front-ends. How you handle things like authorization and authentication?
This video actually does a pretty good job of explaining the state of web today. He goes into why frameworks that stream html as updates are insufficient. The GitHub UI for example does this and its full of inconsistencies. https://youtube.com/watch?v=860d8usGC0o&feature=share