skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Arguably the _only_ real, reliable, sustainable energy option we have right now. That is if you believe that we're actually are in a "crisis" rather than virtue signal on the issue as you jet around the world in a private plane, which "climate advocates" have the habit of doing.
I don't assume intent but this comment is disinformation - stable coins are some of the riskiest major assets in the space, since their backing is questionable at best[1], and even those that are "backed" are inescapably custodial with all that entails (lack of censorship resistance being one unavoidable property so long as coins retain any sign of fungibility). I hope they "concentrate on" Bitcoin - which under close examination seems the first time hard money has ever been created.

1. AAVE Risks per Asset https://docs.aave.com/risk/asset-risk/risks-per-asset
So what's the deal with the militia groups? Are these groups listed particularly heinous groups or is this an editorial decision by Facebook, that they don't want militia groups to organize using their platform?
>By all accounts, deep neural networks like VGG have way too many parameters and should overfit.

I keep seeing this claim pop up but I've never seen a citation to support it. My understanding is that e.g. statistical learning theory lets you prove theorems of the form "IF it has this number of parameters or fewer, THEN it won't overfit". First year logic is enough to know this theorem tells you nothing in the scenario where the model has lots of parameters. Can anyone provide a solid citation to support the claim that models with many parameters "should" overfit?

BTW, another example of a model with lots of parameters which doesn't overfit is random forests / gradient boosting. I'm wondering if this "should overfit" claim is less of a global property of machine learning models in general, and more just a property of the particular models that this set of researchers have most familiarity with (SVMs).
The emperor is not wearing any clothes.

MS authentication is a bizarre and confusing experience and has gotten worse not better over time.
Wouldn't it be safer to just blow the whole thing up? Burn off the oil?
Eh, the basic economics of a PWR or even BWR are quite sound and you don’t need fancy tech to change that. Even with very expensive uranium and very expensive turbines, it doesn’t change that (depending on the number of orders of magnitude we’re talking about of course). And if you’re making 10x-100x of the things in a few years, it actually gets cheaper for both, since you can build a series of turbines, or reopen a sizable mine and just do it, instead of what we do now.

And now, instead of it taking a couple years to build with predictable timelines and approvals, you end up in decades long and impossible to predict legal fights that drag out construction; ruin any sort of economies of scale; and put everyone into a ‘meh’ state when it comes to actually getting anything done on a timeline. I know folks in Nuclear Engineering for some of the plants that literally have spent a decade plus generating paperwork and going in circles. Very, very, very well paid folks I might add.

A steam turbine doesn’t cost $5 billion dollars and 5 years per plant like these things do.
I find the majority of the comments in this thread pretty concerning and quite honestly shocking.

I didn't expect HN to be basically so obscurantist and to act so similarly to medieval alchemists (and that's not being fair to alchemists).

So apparently theory is useless, all that matters is the "art" and empirical results ?

Especially since quite a few of the comments here dismiss this work, and related, with a quick "well it's trivial/ well known?" and then procede to give their own personal explanation that show a clear misunderstanding of the topic.
Blue Airways — a Romanian budget airline is on the list as a “Terror” organization. I guess their service isn’t very good.
Given how long it took Fukushima to cool down, does this actually do anything appreciable in the two hours before arrival?
> Just so I understand, the one thing about flip flopping on masks cost them to lose faith in all medical experts? Doesn't that seem a little unreasonable?

Have you never heard of racism, bias etc? Yes, when a representative for a group does something then that will affect peoples views of that entire group and not just that person. Humans are irrational like that.
Is it due to pandemic, or to measures?
You could limit the window by encrypting the data stream with some time-limited "long enough for a demo" key. The can open a debugger of course.
I would look at the broader context.

Is someone using this point to include changes to forest management as part of a wider climate change solution?

Or are they using it as a derailing tactic to take no action on climate change OR on forest fire management?

Because I find that this subject is a talking point used to justify inaction of any kind, not just the kind being disputed.
> People were dying from self-administered HCQ as a supposed prophylactic

Yes, "people are dying" is the favored rallying cry for any number of poorly considered, knee-jerk reactions to unfortunate events.

It's a big country. People die from lots of things every day, including a staggering number of people who die from overdoses from innocuous medications. A surprising number of these people poison themselves with supplements in the name of "healthy living" (leading to thousands of ED visits a year), but we don't seem to be eager to leap to censorship and ridicule for that problem:

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/harmful-effects-of-suppl...

We don't change the parameters of science because of a few cherry-picked examples, and we shouldn't engage in censorship of factual information because "people are dying".
Here's a source for a recent meta-analysis of hidden costs of fossil fuels [1].

Findings on the abstract already corroborate the parent comment.

[1] "The hidden costs of energy and mobility: A global meta-analysis and research synthesis of electricity and transport externalities" - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221462962...
Fossil fuels are heavily subsidized. Most places in the world allow the fossil fuel industry to write-off their pollution costs, and many other places go further even than that.

Moreover, it's disingenuous of the OP to suggest that renewables lead to "millions trapped in poverty" while fossil fuels merely result in "climate change" (as though climate change doesn't imply billions trapped in poverty).
This isn't really right.

1) 'Local Control' is not some kind of vast conspiracy to suppress people. There's an almost infinite amount of living space. Not all of it is Prime Vancouver Property.

People living in a community can decide if they want it to be New York or Vienna, it's their choice, not yours.

2) "Vancouver landowners didn't create the massive value of their land through their labor"

Yes, they did!

People of Vancouver, largely made Vancouver attractive to others. That's absolutely the case.

They were not speculators they were residents.

3) "If you want to hold on to a piece of land, and keep everybody else out of it, you had better start paying everybody else for that privilege"

False! Land ownership is a right, moreover, all of them pay the necessary municipal taxes to support their community.

You, as a part of 'everyone else' have absolutely nothing to do with that equation, they owe you nothing.

As long as they are not externalizing something negative (i.e. pollution), what they do is not much of your business.

4) "Institute a full land value tax, to return to society the wealth that landowners are stealing from society" - now you're onto a complete separate issue.

5) If there's something missing in your diatribe, it's that vast amounts of land was sold to people who were not even citizens, from money arranged by ill gotten means: we 'outsource' externalizations such as pollution, lack of human rights to other nations, and the totally corrupt leaders of those nations leverage that fact, and bring the money back in one of the only things we can materially sell them, which is land.

If you're concerned about housing prices, ban foreign ownership of property, and ban handing out citizenship for people who are not even residents.

It only takes a small % of 'price insensitive demand', which provides the only 'confident signal' in a market, in order to really skew a market in one direction. In this case, up.

The difference between Montreal and Toronto/Vancouver is that Montreal has a fraction of the foreign investment in housing ownership, and surprise, reasonably affordable housing.

The 'language barrier', among other things, insulates them from some of the ravages of globalism.

If Montreal wanted to change that, they can, it's their choice.
This approach is "correct" only when you're interacting with an API you have no control over whatsoever because specifying all this and maintaining it is really error prone.

All this boilerplate is not a proof. It remains an assertion. And so in most cases you might as well just add a "type"/"kind" property to your object (or create a class).
> - For example, I find it inaccurate to say "the driver hit the pedestrian", which to me suggests a collision between two people, not between a person and a vehicle.

Or alternatively, they got in an argument and the driver punched the pedestrian.

On the other hand, you'd never say "the bicycle hit the pedestrian". It would be "the cyclist hit the pedestrian". The former would make it sound like the cyclist had ejected from the bike and the bicycle to continue onward and collided with the pedestrian.

Part of this may be that when a bicycle crashes into me, the 20LBs of bicycle is less important than the 150LBs of cyclist, whereas with a car it's the momentum of the vehicle that's deadly, but I suspect there's also just the fact that we've normalized absolving drivers and blaming the car itself.

Obviously, the correct solution is to say "the human-operated car crashed into the pedestrian", just as we'd say "the self-driving car" if it were autonomous.
Docker, as the most used container tool, became a utility and hence it is expected to be free and unencumbered so it remains a helpful tool instead of a hindrance and liability to daily development for – well, perhaps the majority of developers by now. To try and monetise it would just assure that a free and open version will take over; which, I guess, is what we see happening now.
This only captures crashes with other road users. Increased speed increases a lot of other risks, such as risk of injury to pedestrians at crosswalks or sidewalks, increased risk to hitting a building, and of course the general depressing effect that happens on non-car usage of roads (how many people will want to ride a bike on a road where all car drivers are speeding?).

(This is one of my big issues with US speed limits. All the discussion around it is always scoped only to other cars for the most part.)
They are still fresh water rivers. So you still need some supply and flow.
> Regarding the term "accident"

I think in aviation circles the word "accident" is disliked because it implies a certain inevitability and tends to terminate the search for further underlying causes.

If it's a crash, then we find out why, and if it happened because there was some debris on the runway or a certain switch in the cockpit was in the wrong position, then we need to find out how that could have happened and what to undertake to make sure it doesn't happen again.
From the chart showing levelized cost, from highest to lowest:

Gas (peaker)

Nuclear

Thermal solar

Coal

Geothermal

Natural gas

Wind

Solar panels

“Levelized cost of energy (LCOE) is a measure of the average net present cost of electricity generation for a generating plant over its lifetime”
Don't fall victim to resume-driven development; keep on KISSing.
I'm assuming by Firebase you mean Firebase Functions? We have a fairly complex infrastructure running off a combination of Firebase's RTDB, Firestore, and Google Cloud Functions and have never seen anywhere near what you're describing. Are you sure you're experiencing a 7 second "cold start", or is the invocation simply taking 7 seconds to run? Because the latter is far more easily explained.
Rust RFC Index
> Don't concepts give C++ the same semantic power?

Not really. But, it's on purpose, and, in their context it makes sense. These aren't idiots, they know there are however many bajillion lines of C++ code and if Concepts doesn't work with that code it's useless.

In Rust, you have to explicitly write implementations of traits. If the author of stupid::Bicycle doesn't implement nasty::Smells and the author of nasty::Smells didn't implement it for stupid::Bicycle either, then a stupid::Bicycle just isn't nasty::Smells.

Even "marker traits" where the implementation is empty, are still explicit. If you have a type that implements Clone but you didn't say it is Copy, then it isn't Copy, even though maybe the type would qualify as Copy if you had asked. Rust will always move this type, because you didn't say copying it was OK.

This is where the semantic strength comes from, and it was fine in Rust because Rust "always" did this. There isn't a bajillion lines of Rust code that doesn't know about traits, and so it's OK to require this.

In C++ they realistically couldn't do that. So, next best thing is to say that a Concept is modelled on syntax. You mentioned duck-typing, and that's what concepts are assumed to be for.

Now, of course you can use tag types, for a home grown Concept it actually might be viable, if you've only got two users and they both know you personally you can just tell them to use the tag type and they'll both add it. But for the C++ standard library Concepts that was not practical. So, that's not how Concepts is being taught or has been used in practice, unlike Rust's traits.
Now imagine that accompanying all your new Facebook posts with a clearly positive sentiment, you randomly throw in one name from the list.
Could be very interesting
True. Title could be interpreted either way. Dangerous people associated with the Facebook organization, or people the Facebook organization decided are dangerous?
Supply doesn't create it's own demand.

This is plain social failing you're describing. You ask whether it will happen to fusion, I would argue it has already been happening to both for quite some time.

Just as starter motors are needed to stat ICEs, so new sorts of power generation start as unprofitable, and end as essential.
> Losing even 10% of the worlds cutting edge chip production would be utterly devastating.

The alternative is losing ~80% of all global chip production on TW, JP, SKR soil if US decides to fight PRC over TW. That's the leverage PRC has in war scenario. Losing leading node is survivable, losing east Asian fab sets globe back decades, and hurts US/western tech industry the most.

A fundemental shift in region is US can't deter PRC over TW anymore. And as much as TW is viewed favourably, no one has committed to TW defense and US tried recruiting hard. Even US itself won't give TW security guarantee, and if you follow policy space, strategic thinking has shifted away from TW defense to TW armorer and blockading PRC past 1st island chain - increasing consensus and acknowledgement that TW is simply not defensible. Ultimately, no one wants to goto war and US can't deter PRC. So we have US and other blocs trying to maintain status quo for 10/15/20 years while shifting risk off TW sufficiently to mitigate esclation towards regional semi mutually assured destruction, a crisis much larger than just losing TSMC. Is this good for TW security? IMO it's not.
Not all of it will float or float immediately or hold together well enough to burn effectively. This has been proposed for previous disasters.
You mean dump a shipload of liquid oxygen in it and watch the oxyliquit fireworks?
> Someone started the idea of these particular medications being effective.

The original claims of HCQ's effectiveness against Covid came from doctors in China, early in 2020. At least, these were the first reports I was aware of.
I don't know that it's a "coverup", and I happily got vaccinated. But NYT has had a bit of an hysterical "it's totally safe and everyone needs it and if you think otherwise you're an idiot" kick throughout the pandemic. The idea that children, or people who've already had it and recovered, might have a different tradeoff than people like me, is a subtlety they haven't been very willing to discuss. Until now, I guess, which is a good sign!
so, I guess your do not hate "best practices" but the term, or more, how people use that term?
Blindsight's not too bad, but Echopraxia really piles it on. For example, it takes nearly a full page to describe uneventfully passing through an entryway and it gets two similes and two metaphors.
No. It was exactly what the prisoner's dilemma dictates an intelligent actor would do when they don't have the ability to coordinate.

If you suspect there is going to be a run on toilet paper, the obvious choice is to stockpile toilet paper before it is all gone. If you buy just enough for the next couple weeks, and you risk running out because of shortages.

The optimal solution to this IMO is to embrace raising prices during crisis, because then the market ensures that those with the most need get access to goods, and it eliminates the whole point of hoarding 3 months worth of TP naturally.
I completely disagree, the PS3 launch price did serious long term damage to its prospects against the 360. Later price drops helped, but by that time the 360 was too far ahead in the land grab.
Carl Schmitt: The Liberal Who Wanted to Be Illiberal
Without exception, every band I looked at either had obvious nazi or white supremacist references in the name, or a cursory search found it to be related to Nazi or Christian Identity groups. A bunch of them are German so there's less easily accessible information, but still, they're basically all nazi metal bands, not just metal bands.

Edit: moving my other comment into this one, as others have mentioned, the band you linked changed their name because another band with the same name was a Nazi metal band. Perhaps that's why only the name shared with a Nazi band is on the list. (that other band presumably being https://www.discogs.com/artist/1917747-Sturmtruppen)
ok, that sounds like a policy issue though - no ?
1.4M Jupyter Notebooks and only 24.1% of them ran [pdf]
well the GP thread is removed now so it's hard to see my point now. The position I described is facetious because people who voice that position don't accept that position and instead really advocate for the mass indiscriminate killing of Chinese people as was the case here.
Combining sources from multiple _unreliable_ sources is actually fine - as long as the failure/intermittency isn't correlated. Defining "fine" as reasonably low variance - i.e. guaranteeing X amount of capacity will be available for Y% of the time.

Nuclear doesn't give you 100% for Y above - there are times when your nuclear reactor will also be unavailable - the average is about 32 days per year in the US. So nuclear has a similar problem - as has all generation types - albeit with different statistical properties.
Are you speaking of high in absolute dollars or percentage of home value? I'm comparing RE tax amounts between Fremont, CA and Austin and it seems like for similar house sizes, the absolute amount of RE taxes paid is way lower in Austin, but it's possible I'm misinterpreting things.
Yes usual results in statistical learning theory are upper bound on the generalization error, so if you have an "overparametrized" (number of parameters is actually a useless metric but that's another discussion altogether) then the best you can say is "well I expect the error to be at most A FREAKING LOT", which is not a very interesting result.
Got this point from this page - https://koaning.io/til/2021-10-12-many-notebooks/
"The Closer" is worse than the least of the Bill Burr specials. I don't think Bill Burr is a comic genius or anything, but his approach to high-voltage cultural subjects is the same (both Chappelle and Burr make a point of walking audiences up to and across taboo subjects; it's a flex, winning audiences back after losing them to a line like "Space Jews"). I do like Bill Burr, but before this special I would have said that Chappelle is categorically better at this kind of comedy. Now he isn't. It's sad.

Parker Molloy wrote a piece about how "The Closer" isn't transphobic, just tired and unfunny. In it, they quote another comedian asking, "oh, so we can just steal edgy jokes from Reddit now?" That about sums the whole thing up.
Maybe the latter. They have people on the list who have been dead for 76 years.
> Censorship exists, but that is not at all the same thing as forcing people to have a certain opinion.

I agree, but it's a moot point. When you censor all opinions that you don't like, it's only natural that if you limit available data, people will form very specific, limited opinions based on that data.

> That is, they actively monitor social media for grievances and they actively address these grievances

I kind of agree with you. In some cases, Beijing fixes problems that local provincial governments either cannot or will not, but that is not always the case, and due to lack of overall transparency; we don't know the ratio of fixing problems vs punishing people for reporting grievances.

> Punishments are not that common. You'd have to reach Julian Assange level for that to happen. Censoring without any further consequences is the norm.

Honestly, I do not feel that people broadcasting the events in Wuhan were Julian Assange level. Neither are the people who were speaking about Xinjiang. Yet they were still punished. Tax evasion imo is also not Assange level enough for a rendition and a resource intense redaction of media credits. Of course, you can argue that it's better than not punishing tax evaders at all like how virtually no one in Wall Street went to jail for the 2008 financial crisis.

I know the social credit system is still currently a mess implementation wise, but if it ever gets standardized and fixed nationally, we can revisit this subject.
With this plus the recent detection of gravitational waves, it seems like we just keep discovering new ways of probing the universe.
> In a multi party system sowing distrust in an opposing party doesn't help your party, it mostly helps parties adjacent to that party. So then the goal becomes to be as trustworthy as possible to the public rather than make the public hate the enemy. It really solves many of these issues.

Does it through? I suppose what I had in mind wasn't so much narrowly-focused electioneering, but broader and somewhat sloppy gesticulations towards an ideological tendency. For instance, if there were two left-wing parties, a Rush Limbaugh could get both of them by encouraging his listeners to distrust the "left."
I saw the flip flopping on masks and thought it was silly for them to do that. However, I also was not going to not get the COVID shot over that, because, based on my own assessment, getting the shot made sense.

Anyway, I'm just surprised a whole narrative was built around something I would consider really not a huge deal. Folks could buy masks anyway, even without them being recommended (I did). It's not like masks were illegal to buy or something.
Doesn't make sense that the compiler defines __OPTIMIZE__ and the code checks for __OPTIMIZE_SIZE__ but the unrolled version isn't generated on -O2. I only see it on -Os.
See the New Yorker article. It's an environmental sea mine surrounded by literal sea mines. You can't simply "rush in by force" lest end up spilling the whole thing
As a grown man, I have never been treated more like a child than during this pandemic. And that infuriates me.
Or its the Turkish terror affiliated group: https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm0395
My experience as a professor contradicts this.

Perhaps we are using the word 'administrator' differently.
Investigation of Data Irregularities in World Bank's "Doing Business" [pdf]