skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The cycle for servers is 3 years, the cycle for the building is 30 years. What I'm trying to say is that if you can deliver more widgets per watt per sq ft by replacing the server than you go for that. If you can't why not keep the already depreciated server operating for another year. The incremental costs are mostly the power (and ac) plus the opportunity cost of putting a more efficient server in a year later. If it fails you just put in the newer server. If it doesn't you may save a bit.
Major chains predominantly run on Toshiba SurePOS 4960. That 4-digit number should give you a clue. It is, of course, a spinoff of an IBM monstrosity originating in 1980s.

This thing is programmed in REXX and Java. Many files end in .286

Although there are possibilities for API integrations, users usually use the ssh interface into the controller system. It would take significant effort to add manufacturer coupon validation logic.

By encoding self-contained data, coupons violate the first principle of data security - never trust the input.

Source: I service 4960 controllers for major chains. My first encounter having to edit REXX files using native tools was very interesting.
Weird comparison given the events aren’t all that similar. We know COVID transmission risk is much higher when people are indoors. The Capitol riot involved large numbers of people being indoors, the BLM protests mostly did not.

The only reason to compare coverage of the BLM marches and Capitol riot is, ironically, in service of propaganda that seeks to portray both events two sides of the same coin. Why not compare the Capitol riot and, I dunno, coverage of an indoor sport event? It would be a more accurate comparison but it wouldn’t serve a partisan political purpose, so it’s not done.

And “release at the same time” is just kind of funny as accusations go: an event occurred. Multiple news organisations wrote it about it shortly afterwards? Some even publishing stories on the same day? How very, very suspicious.
and in doing so, set themselves up for much larger failure. Google instead pivoted that energy into cloud, which is now broken out in their earnings.

I was one of those googlers who, when Plus was announced, wondered "why aren't we announcing an AWS competitor?"
> I hate Amazon as much as anyone

The fashionable thing to say, indeed!

Yet the anyones are all covertly buying from Amazon, working for Amazon, and investing in Amazon.
I'm in the same boat; my household is certainly much more resilient and effective with a technically-focused, detail-oriented engineer and an emotionally intelligent human-oriented teacher in it than it would be with two of me (we certainly have better relationships with our neighbors and community this way, at the very least).
You might enjoy this series of interviews with Supreme Court justices on writing style in _The Scribes Journal of Legal Writing_ vol 13:

https://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/garner-transcripts-1.pd...

The interviews go beyond writing style into broader rhetoric, as well as dislikes and pet-peeves.
Is your ROI decreasing? (i.e. CPC could be increasing, but conversions / order value could be increasing as well)
This will make all online book sales more expensive, not just Amazon's.
It's hilarious that not even this GPT side project can escape the need for OpenAI-style output filtering.

Someone really ought to make an open source lib to solve this once and for all...
Perhaps we need a new term for this, encompassing both paywalls and "registration walls".

"Dating wall" perhaps? Whether it's asking you to pay up, or just to register an account, it's still asking you to enter into a relationship with the content provider, and you bounce off because you'd rather not have that relationship.

Relationships are a burden, there's only so many one can keep track of.
* actually adjusting to textual modes of communication?

I don’t want this to sound trite or disingenuous, and I especially don’t want to assign blame (unless you know me personally, you probably won’t ever encounter an instance of my intentionally assigning blame to individuals), but short-form, semi-synchronous textual communication is just different, to the point that linguists extend the usual classification of discourse from spoken and written into spoken, written, and “IM-ish” (which turns out to be closer to spoken despite using writing). Not all modes of expression are immediately accessible to everybody (I’m constantly anxious over emails, which is tremendously inconvenient), and we should absolutely try and help people adjust, but to say that the mere requirement of adjusting is evidence of inferiority or evil nature is unfair to things that are just not the same as other things (insert UI/UX example here). This is not to say that there are no evil things, just that this particular argument for evilness is so weak as to be tautologically true for almost any thing at all (when I was a child, they would sell vegetables marked “zero cholesterol”).

I mean, “why did [they] do it like this” is one of the most harmless questions to ever exist as far as I can see (provided there’s enough context to figure out what “it” refers to and what “this” specifically is supposed to be surprising, so that it is not disproportionately low-effort or bad-faith obstructive, but that equally applies to spoken interaction). Literally most of my brain-time is devoted to answering questions of this type I ask myself, so when somebody else asks such a question it’s the most unsurprising thing I could imagine. I was similarly baffled when in a recent discussion someone suggested starting a sentence with “I might be wrong, but ...” is perceived as aggressive. How else am I supposed to communicate “I don’t feel competent in this particular area but on general principles I’m fairly sure that ...”, and in what world does warning people of the potential irrelevance of your opinion read as aggressive?

I’d be happy if it turned out I’m just not perceiving a subtlety of language (despite using English for most of my life, I am not and will never be a native speaker), but that’s not what people seem to be saying. A cultural disconnect sounds more plausible (cf. “ ’Splain it to me”), but again “people foreign to the culture can feel uncomfortable or misunderstand” is by itself not a sufficient argument for a change of culture, especially if that culture (chat or comment etiquette) is more or less inherent to the environment (short-form semi-synchronous communication).

[In case the gentle reader is wondering how this comment could ever count as “short-form communication”: I’m like this in person, too. Sigh.]
Specific quote is:
> Imposing a minimum shipping cost for books would weigh on the purchasing power of consumers.

The other side is a bit more complex, but Amazon is definitely subsidizing shipping costs from their yearly subscription and seller fees. The argument is that this is unfair to smaller companies which don't have capital to burn... and that is kind of true? I think there are valid points on both sides.
Fellow biker here, with as small a windshield as I can stand (meaning my helmet stands above the windshield. I still carry a can of Honda Spray Cleaner and Polish in the tank bag for scrubbing the face shield on the helmet, as well as the windshield. I used to go through several cans a year. Now, for the same miles ridden, a can might last over a year. The one variable is the bike, but I've owned a variety of bikes over the decades I've been riding, and only in the last 10 years or so did I have to cut back on my standing order of cleaner.
This is one of the places the internet meme of 'Wagie Wagie get back in your Cagie' original stemmed from, at least from what I've seen. Given Amazon's treatment of workers I think the bleak outlook isn't totally unwarranted.
I can't tell you how many times I find myself back on this page while working on multiplayer games. From the bottom of my heart I really can't thank you enough for this tutorial.
I guess my point with this is twofold:

* Accepting Amazon's claim: this strikes me more as the removal of a rural subsidy (cheap delivery to hard to reach places, Amazon skipping out on every tax they can to lower prices) than the imposition of an urban one. Maybe a distinction without difference economically, but it's an important political distinction.

* Not accepting the claim: wouldn't this support rural bookstores? Amazon's conceit here is that people want convenience, which a local rural bookstore surely provides over an urban one for rural dwellers. Whether they "compete" with urban bookstores is sort of a red herring, given that (small) bookstores qua businesses tend to be labors of passion that aren't looking to edge out some distant urban competitor. That doesn't mean they can (or should) go broke, just that the economics aren't necessarily a dog fight between rural and urban.
> when they can prevent it.

Most people wouldn't know where to start to install an ad blocker.

They don't even understand the concept, much less know that it even exists.
Um, how do they do that?

> All integrations were implemented in-house using the Texts Platform SDK. The SDK will be open sourced at a later date.

Seems like a big nope.
I don't think the point was to ban centralized options, but to allow decentralized options. A system with freedom would allow sub-systems with "no freedom" as well
Maybe I'm wrong but taxes shouldn't really "hurt" anyone. Ideally everyone pays a burden they can shoulder, and they derive benefits from these payments in some way.
You have the dark web left to explore. :)
.. and therefore they need their information filtered for them by their betters, i.e. techies?
It wasn’t that long ago (at least over here in Europe) that very few women[1] made it to anything High Income, so such couplings were rarer.

[1] Relatively speaking
Yeah. So many problems caused by businesses who simply refuse to die. Their time has passed but they simply refuse to go away and let humanity move on. The entire copyright industry for example.
Guinea Hens are great at eating ticks.
> But the real explanation is that realistically 90% of people meet their spouses in university

This is very exaggerated. It seems like people who find their partner in university are in the minority these days.
The cage design is probably objectively pretty bad (I don't want to work in there), but the headline is a bit sensationalist. The idea here is that Amazon has a bunch of robots running around in a massive environment. Safe robot-human interaction in close contact situations is still a research problem. This device is obviously meant for the safety of the operator if a robotics engineers looked at it. I know people don't really like big companies and Amazon, but in this case I think the reporting is a bit over the top. The intention of the system is not to enslave humans. The technology is nowhere near there. If anything, we're enslaved by them because they're constantly broken and we have to go fix them by riding this cage of a robot!

> Here, the worker becomes a part of a machinic ballet, held upright in a cage which dictates and constrains their movement.

The depiction here is way too sensationalist and eye-roll-inducing. If we want to go there, how is this different from let's say.. a car (or a self-driving car), or even the idea of working for companies to sustain your daily life, especially in person. In any case, I think we can all agree that a mobile safety system like this should have some better industrial design than that diagram.
They are trying to be defensive about it - but I think it is a good system . They are heading toward a future where warehouses are fully automated and it is dangerous for a human to enter this kind of auotmated warehouse . In that sense , it is not a bad design to protect the human from the worker robots.
Why? In the past (pre 1960s/70s/80s) spouses largely didn't meet in college/university level education or at the workplace, or if they did, it wasn't as peers.

But my point isn't so much that people meet in college, so much as there isn't really a good way to adjust statistical measurements to account for the popularity of a particular field/job, as was suggested up thread.

There are way too many related, interdependent, conflicting variables, with common field of study being a major one, even for the smaller disciplines.
The patent number stays the same though.
I had a similar experience dating someone in the field, though it went on a bit longer. for me it was just kinda rough to come home from a day of working on software to talk to my SO about their problems with software. great person, but it was an exhausting relationship.

on the other hand, most of my friends also do software stuff and we enjoy complaining to each other about work. I guess maybe the difference is you can say "not now" to a friend more easily than a partner.
In practice it does make a difference because the terms between LPs and Sequoia are now more in-line with the outlook Sequoia has towards the companies it funds; whereas previously, due to the rigid 10-year structure, it wasn't.
> Are you considering installing a content blocker not easy? Or not ad blocking?

If you google how to install an adblocker on iOS, you get garbage results which will mostly only work for safari, and will mostly not block google's ads ("acceptable ads").

If I google 'ios ad blocker' and install the apps in the order recommended, I think I'd have to go through ~10 garbage apps before I got to firefox focus.

... And I think for a lot of people, firefox focus isn't viable because they want their chrome bookmarks to sync etc.

When I said "DNS-based ad blocking, which is harder than the traditional desktop firefox/chrome adblockers to install.", I was mostly thinking of installing pi-hole since that's the reliable way to block stuff on iOS, since otherwise the matrix of content blockers is a total mess. I'll stand by pi-hole being too much for most people.
>There could be other creative solutions, like reimagining higher education to give people time to marry and have kids before college.

This is essentially the advice of the "Princeton Mom": Find and marry your spouse in college. <https://www.today.com/popculture/marry-smart-princeton-mom-s...>
You are completely correct from a computer science perspective - unfortunately, this is not a computer science discussion. As far as the FBI are concerned, “storing encrypted child porn on behalf of people with the keys to decrypt it” still counts as “storing child porn”.

You can disagree with that (and there are many good reasons to do so) - but “it’s encrypted so it’s fine” isn’t going to convince anybody who matters.
Was life better in hunter-gatherer times?
Don't advertise that way if you don't want to? I'm failing to see what the issue is. If you don't mind and advertiser saying, hey, look at me instead, then don't pay google to advertise.
Hiring an underqualified man because he's smart

> It's wrong

Hiring an underqualified woman because she's smart

> It's okay
Thank you! I loved StumbleUpon, so I'm glad to see this around.
That would probably violate trade agreements.
What name calling though?
There is exactly one word in his post that even qualifies as an unsubstantiated value judgement: "disgusting". It's appeared in 12,263 comments.

If Nature and CDC are flamebait, we're done man, we're just done.
You gave a really bad example with Portugal, completely contradicts your position.

Portugal literally allowed people to do hard drugs, no matter which, safely, instead of persecuting them. Portugal has a table in their legislation with the drugs amounts people can carry with them without ever being considered a crime if it falls under.

There was a heroine epidemic in the 90s, not only now they have proper places where they help people inject themselves, they also provide psychological help.

Compared to the normal way other countries deal with drugs, this is much more close to have all drugs legal than not. So I'm not understanding the position of no reasonable person would want drugs legal, given that in the 90s seeking for a close-state of being legal was what Portugal sought and achieve enormous results with it that it is still the law we have today.

source: I live in Portugal and I have tried a myriad of drugs from "soft" to "hard" without ever fearing for my safety in regards to the law.
Came here to say the same thing. A good example how to nerf a marketing opportunity by showing disrespect towards your reader.
I think parent troll is a play on words. Patent trolls with children are parent trolls.
yeah I mean I love amazon personally. sometimes things go wrong but same as any business.
Well, youtube videos open in the youtube iOS app. It's hard to block ads in a native app.

Is there a way?
Most government proposed solutions create new problems instead of fixing the original? Do you have any data to back that claim up?
Lex Luthor's mistake was causing the disaster he planned to profit from rather than preparing to profit from one that was inevitable in his lifetime.
Oh wow, Amazon is such a threat! Whatever will Larousse and Hachette do... maybe remain competitive? </3
I'd argue that we are in times when "trust" must be a result of open code access.

If in the past the GNU philosophy sounded somewhat extreme, today is the only real valuable option from a consumer perspective.

This are our intimate lives that we are talking about, that's the whole incentive for corporations to provide "advancements" for free - the personal data, gathered, categorized and automated for billions. "Solutions" sold to the public with marketing strategy "for the common good".

In actuality, we as a collective have fallen into this trap.
Driven by consumer lust and "social" success validation, emojis, colors and tech specs. We are sick to the core - watching unboxing and tech fetish videos.

I am guilty in this as others, I have used Apple products for 20 years.

The only justification that I have - I had fallen into this trough my work as a designer. At the time I had no idea about how software works and what is the perspective for the industry in the future.

Since invention of the iPhone things changed dramatically.
What are advancements for the end-user really? Better cameras? Or higher and higher prices? My last iPhone is SE with the old form factor - not updated and still working.

With CSAM and "parental AI" scanning proposal, Apple tried to normalize active policing on the device by third party criteria with no option of auditing (because of the sensitive nature of the data). UK government chimed in to approve and require even more access.:)

This operation is a failed text-book psyop. To make you comfortable when I am scanning your data in the name of the children (if you don't approve you may be have something to hide), you will be able to participate in the surveillance spectacle by snooping on your kids.
Hm, no. Utterly Disgusting.

How removed from reality one must be to even create this intrusion on privacy is beyond my comprehension.

The good part is that this Apple "mistake" was like jolt of thunder for me and my colleagues.
There is no more Apple tech talk in the office, sharing of Apple related news and speculations.

We don't care to support another monopolistic monster in the shareholders approved crusade to rule the world trough health, media and transportation data.

You cannot be a technically educated person continuing forward with closed eyes and singing along the corporate mantras anymore. Yes, the paychecks are good, I have no doubt.

I now understand why FOSS exists, and I am sincerely thankful for all the people involved in the process of creation of the real software advancement for humanity.
And if I cannot participate directly, I will find a way to support this process financially.
They absolutely love the wild fennel plants in my yard, which looks similar to queen anne's lace.
no popularity, no money.
Does that proposal allow to express anything that can be expressed in Rust?

That seems quite unlikely given the lack of syntax for lifetimes. It's still in theory possible to infer them, but that would result in API instability and hard to decipher error messages.

Can you for instance have a function that given a reference to an hash table and a reference to a key returns a reference to the value corresponding to a key equal to the given one? (this requires the return value lifetime to be the same as the hash table lifetime, while the search key lifetime is unrelated)

Can you refactor code that takes multiple parameters by reference to taking by value a single structure including those parameters as fields with independent lifetimes?
I'm not sure where you imagine I made any statement directly comparing the efficacy of vaccines to natural immunity. The substance of my comment is limited to the problem of quantifying the efficacy of natural immunity in the real world, from the perspective of public health policy.
Audit tables are a good first step, but I am wondering if there was already work being done toward making foreign keys "version aware". Say I linked an order to a discount, it would be nice to be able to know how that linked discount looked like at the time of linking vs what it looks like now in case a merchant decided to change it (but still be able to do a group by id for the given discount).
"What then? What bad stuff could happen?"
I leave that to your imagination. It comes down to individual preference and where you draw the line at privacy. I personally wouldn't trust my biometric data to any FAANG let alone some shit-coin startup that could potentially decide to monetize that data any which way at some point in the future.
We all know luggables exist, they're in the laptop category in name only.

A more practical and better deal would be to get a standard laptop and a beefy workstation/grid you can ssh into.
this is the only way to reliably use GPT-X in a production setting. you have to postprocesses the responses with a second model, until you find one that is 1) reasonable 2) coherent 3) related to the topic of the prompt
Is that the case? I guess my university experience is 10 years out of date but that's how it was back then.
> Every so often I'll google something like Criminal Defense Attorney, send money, or file taxes and click on the highest ads.

The original poster is deliberately searching for some of the highest cost per click ads [1]. They have no intention of using these services, and they're moving lots of money from the ad purchaser to Google. Up to $50 per click.

This person owns stock in Google and has a vested interest in seeing their revenues go up.

These effects are minuscule, but it's not far off from stealing a furniture item every time you go to Target. Someone is paying for these and it has a nonzero effect on Google stock.

[1] https://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2017/06/27/most-expensive...
> More than 20% of the 435 million books sold in France in 2019 were bought online

I am very surprised at how low this number is.
> Maybe we should get rid of the payroll taxes?

I have, indeed, made that argument before.

> The operating assumption underlying all of your arguments is that bigger government is better.

No, the operating basis is that – completely independent of either the desired size of government or the desired target tax revenue (you’ll note I’ve not talked about the desirable absolute rates of any taxes, only the relative treatment of different kinds of income and the mechanisms for handling income that depends on something happening over more years than those over which it is actually realized) – it is undesirable to systematically provide favorable tax treatment to kinds of income disproportionately concentrated in the super-rich rather than taxing all income as income.
I think this is a much better analogy. I'd even go so far as to say that it would be like using Morse code and then being upset when someone else listening also knows Morse code. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zfNfilNOIE