skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The point is that people who choose an OS other than Windows or Mac tend to choose something based on Linux, and are usually technically skilled and submit much higher quality bug reports, more often.
Linux users just care more about the experience of using a computer, otherwise most wouldn't have jumped ship.
Fossil fuel, meat producing countries lobbying against IPCC report
Sure but you asked if they are subsidizing them, the answer is no. Is it cheaper than waiting to load empty containers? It could be depending on the incentives, even if those short-term incentives are damaging to long term prospects you would be surprised how short-term most businesses think.
Biggest influencing factor I can think of right now is that many importers/exporters are willing to pay exorbitant fees to get product from China to the US. This is specifically acute in areas/industries that there are no other viable source, say for instance LiFePO4 batteries. These are absolutely key to a huge number of things happening in the world right now and are outside of a few very isolated plants (CATL has one in California) made entirely in China.

There are so many insane distortions happening because of supply crunch that subsidies and trade nonsense are actually starting to become irrelevant. (though I really do hope USA sorts their shit out, their China policy is fucking up the world for zero reason).
If the government funds it, that will make it suspicious in the eyes of many people.

There are already a number of high quality studies, and they are interpreted through people's own lens of preconception. The article points out a real problem in medical literature, but the public perception problem is much worse. Medical literature is at least trying to reach a truthful consensus.
It’s already down the slope! It’s wrong to deny people the care they need.
If you follow that link which says "Read the Story Here" they have this json example which has a list of employees and then info about the pagination of that list. The caption is this

>If you look closely, this JSON document mixes the data employees with other non-data keys (headers) such as count, currentPage, and pageSize in the same response.

But they don't explain at all how Changing the data format fixes the underlying issue of mixed concerns in one data object.
They lost me when they declared an address type.

Addresses are so varied in implementation and meaning that it’s frankly ridiculous.
I think that we already have enough data showing that this is most likely ineffective treatment that it is hard to justify spending more money on this.

Furthermore, people who are not convinced, will find a reason to doubt the new study as well.
how does it compare to Hasura?
>Just have to slowly make it more and more difficult shipping software that isn't in their appstores.

Valve established their Linux presence because they thought MS might force developers ship only through appstore. What is stping others to make the same move if they sense the same danger? Big software companies won't be dilighted to be forced to use the app store. Nor would smaller companies.
Office, creative suite, and your flavor of pdf viewer still all work primarily off local files since cloud storage vendors all compete and don’t interconnect except at integration for the endpoint.
I’ve been using NAPI-RS and I like it a lot so far. The feature that caused me to switch was callbacks - specifically, I wanted to pass a JS callback to Rust, and have Rust call it repeatedly. I couldn’t figure out how to do that with Neon, but Napi has support and docs for it.

One difference is that NAPI-RS uses Node’s N-API for calling Node, and Neon has a mix of N-API and v8 backends. I’m not sure if this is the main reason behind the speed difference or not.
Yeah, this format looks really badly designed
AGPLv3 contains two kinds of source provision.

1. It contains all the source provisions of GPLv3, which are triggered on distribution (both of modified and unmodified versions).

2. A provision that is not in GPLv3 that is triggered on users interacting remotely through a computer network with modified versions. This is section 13 of AGPLv3:

> 13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License.

> Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph.

> Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed under version 3 of the GNU General Public License into a single combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the work with which it is combined will remain governed by version 3 of the GNU General Public License.
I sometimes wonder, what if there was a universal governing principle, that was simple to enforce, obvious, formulated in few words, so that everyone understands it.

All those priveleges which every of theese corporations enjoy, some simple, like not publishing schematic for 1000$+ device, some complex, like making backroom deals harming millions of people in a some insignificant and obscure way daily, like showing certain ads to certain people. Some other evade taxes using laws in ways laws were never intended to be used.

To enumerate and prevent every abuse possible is not optimal spending of time.

What if there were no hard rules, but instead the whole playing filed was in favour of little men. What would be the the main idea behind such system? Maybe some kind of radical transparency?

This idea, principle should apply to every company and reward those who play not only by the rules, but to the common end: sustainable, transparent, non-abusive, respecting sosiety.

If only existed some simple rule that reward this behaviour.
What's wrong with TAI?

Using a date format for precise time types doesn't make much sense because human readable date formats are inherently tied to orbital mechanics[1] (days) and social constructs (timezones, calendars, laws, etc). Better to just record seconds from an epoch.

I see you mention leap seconds in your specification, but you don't address how to handle time in the future given that leap seconds can't be predicted more than 6mo in advance. This is a key feature of TAI -- no synchronization to earth's orbital mechanics. No leap seconds to keep the sun overhead at noon. This means your time spec will likely be off by seconds when using dates more than 6mo out. It seems like your format is also only useful for recording past dates.

[1] TAI is still tied to earth's frame of reference, of course. At some point when we get more serious about space, timestamps will need to include location and velocity. This is already a problem even on the scale of earth satellites and I don't think anyone's yet created a standard.
The book is for sale on Amazon. Does it have a license compatible with posting a PDF?

https://www.amazon.com/If-You-Can-Millennials-Slowly-ebook/d...
Sure, but for example, I was living in Singapore, prior to moving to Taiwan I sold my desktops and replaced them with laptops.

My wife needs a Traditional Chinese, so I went on Lenovo website, entered the product number in found this page:

https://pcsupport.lenovo.com/sg/en/products/laptops-and-netb...

Got the part numbers:

UpperCaseASM_TCL82JQSGw/RGBWRF
Part Number: 5CB1C14972

Then went to the Lenovo store and ordered the part, then replaced it.

It's not about googling, its about the manufacturer having this itself. I don't know if Dell or HP do anything similar.
How are commas or speechmarks in strings escaped?
> What does that even mean?

Read HN from 10 years ago. Posters were gushing about how cool and amazing Google is, how much good they are doing to the tech industry, how more companies should be like than and do ethical things like they do, for example support open standards and source instead of proprietary systems.

They were saying that Google is a company run by techies who value hacking ethics ideals and not by business men who only care about money.
That would be oppressive but at least the unfree activities are restricted to the parts of our life where we must deal with authorities. We are still free to do whatever we want with our free computers in all other cases.

> Or even worse, what would happen if gov regulations started requiring ISPs to stop working with non-compliant hardware? I.e. something like requiring network devices to attest they are "oficially" approved before allowing to connect?

Looks like we're going to need a concept of networking freedom as well. Ideally, this will be solved by ubiquitous mesh networks that the government can't possibly hope to ever regulate or outlaw. Practically... We'll probably end up living in some dystopian cyberpunk hell since the vast majority of the population is too apathetic to join this cause and help run this decentralized infrastructure.
Also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28939265 a few days ago.
It depends on what you mean by file tagging. NTFS has supported alternate data streams since forever ago, but as far as I know there is no standard key:value format for tags that is recognized by a wide number of applications.
A website can only control popups it opened I think, not the main window for example. It actually may be useful in some contexts, but should probably be throttled by the browser, like not more than 1 changes every 5 sec, because it can be also used in a very annoying way. As usual anyway.
That's the way I originally wrote it. Please read the Reddit link above.

- Deny there's a problem. This is distressingly popular.

- Identify the wrong type of problem. Again, quite common.

- Identify the wrong cause of the problem. Where the causal chain is complex, or there are multiple candidates, and/or direct observation or measurement are difficult (geology, infectious disease until the 20th century, mental health, software, networking equipment), again this is quite easy. Where expertise is limited, one specific failure mode I've identified is moralising deviancy, failure, or pathology. Medicine ran through this for nearly 2,000 years. Mental health is still somewhat there (especially in nonclinical institutional responses, but also among the general public, and to a certain extent even clinicians). I'd argue that crime and poverty are very much here.

- Define the wrong objective. If you're marching off in the wrong direction, you might or might not get there, but it won't help you. The classic literal case is someone "lost in the woods" heading away from what would otherwise be nearby shelter or rescue. E.g., a failure to know the terrain intimately is a huge handicap. This applies in metaphorical senses as well.

- Apply the wrong redress (method / process for "getting there from here"). Very common especially in systemic cases where feedback loops aren't well understood. Where a rents-based good or service (land, healthcare, education) is increasing in price, financial support to consumers only exacerbates the price increase. Want to cap real estate, rental, interest, healthcare, or educational expenses? Tax the supply side. (Land Value Tax / LVT, and equivalents.) Direct emergency support for short-term remedies may be indicated, but that is not a systemic solution.

- Fail in communicating / recruiting others to assist. This can be either a communications failure on your part, or failure of those to whom you're communicating to respond, generally a recapitulation of the above steps. Another frequent problem is in reaching out to those who actually benefit by and/or want to prolong the problem, or who are for various reasons simply incapable of comprehending the problem or solutions. If the pilot's incapacitated and you need someone to fly the plane, you find the one damned pilot on board, you don't attempt to aviate by committee with the entire passenger manifest.

- Fail in executing the remediation. Again, multiple possible mechanisms: lack of ability, skill, expertise, insufficient resources, or simply an overwhelming problem.

- Assessment failures. This isn't as obvious but might include: "declaring victory and walking away", as has been popular in military misadventures. False attribution of success, or spontaneous resolution might also occur. The failure here is less for the present problem but in having learnt the wrong lessons for future problems.
Maybe brains just work differently here. I agree that it's nice to have array primitives like sum(x) and cumsum(x) instead of just for loops, and you can indeed have those in most languages. And it's very cool that APL type languages can concisely express a wider range of array primitives than other languages. But... in this Kadane situation, I really, really don't find that the for loop makes the difference between understanding it and not understanding it. That's mind-blowing to me, quite honestly.

More generally, based on my MATLAB experience, I also find that expressing everything in array primitives clearly, clearly doesn't scale beyond a certain level of complexity, and it's very important to have the ability to resort to for loops beyond that. You can do a lot in the array processing paradigm but it quickly becomes obfuscated if the problem doesn't fit the primitives well.

The array paradigm can really be a straitjacket, and this helps to explain why APL and related languages have been successful in e.g. financial time series computation, where those primitives are well-suited, but have not gained traction in general-purpose programming.
Locking things down and snooping are always presented as an advantage. Stoping piracy, stoping CP, stoping drug dealers and so on.

Maybe we should have some company lock us in our houses for safety? You know, if you wander outside you might get robbed.
> Hello advertisers. You are being manipulated and abused just like the consumers you are targeting.

Do you have much evidence for this?

Advertisers don’t spend big bucks blindly. Many companies have significant data science teams that keep an extremely close watch on ad spend return on investment.
that makes the assumption that there's incentive for the people running the government to do so. there's been a lot of information that's come to light, some of which some consider to be common knowledge, which indicates that there may be more incentive for our lawmakers not to do so
> And let's not forget the excellent Linux support on the thinkpad line

...Unless it has an Nvidia GPU
Eh, I don't think we can say that with certainty. We know that vaccination is driving down cases. It really feels borderline whether it's enough for herd immunity.

(Rich) countries are already rolling out third doses, at least for the most vulnerable. Longer term, we'll have revised vaccines, even more effective against Delta.

Maybe you're right, we can't avoid catching COVID long term. But if that's the case, hopefully its severity is (even further) attenuated by then, due to further vaccination.
A look inside Apple’s silicon playbook
No, it's not really a personal choice the way you mean--which essentially makes "balance" have no meaning.

It's detrimental because it's unhealthy for you (c.f. consciously choosing to smoke tobacco products) and it's also unhealthy for your peers--because your employers will always prefer the person who devotes himself to service of the employer over balanced individuals who don't, forcing them to adjust toward the unhealthy end.
Based on that first link, it's actually 99.1% (unvaccinated or not fully vaccinated) for the state of Saxony.
It is not cool. Using systems with lax security is also "not cool". No worry. With win 11 we will all be secure. And pray to the divine trinity: Gates, Balmer, Nadella.
Glad to see that it was a positive view of the Linux bug reporters, rather than "Bah, I spend all my time fixing packaging issues from entitled Linux users who scream at me that the game doesn't work with their obscure, home-spun distro."
Love and hate. That's the way of the Linux wizard.
After living in Amsterdam for a while you just get used to it.

You learn to look left and right before stepping into a path or road.
My mother bought water bottles with cat ears that were advertised on Facebook.

My wife bought a Mandalorian carpet advertised on Instagram.

I bought custom-printed Canadian postage stamps advertised on Google in wedding card-related searches. They're sold directly from Canada Post.
The pandemic could be leading to a golden age for unions
Blaming the developers is blaming the guys in the trenches. Developers are not lawyers, and the law is so complicated and so divorced from any sort of common sense that I don't think if I were in the position of one of those developers, I would have been able to tell that it was illegal. There is no such thing as software that is "obviously illegal" outside of cases like DMCA circumvention or cryptography export laws, and maybe not even then.
They are pretty blatantly just a propaganda outlet at this point, it is even obvious to former viewers.
Dixy: Data Format Based on Dictionaries
Please show evidence that Google's global privacy invading data collection network justifies their 3-4X premium in advertising cost over simple non-invasive alternatives. "Problematically naive" is assuming the cost is justified without any such evidence.

Amazon's ad business is currently growing at a 70% annual rate by simply displaying ads based on search words --- probably because searching on their site is an overt expression of interest in making a purchase.
And they're risking it all getting out so that they can do some crappy ad targeting.
The nice thing about the x220 at least when I got mine was that they where retired fleet laptops so you could get them dirt cheap and throw a few new components in them. I dread the day that the CPU and graphics are finally truly obsolete...
I understand the need for revenue but starting your commercial relationship with a fraud will not turn out well. I think it would better to show the benefits of buying a license like support or influence in development.
> 2. Google defines a minimum price for the auction, and won't show your ads below that even if there are no other ads shown

This is the most frustrating one for me. It’s like if eBay enforced a minimum bid and wouldn’t list items.

It’s not a true auction because of these minimum prices. It just doesn’t seem fair and transparent.

Of course, it’s Google’s site so they can choose what they like. Unless they start breaking laws.

For now, it’s just the annoyance of them not using “digital principles” by sticking to real world rules that they can make more money by adding friction rather than having an automated auction.
Wine is pretty bad for any serious creative software. Tablet pressure support has been broken for an eternity. Alt+mouse combos don't work correctly. There's patches, but they keep getting ignored and broken by whatever else is supposedly more important. I went back to Windows, because Wine's broken contribution process was a waste of time.
That's a pretty bad faith reply. I'm not paid by Google to astroturf (feel free to look at my account) and I agree with magicalist: I want to see primary sources before drawing any significant conclusions.
The only advertising that advertisers have to do that actually makes a difference is advertising their services to their customers (and this would include an in house advertising division convincing the rest of the company that they're sufficient effective).

If they can actually show the effectiveness of an advertisement then good. If not they you fallback on "mindshare".

Really the people we need to be reaching are product owners et al.
The parents birth and raise the kids to make those choices--this isn't a difficult concept to understand.

"The only basis for saying that the parents deserve compensation for the kids' economic activity would assume that parents own their kids..."

That's an interesting perspective that is completely divorced from the context of this conversation--it's entirely irrelevant and non-responsive to anything, in fact.
Truthfully, I found hard following the article. It seems many topics (hardware, software, ethics, Microsoft monopoly, smartphones, and others) smashed together. Most of them being generic commentary on current status quo (e.g. UEFI).
Because in order to end a debate and quantify what "proper research" is, you have to have rules for the debate and establish in advance what proof is enough.

In the eyes of the world governments, the debate is already over. There isn't clear evidence that it works. There's also a straightforward answer already. Whether you believe this is because they're subservient to Big Pharma or because they actually are looking at the science, they're certainly acting as if they've seen all the data they need to see.

In the eyes of the ivermectin proponents, they just need to do the right study. The debate won't be over until it shows the answer they're looking for.

Nobody is saying, "If I see this evidence, I'll believe it; if I see that evidence, I'll believe the opposite." This is basic grade-school-simplified-scientific-method science. You're supposed to define a hypothesis, design an experiment, and then stick to what the experiment shows. But here, some have already finished their experiment, and others just want to keep running experiments.

(And no, it's not a cheap preventive treatment. Ivermectin tablets cost a couple of dollars per tablet. That adds up to be far more expensive than the vaccines. It would be a cheap reactive treatment, but even assuming it works, if you're not using it as a preventive treatment, you're letting people get awfully sick and spread the disease around, it's just that they can get out of the hospital reliably. That's not a solution.)
Even if a monopoly were achieved on merit (I don't necessarily agree that it was in this case), the incentive to maintain that merit disappears once the power is obtained. Even if that weren't true (i.e. if power didn't corrupt) they could simply degrade naturally while the bar for entry would remain too high due to economies of scale and other reasons. And don't forget the incentives against downsizing: layoffs hurt labor, reduced consumption hurts suppliers while withdrawal of products and services hurts customers and the brand simultaneously. People have made better arguments than I have but my point is even a moments thought should make you reconsider your position.
The Actually Real Scandal About Ivermectin is something like the anthropic principle but about the fact that I know that nothing positive about Ivermectin would ever be allowed on the Atlantic. Is Ivermectin at best barely above useless for covid? Maybe. Is it crucial and it's a crime against humanity for being suppressed? Maybe, and I'm inclined to say probably because the same people who lie about everything are mighty certain that Ivermectin is something that doesn't help covid and anyone who says otherwise is a horse paste eating moron.
I think to do your taxes online in Japan you need an NFC card reader and software b that only works in Windows.
> “Be kind. Don't be snarky.”

Many ways you could have made your point without involving disability and being a dick.
As I understand it, the largest produce of ivermectin is... one of the largest drug companies. Which doesn't have a COVID-19 vaccine, and whose website openly states that you should not take ivermectin for COVID-19. Your theory just doesn't make any sense.
Can you explain what "truthful consensus" means in this situation?

The article does not give me any hope that medical literature is "trying" anything.