skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
From my side, I'd say "I have better things to do". If I can find interesting things here, or another aggregator, then I can more than fill my time exploring already at least somehow vetted articles rather than aimlessly browsing. Kind of the same thing that happened (for me) towards exploring books. If I have a backpile of dozens or hundreds of books that I know have some chance to interest me, there is no need to actively look for more, it's just more efficient.
> Nevermind that for most of history human societies have been built on gift economies or that humans always cooperate in times of extreme crisis unless there are external influences explicitly preventing it.

The key point here is that in BTC, or any crypto or unregulated market, there is no external influence preventing it. In fact, there are only external influences ensuring that they will screw up the little guy and fleece them out of their hard-earned money.

With real money, we have central banks actively working to both stabilize it's value and increase economic growth. That's as close there is to "cooperating in times of extreme crisis" there is at a national or even regional scale.

With crypto in general and BTC in particular, the name of the game is pumping it and let everyone else end up holding the bag.
> it opens Apple up for a lot of regulatory scrutiny given that they were able to flip a switch that annihilated a $50b mobile advertising industry

Cry me a river. This industry should maybe ask itself how it pays back an additional 50b to the users it spied on, which was allowed by Apple in the first place. Apple just corrected a mistake that shouldn't have happened in the first place. This is like being sued by your tumor for nutrient deficiency.

I understand that people dislike Apple basically abusing their market position to run their own data collection. Still not okay.
According to the article below, it seems like there’s a similar level of inequality in the stock market as well.

https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2021/10/ownership-inequalit...
> but it's a fragile balancing act.

It only is if its done that way.. Normally you use a small RTOS that provides some sane abstractions to handle such mix of tasks or you can add some code that does that, for simpler applications (where simple does not mean uncritical or not hard RT) that can work fine too, and especially a single core can make things easier to argue about.

> What I don't agree with is that Rust provides anything particularly special allowing you to do this.

Well, compared to what? While there are already some languages (like nesC) or "frameworks" (OS) that do something like that they are well, frameworks and not a language or tied to a specific "runtime (environment)" like nesC is to tinyOS.

Rust itself provides protection against data races, which already helps a lot for making it less fragile, as you call it, and it also provides type-based (thus zero runtime cost) access control and design contract functionality, check:

https://docs.rust-embedded.org/book/static-guarantees/index....

Compared to plain C, ASM or C++ this is something special that rust provides in helping to do that.

Look, I do not argue that two cores do not help to have to separate domains for different level of critical, but quite often you do not require that, I mean I did some hard RT applications with FFT + a PID controller running or some fixed point physic calculations going on plus an user interface + GLCD output and communications (e.g., wifi, zigbee and/or UART) on a very basic 16 MHZ or sometimes (for bigger stuff) 32 MHz AVR chip.

Compared to that AVR chip, which could already handle a lot of not-so-simple hard RT apps here, the ESP C3 RISC-V CPU has:

* 160 MHz – so 5 to 10 times more, and a 4-stage pipeline compared to 3 on the AVR IIRC

* 15 levels of interrupt priority one can configure (the AVR only had a fixed level and the ISR basically had to turn of interrupts completely.

* a general DMA engine that can handle 108 to 128 MB/s so way less work for the CPU to shovel data towards UART, I2C, SPI, the crypto engines or the WiFi Bluetooth stacks.

With all that you got most of the more frequent interrupts stuff gone even while sending lots of stuff over the ether and the CPU can handle the actual app.
well wasn't the dream about "no-fee transactions"?

"no one can control" means:

1. you can't get bail-outs from phishing/fraud/mistakes
(there are card companies/banks that actually provide this service)

2. combined with anonymity, means more wiggle-room for tax-evasion/black-market...
(though if you look carefully, you'll have to 'financially-dance' a lot to get actual anonymity in bitcoin... all transactions are logged, right?)
> What’s the level of perceived risk that the nogil project will end up not being viable for inclusion in CPython?
(...)

> It all depends on how well the community adapts C extensions so they don’t cause downright crashes of the interpreter. Then, the remaining long tail is community adopting free threads in their applications in a way that is both correct and scales well. Those two are the biggest challenges but we have to be optimistic.

Even if it's 10% of the mess the path py2->py3 was, it still worries me. I hope I'm wrong and it's much less than that (for the fatal cases ATL, and similar/non improved perf for the rest)
Yeah this is definitely "tracking me" in my book ..
The build version, embedded in the build, should match with a label or tag in source control so that this information should allow you to immediately get everything you need out of source control. In general you don't want more than that embedded in builds.
Yet another release that misses a crucial feature.

With the recent years push to store "everything in the cloud", macOS sorely needs a way to backup cloud content. Currently the only way to do so, is to create a "server" machine that pulls everything from the cloud and stores it locally, which you can then backup.

Since most modern computers are sold with harddrives size equivalent of a USB Stick, and cloud storage is typically 2-10 times larger, this means you need to add even more hardware just to hold the data you just want to backup.

Considering that Apple is pretty vague with regards to exactly how protected your iCloud data is, and they themselves strongly recommend that you backup your iCloud data, i find it an odd omision that the only way to do it is part manual process, part synchronize stuff locally before backing it up.

All it would take (on the UI end) was an option in Time Machine to include "mac optimized storage". Third party support gets a bit more complicated. Where Microsoft OneDrive, Google Drive and Dropbox all use placeholder files, iCloud placeholders apparently only exists inside "Finder", so most third party backup software won't be able to see these files.
It’s a shame that the review only barely touches on Amazon’s continued denial to support open standards in the form of a decent ePub renderer.
I have a nice bike, a 1200cc sport-touring model basically designed to go all day at 80 MPH, with a faring and good windscreen. Stock seat was terrible, so I had one custom made at shop near Seattle. Bicycle shorts, a really good one-piece suit, good boots and gloves. Earplugs (even though you're probably not supposed to use them) reduce wind noise and seem to reduce fatigue, too.

I took plenty of rest stops; every hour or two. Hydration and light snacking kept me alert. And a mid-day nap. :-)

I rode for the ride and the scenery. California roads were nice pretty much year-round. Washington State has some great mountain roads (the Cascade Loop in particular; Hwy 20 is one of the best roads I've ridden and the scenery is fantastic) but they're impassable (on a bike) in winter.

I'll admit to using a bit of ibuprofen / tylenol around mile 400, even a gel-packed seat gets hard on a long day. One of my regrets is that I never qualified for an Ironbutt 1000.

Here's how I got started: https://dadhacker-125488.ingress-alpha.easywp.com/munch/
I am fairly certain it is not legal to edit the URL to get to a page on a website.

People have gone to jail for this.

EDIT: To be clear, I am commenting as a way of venting over the ridiculous state of affairs, not because I agree or think that science.org will send the feds after you.
I cannot use this service in good conscience because it touches the US, the fact that they were willing to launch a paid service made me wonder about the viability of the components.
They are also algorithmically curated and have a heavy bias towards new content.

Those sites vs the old Internet is basically the difference between a modern supermarket and a flea market, both provide you with lots of stuff, but it's a completely different experience.
I did a very rudimentary google search and see that the federal government requires a bunch of vaccines including influenza and Covid-19[1] for obtaining a visa. The CDC publishes a "menu" of state hospital vaccination laws[2]. Those sound like they both clearly fit "many contexts in the US that required a flu vaccine" the parent mentioned.

[1] https://www.uscis.gov/tools/designated-civil-surgeons/vaccin...

[2] https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/docs/menu-shfluvacclaws.pdf
It's more than that. In many languages, they aren't accents but different letters. In Swedish, the letter ä is not just an a with two dots over it. It's a completely different letter, pronounced differently and is sorted in a different part of the alphabet. Changing ä to a could compeltely change the meaning of a word. For example, "räka" means shrimp, while "raka" means straight.

The same goes for names. Misspelling the name by not using the correct characters is frustrating and shouldn't be necessary when we have Unicode. I think everyone can imagine how annoying it would be to have a random letter in one's own name be replaced by some other letter.

Yes, I'm personally annoyed by this, since my name also has one of these letters.
Can this new index used for search. A quick glance makes it seem like a huge list of ngrams, which isn't exactly easy to with with.
Its just a device. One of the things that journalists (and particularly those who practice what used to be known as "magazine journalism") are taught is to "hang" their article on some current event or situation. The intention is to give the reader a feeling of topicality that links the content (a book launch in this case) to their present situation.

(Also your comments about vaccination and "panic" are bs.)
You could but it's extra work to build that into the application while you could use a generic off the shelf WAF / IDS type solution that just blocks them. Won't fully stop a targeted manual attack but it is enough to make bots move on to their next target. And it slows down any manual reconnaissance work.
There's two sides to every transaction. Why blame only the buy side?
The crows are on his side. The highway patrol knows better than to mess with someone who’s with the crows.
True but newspaper advertising has always been untracked for obvious reasons. At most it was adjusted to the target audience of a particular paper and perhaps the type of content in the section.

It's only when the internet came along that advertisers started considering non-targeted advertising as unviable.
Philosophy and Theoretical Computer Science (2011)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29001070
Why would colder lands become arable at a slower pace than warmer lands becoming infertile?
> Apple would do well to look at sourcing an independent chip vendor for their on-device enclaves. That would give them a trust advantage over Android phones.

They are designing all of the critical chips (SoC and crypto/enclave) themselves already, TSMC only manufactures them - and if there is one company capable to verify that the chips that TSMC produce actually match the designs, it's Apple.
Murdoch had that realisation earlier than you think. He did buy MySpace for $800 million (IIRC) somewhere in the late 2000's. Only to have that investment become worth a whole lot less when Facebook came around.
Before mobile OS we had a far healthier approach to adware. It was just not accepted on a platform like PCs. This shit did only work because of low-information users that were locked into mobile environments in the first place. In turn, it also slowly infected PCs because expectations were eroded.
Probably not clear but I was talking about a situation where an API client (e.g a web application server) needs to manipulate customers (managed in one microservice) and also their orders (managed in another).

Not the two microservices talking to each other.

So the API client will be making separate API calls to each of the microservices.

My premise is that it is too hard for API responses from the customer microservice (for example) to include hypermedia links to resources within the orders microservice.
But the line to enter Lello is looooong, and you have to pay a fee/ticket to enter (that will later be discounted if you buy anything) :(

It works mostly as if it were an amusement park. You can even buy online a 17€ priority-jump-the-line-ticket.
While I agree with your premise that SOAP and WS-* is over-engineered, at the basic (simple SOAP + WSDL) I quite like it. There's a defined contract and you can generate strong-typed clients. I haven't checked in a while, but how is Swagger/OpenAPI in that regard?
Naomi Wu's actions in China brought Umidigi into GPL compliance, so it seems possible to get Chinese companies to comply with the GPL.
It is important that we discuss cost, but I think the urgency of our need for mass generating non-intermitent power should override costs.

As an example Solar energy as it exists now would have been ridiculed in the late 80s as something that would never be cost effective.

It was the massive subsidies/tax rebate schemes in Germany and later on in other EU countries that open the window for manufacturers to produce at scale and make it the cost competitive source of energy that we see now.

I mentioned this in a previous comment on a biomass thread. We would be better off with EU funds allocated to solving the massification of geo-thermal or the massification of small vessel nuclear reactors, than to continue to pour money into converting coal plants into natural gas plants and opening up new biomass furnaces.

Natural gas and biomass are just a means for governments to play with statistics on 'renewable' pie-charts. Until we solve the problem of mass energy storage of intermitent renewables or a far away nuclear fussion we need to start _now_ deploying non-carbon emitting non-intermitent energy generation.

We have to be realistic and accept that we need to find a means of replacing coal and not all regions have the resources for hydro-generation, geo-thermal is the next best bet considering the time and friction it would take to roll out more nuclear for example.
Disagreed. There are some problems, and low level hardware is one of them, where you need understanding and not just experience.
Are there other works like this? I know about Gergel mentioned alongside this post, and if you're dutch, K.G. Paulus' Kernenergie en opwerking was also an eye popping cynical book about ongoing stupidity in the nuclear world.
In Sweden highly educated women are marrying down. Just goes to show there's no reason not to break this sort of data analysis up per country and sex, it's not hard to do and will give much more relevant numbers to whomsoever it concerns.
> download it to a seedbox

Or if you already have a VPN provider, check their terms to see what their torrent policies are. Last I checked mine permitted such traffic in a few specific datacenters.
> highly regulated

Regulated by them, so in practice not all that regulated
No? Using the same terms as GP.
I think the bookshops with fake bookself printouts on the wall look a bit silly.
Topsoil and rainfall doesn't magically appear when a tundra thaws
The current BTC blockchain size is 422GB [1] so that easily fits on a single 1TB SSD. How is that "too large" ?

[1] https://bitcoin.clarkmoody.com/dashboard/
We need the quirky geocities pages back.

You might like this.
https://twitter.com/wayback_exe?lang=en
Without bitcoin, there wouldn't be cryptocurrencies mined with GPUs.
It doesn't seem so

https://www.techspot.com/article/2349-windows-11-performance...

https://youtu.be/Z1iO7N22Um8?t=674
Global Trust Worthiness Index 2021 – Who Does the World Trust? [pdf]
> Even if it was the only currency of the world, it would still be controlled by those with more power.

You don't have to be a miner to use Bitcoin and miners don't control Bitcoin. Miners can't force a protocol change, no matter how much hash power they have.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_is_not_ruled_by_miners
I can cite equal "overwhelming evidence" for any other religion, or any other book of fantasy. You consider it evidence because you believe it, but the tautologies of your personal faith are meaningless to anyone else. I asked for objective proof, which you can't provide because it doesn't exist.

Which means that the morality you claim to derive from an objective God is just derived from your belief in an idea of God that you made up. Which makes your morality - and all religious morality - just as relative as anyone else's, barring your providing actual proof that any God exists.

>You diverted the discussion to prove the existence of God.

No, you claimed that anyone claiming to speak a message from God must bring evidence - without ever bothering to do so yourself.

>The original discussion was that it is not possible to have objective morality without a Creator.

No, you claimed that morality of any kind was impossible without belief in a religion. Here are your exact words:

"You can't have morality without religion, it's a senseless question to pose."

It's not a senseless question to pose. You can have morality without religion. You've done nothing to prove the senselessness of the question or to defend your premise.

Now you are the one diverting the discussion.

>That is fact as per the atheist figures and philosophers, so no need to argue that point.

What figures? What philosophers? Who have you read? Can you correctly state their arguments and refute them on their merits? If so, why haven't you done so yet? I've provided you plenty of material to work with. If your knowledge of atheism and secular philosophy is so complete, why do you keep falling back on juvenile tropes like a slippery slope towards nihilism or referencing Mao and Stalin - as if religious people had never been responsible for slavery, genocide, cruelty and violence despite their "objective" point of view? Should I stoop to your level and point out that Mao was raised a Buddhist and Stalin an Orthodox Christian?

The closest you've come to an actual defense of your views is a quote from Steven Hawking, which you seem oddly fixated on, talking about the chemical nature of humans and the insignificance of Earth relative to the universe - all of which is objectively true, and completely orthogonal to questions of the nature of morality. What about Sartre? Kant's categorical imperative? Dawkins? Hitchens? How do you rationalize your thesis that all atheists must be amoral sociopaths with the existence of secular humanism? Have you ever even heard of secular humanism?

We're done here. I won't be replying further. Good night.
> I’m half joking, but if we can have HTTP 418 I’m a Teapot then there is enough room in the HTTP standard for the more useful HTTP 419 Never Gonna Give You Up error code.

Actually, there was a proposal to remove the 418 code formally, but in the end it was grandfathered in. Unfortunately, unless you have convinced a lot of people to allow 419, it would be not allowed anymore (even in a April Fools' RFC) according to the established protocol of IANA controlling the allocation of error codes, and IANA no longer allow "joke" allocations unless there was an RFC clarifying why that particular code must exists in a non-joking manner (see 451, in homage to Fahrenheit 451 but is the recommended code for a informed block). Even 418 was technically only reserved in such a way that allows it to be overridden in case that a good demonstration that 418 should be the code for that error.
> or else it doesn't exist and it was all a huge coordinated lie.

Or people were gullible, keen to sell an anti-Trump story, overestimated the chances of something being true, were embarrassed about it later...?

I think that story is mostly dead but Matt Taibbi will probably tell you about it, in between ranting.
The whole "or a negative test" thing is clearly going away. It was added to make the pill easier to swallow at first; but governments (again, at least in Western Europe) seem to be getting a bit desperate to increase vaccination rates, and are making tests very very cost prohibitive (50€ per test, and you need a new test every 2-3 days), and are likely to remove that option altogether at some point. A pretty obvious slippery slope in hindsight: governments never let a crisis go to waste.
It seems there is really no performance reason to switch to W11.

https://www.techspot.com/article/2349-windows-11-performance...

https://youtu.be/Z1iO7N22Um8?t=674
Sure but why do you think that is. What currency oil is quoted in has more to do with foreign policy than economics. Regardless of what reasons the US may have had to invade Iraq in 2001, Saddam Hussein was literally on record in 2000 for planning to switch away from quoting Iraqi oil in US dollars to the Euro[0].

There was a ton of talk about the 2001 invasions being about the US oil reserves for itself but that's based on a very simplistic understanding of US foreign policy. The US didn't annex the oil fields, it disrupted the national oil company's monopoly to allow privatization of the market and invite international (especially US and US-friendly) investors. It was really more of a hostile takeover backed by the world's largest military.

Again, I'm not claiming that this was the sole reason behind the invasion or the primary motivator, but the US has a history of privatizing nationalized industries of countries it successfully invades, overthrows or interferes in the elections of.

[0]: Not a conspiracy theory. Here's an article from Nov 2000: http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,9985...
It is one thing to be technically arable, and wholly another to have infrastructure in place to take advantage of it.

But there is also no reason for the rates to match. It might even happen faster, but that will not be useful until much later.
I agree. If you're doing something so special in your code that nobody is publicly doing it and you're unable to update the code to make it compatible, then don't upgrade. That's the risk you took when coding it. We shouldn't go out on a limb for hypotheticals that cannot be confirmed. Force them to demonstrate an example publicly so all the cards are on the table. Proprietary code is fine and you can still share concepts by extracting out the issues.

Sorry to hear about your demo. Sounds not fun! At least that's in the past :)