skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Galileo was sentenced to prison because the consensus about the solar system in the 1600's was geocentric

That was not the scientific consensus.

> Just because the mob is with you doesn't make you right.

Science is not a mob. What basis do you have, other than the mob with you?
I'm lifetime emeritus member of TC39, FYI.
If that's true it puts a lot of comparisons into question. That windows multiprocessing isn't as good as MacOS doesn't matter to a lot of people that run neither. There's not a lot of point in using these benchmarks to say something about the hardware if the software above it but below the benchmark can cause it to be off by such a large amount.
< Like, say, never show Pinterest.

Oh dear lord, I live in hope. Pinterest results have completely ruined image search.
This has been my experience at several A&W's around the PNW -- it's no In-n-Out, but it's pretty good and a nice break from McDonald's every once in a while (though it's a bit pricey). The root beer (& root beer floats) is definitely the real selling point though.
The screen is apparently a 16:10 display, plus approximately 70 (not sure about the number) pixels on top: thusly, when an app goes fullscreen, the OS just blacks out those top pixels and puts the app in the 16:10 area (unless it uses the new API and requests access to these pixels)
This isn't slightly tangential, it's a ridiculous assertion. Fossil fuel transportation is, for most people, the sole accessible mechanism of transportation. Because someone believes in human-driven climate change, they shouldn't have accessible transit?
Well, in both cases there is a political urgency to control the lives of others, isn't there? In both cases it has to do with big catastrophes that everyone needs to participate in to solve together, or else humanity will suffer grave consequences! Therefore we cannot afford to let people oppose these world-saving actions, and we must label them as "deniers" and "anti-". We must also censor those who question the consensus. We must shame them because we cannot afford to have dissident voices questioning the agreed upon solutions given to us by the experts! We cannot spare any time arguing about the solution, let alone the problem. Action must be taken, so sayeth the science!
Laymen versus technical. If I'm talking to a random person on the street I'm gonna say disposable. But yes I mean discretionary. My discretionary income is still huge. Well over 50% of my paycheck. It's also not even fair to say though because it's still my choice to have upgraded my living situation. Sure I'm locked in now but I could sell my house and downgrade at any time and my discretionary will go up.
What I hear in your statements is that you're choosing companies based on the features or UX of their products, not because of the quality of their codebase, which is mostly not related to the things you describe.

If the car had better quality code but did not yet have implemented the feature to connect to your phones, you would not have bought it - which is exactly the point the parent post was making.
Totally agree. But I would say it's not just lack of experience. It seems a lot of the people now who have 2 years of experience are "Leads" or "Seniors" and they have a very dogmatic way of thinking based on the the exact trends and headaches you described.

We had a new lead join, whose first job was as a Lead(!) and he insisted on adding a pre-commit prettification hook. Now due to the specifics of our work this formatting creates all kinds of bugs and means the local code you work on doesnt match the work on the repo or server, which is terrible but I have no power to change things because they've been taught to believe that this is the only way.
It does use ECC RAM. Didn't bother reading the rest of your comment, probably something about some china virus being fake. The big question is, why would you have sex with a sheep. See, I can make up stuff too and add some sarcastic useless filler to spam this site.
It looks like it doesnt respect $LINES (or something similar). On first try, the top 2 results scrolled off the screen.
Yep this is the point. Back-end for sure is simpler if you are not operating at any meaningful scale. As soon as you start tackling the problems mentioned in my OP, things get (much) harder.
You mean the one Google forked from Apple's WebKit, forked from KHTML? Stop the ritual impurity / genetic fallacy. The issue is not code provenance, it's web compatibility and the incremental fork costs.
kind of a weird idea but routers have names, i always wondered if there was some way we can use this as addresses to give a position of sorts, that way, nearby host can direct traffic towards a location. like a pass off, idk if i am explaining it right
Orléans is a French city southwest of Paris.
So many people in the comments are making the exact same willfully ignorant argument that creationists make about evolution ("see, it's just a theory!") about the term of art "scientific consensus".
>At what point does one apple and another one apple become two apples? Is a matter of distance? Likeness?

Perhaps I am misinterpreting, but it seems to me like this would occur whenever you formed a coherent question. "How many apples are there?" would be insoluble, whilst "how many apples are there in this room?" or "how many red apples are there resting on that table?" would result in an answer belonging to the set of naturals.
Yamaha DX7 Technical Analysis
> it requires me to look at the road and keep my hands on the wheel. Tesla has no such scruples

Note that for Model 3/Y with in-cabin cameras that’s changing with the rollout of their FSD beta software. It instantly goes to “oh crap grab the wheel” alerts if you cover the camera or play with your phone.
> Among my friends, we came to the idea that whether or not we each agree that humans caused climate change ...

If peace with your friends is the priority, then that's great. If the truth and future of humanity and of you and your friends is the priority, then that's highly irresponsible.

> There is a lot more going on than greenhouse emissions. Soil health is in many ways, more vital

In what way is it more vital? Will more people die and more money be lost?
Your think Windows doesn't have symlinks? Snobbish and wrong, nice combo
Title mocks WaPo, don't take it too seriously.
These problems, much like the IE problems back in the day are well documented. Much like you need domain knowledge to work on the back-end this is "par for the course" in front-end world also.
Interesting, so you worked on the PS2 TOOL (IE PS2 dev system kits)? What was that like?
It's interesting because in the Anglosphere, having an antagonist relationship with the Catholic parts of Europe, we don't have 'Jesuit' embedded in our culture as agents of history. French Jesuits were definitely a thorn in the side of Anglo settlers in North America. So these things end up not being in the standard history books.
I think the author needs to be reminded that the pixels to the left and right of the notch are basically free bonus pixels. They are not eating into the screen aspect ratio to build the notch.

Given that, I prefer the notch to a thicker top bezel, as I will take any free vertical space I can get to basically offset wasted space by macOS menu bar.
As a diehard terminal user, I think this headline should interest me. However, I am assuming this is some sort of JavaScript perversion? Visiting the link with lynx gives an empty page. Can anyone explain whats going on there to a non-GUI user?
You could suggest that this hook only be executed on a small subset of the repo to start with.
Do you have evidence of that?
That's probably true, which is why I love it so much. :) You're right that it might not be the best example.

Still... in particle physics, for example, I've heard that there was consensus in favor of certain particles existing, even to the extent of "multiple experiments have achieved an N-sigma result showing that this particle exists," for some fairly high N. And then a later experiment showed that the particle simply didn't exist, and that the previous results were experimental error. (Specifically, experimental bias – they were expecting to see certain results, and so they were probably subconsciously combing the data for such results.)

My knowledge on that subject comes from Veritasium, not from reading physics papers or following along with experimental breakthroughs. But I've seen similar things happen in ML, where people are pretty convinced a certain technique is good (hello, style mixing in StyleGAN) and no one ever bothers to check whether it's true in reality (style mixing is what prevents StyleGAN from being as cohesive as BigGAN).

I guess I broadly agree with your point. There is consensus that black holes exist, and that we've even observed one, so it's pretty likely that if you were to travel there, you'd find a black hole. But given how much science itself has changed throughout history, alarm bells start going off when hearing things like "Consensus is extremely common, and it's almost universally a good thing."
We have to acknowledge the fact that the denialism concerning climate change extends from it being strongly linked politically. That's the reason we see so much effort in this thread concerning "valuing other opinions" or "people believed the earth was flat". Since the naysayers aren't interested in coming up with legitimate alternative models, the only refuge is to downplay "consensus" and fight to have uninformed individuals on the same level of discourse as the climatology community. So while the science is solid, you aren't going to get someone to believe something they are against from the onset.
If I remember the Kodak case well - their own research predicted that digital cameras will massively shrink the total addressable market. Which is exactly what happened. Outside of professionals or hobbyist, who even buys a camera nowadays?

No amount of innovation, pivoting or clever engineering could have saved Kodak. They were not flabbergasted at the technological change. The best course of action was to milk the existing market for as long as possible, which is exactly what they did
i got my m1 air new from BB for $750 this summer, good deals do exist
Fish doesn't work with a light theme. (Dark text on white background.) Also the keybindings in fish are extremely unergonomic.

Honestly I just want a bash that saves every command entered, ever, and never deletes history. (I think I can spare the 100 kilobytes of disk space to hold command history forever.)

And fish doesn't get this right either, even though it's a complete no-brainer.
Sigh.

So no, I'm not a fan of fish.
The market is a bit different than CA, "thousands of euros" can buy man-months of work (especially for junior devs), not a couple days.
> If houses in a cookie cutter boring neighborhood cost 10% less than the ones in a planned neighborhood that's objectively nicer,

Minor point, planned neighborhoods are at best a local maxima but I’ve never seen one that wasn’t sterile and bland. Irvine ca is a soulless sterile place with gobs of early 2000’s office park style landscaping all over the residential areas, and that’s even true for the just built areas. The new dev areas are all continued to be “master planned” and they are just sad. But hey, it’s family friendly!
I can relate, mine is O'Rourke and even in 2021 I get:

- websites telling me I have an invalid name

- post addressed to O&apos;Rourke, O\\\Rourke, O&#38;Rourke

- "my account" pages say "Welcome, Mr O\Rourke"
> But I agree that the M1 hype may be getting a little out of hand.

Alder Lake will have big little core and by on 7 nm. I'm really curious if it or its successor will be good enough when compared to the current M1
It's probably possible to build a 3090 system with a 750 watt power supply though.
Can you provide evidence for these claims? I've read about effects of the solar cycle, for example.
This is such a ridiculous comment. It has never been in the technical capabilities to seal off any land border in the history of humanity, because any controls that you can put in place, including all of the technology that currently exists that you could throw at it are still designed by humans, require absolutely no collaboration on the part of the operators of those defenses, and are immediately upon deployment subject to attack by your adversaries.

Assuming you are referring to the United States, even if you deployed all of those sensors at all crossings, it would not be sufficient to deter crossings; those only provide detective capabilities. Yes, you would radically increase the number of people guarding the border, but that would also require a radical investment in enforcement, and such an investment would bankrupt the country for no real practical effect. Even if you did fund and build it, the maintenance costs of preserving the effectiveness of such a land border along the northern border with Canada means protecting a nearly 9,000 km border that about 200 km from the West Coast turns into extremely inhospitable to hostile terrain and climate for a minimum of three to four months out of the year. This terrain is absolutely awful to stalk and patrol in, but is a pleasure to sneak through (at least I really enjoyed it back in my hunting and military training days :D)

It is not feasible to scale the navy to the point where it would be practical to prevent access to the continental United States, for example, let alone the island territories. Attempting to do so would bankrupt the nation. Hell, modern technology can't even reliably prevent folks from bobbing over from Cuba despite the relatively small attack surface there.

Even if you managed to invest more than the current percentage of GDP (which is already ridiculous), you would also have to confront an increasingly hostile domestic population who is used to freedom of movement, is already paying punishingly high taxes in contrast to the value and benefit they receive for them, and rapidly diminishing quality of life.

Good luck with that!

Oh, and one last note about capability based security - it works great in lab and somewhat small environments, but I would appreciate a practical explanation of how you would scale up capability based security to an environments operating in 87 distinct countries (with disparate regulatory requirements that preclude centralized management), 3600 offices, and 800,000 employees, with approximately one third of those employees having employer managed devices, notebooks, and managing a total of 2,300 distinct software applications (granted it's been about 14 years since I worked in that environment, but that company has grown substantially since then).

I'm listening for a real, practical suggestion here, not being facetious.
> Dating apps which are highly ineffective at actually generating relationships for most people (particularly for straight males).

I didn’t really find that’s the case. I think that’s the perception, but it wasn’t that hard to meet nice, educated people looking for actual relationships on the various dating apps I once used. The failure rate has got to be much less than the failure rate out of all the potential partners one meets naturally.

If anything, dating apps are equalizers. They don’t require you to break into a clique in any activity where you might try to naturally meet people.
> This was all financed with government money.

Moderna existed for 10 years and raised 3.2 billion before 2019 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderna). The only government funding mentioned before then was $25 million (from DARPA in 2013).
Anecdotes are irrelevant when discussing large-scale statistical trends.
Thank you.

But in reality science is 100% consensus. Nothing else.

There isn’t a single scientific “fact” that is anything more than high degrees of consensus.

The commenters who seem to believe that consensus is anti-science have no clue what they are talking about.
Define "extremely". You get maybe a factor 2 or so, not 10 or 100. Is that nicer? Yes, sure. Is it necessary? No, older stuff is perfectly sufficient for most people.

Also, it is "if you need that power and need it with laptop formfactor". Again, impressive, but desktops/servers work just as well for most people.
Charge is not a force either! It’s a property of objects.

In that respect you may be interested in the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_radiation_of_char...
>If you want to be right, take that as a fact...

I guess you dont know enough about Die Space and Reticle Limit on Wafer and Foundry. You are basically arguing if Apple can bypass speed of light.
Trump Media and Technology Group
Step 1: Stop burning fossil fuels.
we have a similar issue going on now with hormone disrupters in basically in most hygienic products (shampoo, body wash), containers, beauty products. it's causing a lot of issues and there are studies showing this recently, it was connected to sudden deaths each year. we need an overhaul. if this was a bug or a glitch in some software it would have been fixed in a few weeks
It's not, that's what a review is.
Anyone else learn about the Viking landings on North America from Age of Empires 2 (1999)?
Hoist Google on their own petard. It'd serve them right if the open source they contributed to helped speed a correction of the state of the web.
I think your problem here is framing it as "questioning prevailing views". You are setting yourself up for failure by trying to make it about opinions before even doing any science.

The correct way to accomplish this is to take something that you think you can disprove, design an experiment that would show that the existing theory may be incorrect and then successfully defend that.

Say for instance you hypothesised that methane doesn't in fact act as a greenhouse gas, you design an experiment that shows that increasing the % methane in the upper atmosphere doesn't result in additional heat being captured. You would then need to collect the results, properly show they are consistent with your hypothesis vs your control data and then defend that in peer review.

In this case you would most likely be wrong because we are pretty damn sure methane isn't great but if you had an idea that had a chance I am sure you could get funding.

It is worth mentioning that the ability to get funding is somewhat correlated with the interestingness and likelihood of a groundbreaking finding. Finding methane is not contributing to greenhouse effect would be a massive finding, however the likelihood it isn't is low because there already exists a huge body of evidence that supports the opposite conclusion.

TLDR: You can definitely work on attempting to prove climate change isn't happening but you probably need a very clever idea as everyone else that has looked at it thus far hasn't come up with anything capable of disproving it.
> not through discussion but rather through experimental results and verified data

Like the LHC or einstein's predictions, consensus was built for them when after high precision predictions of their models became observed in the real world. That established that correlation was causation. Climate scientists can convince skeptics if they make such detailed predictions. But to be fair, the scientific message is muffled by popular scaremongering.
Also the vast majority of companies fail.

I’m not sure what your point is, unless it’s saying that a lack of consensus is indicative of being wrong.

Which would support the commenter you replied to’s argument.
Where is this 'microservices is not the answer to everything' club? I want to sign up.
Consensus is a bug, not a feature.

It makes science better manageable, but makes it less precise and varied.
This is hilariously wrong.
I know a lot of guys and some gals who really love their cars. In a post-Communist country, people over 40 still connect car ownership with luxury, even though the economic situation is now different.

But no one, no one loves the unavoidable traffic jams. So the thing about clinging to their cars is sort-of two faced.
I had the same reaction to the humanoid robot announcement. Totally impractical, but a great excuse for investors to throw money at Tesla on the assumption that they will "solve the labor shortage" in a frothy environment where FOMO is enough to drive stock prices.
I dont follow HBM closely so I am guessing it could be an On Die ECC correction like DDR5 instead of Full ECC in both DIMM and Memory Controller. But I could be wrong.
In case you missed it, the article says the below:

Further evidence that the site selection for Machu Picchu may not have been an accident: Similar analyses reveal other ancient Incan sites, including Ollantaytambo, Pisac, and Cusco were also built at the intersections of fault zones.
>Do you really think a grant proposal that questions some of the prevailing views in climate science is going to get funded?

I would assume that there are organizations that try to fund proposals that question some of the prevailing views in climate science otherwise where do all these papers come from that anti-climate change people like to refer to?
... and one of the biggest Lufthansa training facilities is in Arizona, where they train in 100LL burning Cirri (used to be Beech Bonanzas).
> Do you really think a grant proposal that questions some of the prevailing views in climate science is going to get funded?

Wouldn't there be a bunch of companies with a lot of wealth and strong incentives to fund that sort of thing?
Are we talking about creative canvas painting or home decoration painting?
According to the article he self-filed the lawsuit.
Why does it mock WaPo?
-<> is from a 3rd party library I guess? The joys of macros and extensible syntax :)

The standard library has as-> , which doesn't have the implcit default. So you'd write

(as-> "a b c" x
(s/upper-case x)
(str "result:" x))
Climate science suffers from the same problem as weather science, the models are essentially giant monte carlo simulations. i.e the results aren't precise.

But that is ok, because precision isn't and shouldn't be the goal. What is important is the direction, we need to know whether or not heating is occuring, roughly the rate of change and if there is anything we can to do stop it.

None of these require hard "X *C by Y year" and not being able to make such predictions shouldn't invalidate the rest of the evidence that says it's happening.
And who decides whether a theory is “proved”?

I’m guessing you think God comes down to earth to announce that yea, this theory is proven!
amd survived for a long time with worse chips and someone else's fab. Intel has their own fabs and the runway needed to get back in the game.
The research is highly politicized by fossil fuel companies. It's a defensive mechanism to try to prevent anybody from taking action based on the results of the studies. It has been working amazingly well for over 40 years now.
With global warming, the problem is that if you wait for the 6° warming by 2100 predictions to come true, billions are already dead.
And we bilinguals can spam <span lang="..."> to try force the correct font on our blogs. Ugh.
I don't see what control has to do with it. Do you have any evidence of that motivation?

And how is this debate different from others? Do people not criticize others and their ideas in every debate on a public issue? Are you not attacking your opponents right now? Does not the political faction associate with climate denial aggressively attack people who are liberal, who are 'woke', who are RINOs, etc. etc.? It's on Fox all day long.
Because it existed. You could actually write a Python 3 program.
Repeatable experimentation to what end?

What does repeatable experimentation prove?

For that matter, what about the Apple falls to the ground experiment disproved Newton’s theory?
not really , science is about building 100% bulletproof but falsifiable theories that are constantly being attacked by non-consenters and still win. No such thing as "fixed" scientific truth
I am familiar with that order and what they do, but the symbol on the cover refers to something else and is not the same symbol.
Serverless Cloud: Auto-Scaling, 500ms Deploys, Forkable Infra