skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
A few years ago I made a conscious effort to be as paperless as possible. I'm pretty much there now with almost everything I need accessible on my laptop.

I use a Doxie [0] scanner and scan absolutely everything meaningful: documents, receipts, invoices, physical photos, note from friends, Christmas cards, credit cards etc. Having a "scan everything" attitude means I don't have to think about what I do and don't scan. I try and save as many of these files as PDFs with OCR (which the Doxie supports)

Every week or two I dump all of the scans from the Doxie into my "Downloads" folder where I rename any files that have obvious content to something more meaningful (easier to search this way). Anything that needs to be manually filed (company documents for example) I do myself.

Everything else get automatically sorted using Hazel [1] after 2 weeks in the Download folder. They get sent to an "Archive" folder that is split into subfolders: PDFs, videos, images, music, design files, documents, etc. All files are automatically sorted into [year]/[month] folders.

This archive is great as it becomes a location for everything that doesn't have a home. For example I also perform a WhatsApp backup every month or two that adds all new photos and content that I've received from people into the same Archive. Likewise anything I've downloaded that hasn't been deleted or moved somewhere can be found there.

[0]: https://www.getdoxie.com/product/doxie-go

[1]: https://www.noodlesoft.com
Thank you. I use Windows and Linux daily for development and both provide equal amounts of FFfffffuuuuu....!! moments.
I wonder if some manufacturers are succumbing to copyrightism, a tag for the mental disorder that obsesses with control over the product - to the detriment of all else.
Yes, the sweet spot IMO is gradually typed languages. I love how I can have TS code that 100% does not type check and the compiler will yell at me all it wants but still produce the compiled JS without a problem. It's liberating to say "yes, thanks for letting me know that at the moment this will absolutely not work in X edge case or when called from Y context with Z data, but I don't care about that right now just let me run it as-is to make sure my general approach is correct".

Even better, in large projects when there is a constant drift of dependencies, I often will pull in the latest main for dev work and see that certain modules aren't found or have been updated and are now being called in a way that isn't compatible with my version. I can look at those errors and decide if the relevant changes will impact my area, if so I go through the full rebuild, otherwise I just ignore them and let TS yell at me.

I guess the overall theme is that I like it when the compiler doesn't think it's smarter than me. Compilers that say "no, you can not build this, you must resolve these issues before I will let you proceed" are much more painful to work with than ones that say "hey watch out, this particular area will probably not work as you expect. Feel free to try out the build, but you really ought to fix that before committing"

Edit: looking back on this and my original comment, I see how they're somewhat in opposition! It would seem I like the compiler to forbid me from shooting myself in the foot with concurrency, but not from shooting my self in the foot with types/dependencies.
people aren't paying huge sums of money for a collaborative virtual graffiti wall, they're paying huge sums of money to signal that they have huge sums of money. People have been doing that for centuries.
>Guess who has the power to control the grid?

For now. Top level domain registration has already moved to crypto. Elon is working on Starlink. Wireless data transfer technologies are coming for a peer based internet infrastructure.
Give it a good hard kicking (or I guess more realistically drop your laptop)

Solution: replace HDDs with SSDs

I think you have to be more specific for it to work faster, there's plenty of ways to crash a computer that doesn't even involve software never mind if you're writing the code too
Do you think it is an incorrect analysis in this case?

I’d love to have a discussion about the topics raised, but it’s no fun to have a discussion with someone who is repeatedly critical and a little fired up before even understanding the fundamentals. Skeptical is fine, but the specific criticisms raised don’t even make sense in the way that I understand the space.
its such an absurd idea. look at the top contributors for VSCode, and how many of them are employed at Microsoft:

https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/graphs/contributors

How can you possible separate vscode "winning because of javascript" and "it has development budget X times the budget of Emacs"
> I don't really see how that is at all praiseworthy: C# and Java already did that exact thing.

You know, in sports, when someone manages to do something only two other athletes have managed before they usually still get praised for it. I don't know if this situation is comparable to that, but my point is that I also don't see how C# and Java doing this before inherently would make this less of an achievement. Perhaps we haven't been giving those languages the praise they deserve for doing that too.
Secure software supply chain: why every link matters
For physical files, I have a file cabinet for "short-term" stuff (and/or things that I don't care if they get burned in a tragedy (or that I plan TO burn when their usefulness expires))

For "long-term" "important" files, I have some fire-resistant safe boxes

For "really-important" stuff, I use a gun safe (this list is incredibly tiny)
> (though "white supremacy" is perhaps a bad way to express "racism that benefits white people specifically")

Can you explain how racism that benefits white people specifically, as enabled through either direct, explicit bias in policies or laws, or indirect, implicit bias through a lack of diversity when conducting research on human computer interactions, or training corpus used for machine learning is not explicitly white supremacy?

These types of issues have been mainstream and well documented that they are at the centre of a 2009 episode of a sitcom (Better Off Ted, Racial Sensitivity), among many other more conventional studies of the phenomenon.

After decades of research (and centuries of practical observation) how is it even possible to handwave away systemic racism and bias "that benefits white people specifically" as anything other that white supremacy?

Edit: I accidentally left out the italicized part of the first question.
Well, lines are fuzzy, at least on one side I would say: if the science has matured enough to be used in engineering it is objective. That doesn't mean evolution is not.
spelling variations are also an issue, like fettuccine vs fettucine, not sure if there's an easy solution for that
I don't think there is any rule or law requiring companies to hard delete customer data. I would bet that most companies never delete based on know your customer, anti-laundering, and other SEC regulations.
If I had been an essential worker during the pandemic apogee, I would have been much more stressed compared to working from home.

Hindsight is 20/20. Back then we didn't even know well how it transmitted, or the exact percent of deaths/long term effects if you got it.
Reminds me of this bash.org

<DmncAtrny> I will write on a huge cement block "BY ACCEPTING THIS BRICK THROUGH YOUR WINDOW, YOU ACCEPT IT AS IS AND AGREE TO MY DISCLAIMER OF ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS WELL AS DISCLAIMERS OF ALL LIABILITY, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL, THAT MAY ARISE FROM THE INSTALLATION OF THIS BRICK INTO YOUR BUILDING."

<DmncAtrny> And then hurl it through the window of a Sony officer

<DmncAtrny> and run like hell
Immelt shares quite a lot of the blame, too.
Open-source tools that can make your Kubernetes workflow easier
Agreed, in particular this seems like trying very hard not to say something negative without actually saying anything positive:

> Speaking on the growing popularity of NFTs, Cook says it too is also "interesting" but that it will "take a while to play out in a way that is for the mainstream person."
The power rests with the state and federal accreditation bodies. Not sure how those in the current power structure would support something like this.
One of the nicer things about the hough approach is also that you can get a bunch of other information from parameter space, like horizon lines and vanishing points.
We used Flax, of course.

We thought Haiku was cool, but none of us knew it, and learning resources were scarce. But we are very happy with Flax.

We used the Bengali subset of the mC4 dataset [0] for training the GPT-2 model.

[0]: https://huggingface.co/datasets/mc4
What does that have to do with the Vietnam stance?
One often hears the counterargument 'but using DB-specific features makes your application less portable!' to which I like to argue: When was the last time you moved an application from SQL-db to SQL-db engine? Follow up question: When was it ever 'easy' if you did?

If you start from the basic premise that the database engine and the application are intertwined and are not loosely coupled, using Postgres-specific features feels much less icky from an architectural point of view. They are essentially part of your application given that you use something like Flyway for migrations and you don't manually run SQL against your production to install functions and triggers and such.
Can paperless ingest directly from cloud storage (Dropbox, etc)?
> (On the beginning of home, personal computers) Employers bought their employees computers because computers made them more productive; then, once consumers were used to using computers at work, an ever increasing number of them wanted to buy a computer for their home as well. And, as the number of home computers increased, so did the market opportunity for developers of non-work applications like games.

I think this is the nail on the head, and the drivers will be remote work + talent shortage.

Medium to longer term, this is going to drive more people to relocate out of high cost of living areas and questionable quality of life.

Once they're decamped to cheaper (and probably smaller) cities, the obvious question for both employee and employer is "How do I maximize the value of an employee?"

Some fusion of technologies with the outcome of persistence seems like a very compelling answer.

And, and I think this is underrated, suddenly you're buying productivity equipment and/or making home improvements. Which is a very different market, with a very different spending cap, than consumer gaming goods.

F.ex. If someone offered a full persistence, comfortable, efficient, effective technical solution for $100k, would it be worth it at that price?

What if it let you live in Boulder, CO (median home price $920k, high on liveable US city rankings) instead of SF, CA (median home price $1.5M)?
The future of [ultra] low-latency video streaming
What Is Carrier for Cystic Fibrosis? – Health Line Fit
As someone who has recently decided to learn Go, this is a rather intimidating change. What is a good way to know that I am learning from sources who are using these new tools responsibly, rather than applying them in the messy fashion which you seem concerned about?
I'd love to see a writeup/documentation on the backend issues you mentioned here. Sounds egregious! Do you have a link to point me to?
> the technology has crossed over the line from being a toy or experiment.

I agree with you generally, but I think the people who are big on this space are overstating this point in particular. The existing VR hardware still feels like a prototype of what will eventually "work" here. It's too big, too expensive, too low-resolution, and too dim, and it relies a lot on our brain's willingness to accept and accommodate sub-par imagery. Similar to the AR space, I genuinely do not believe that the technology we're building with has enough of a performance ceiling to get us where we want to be - I think that "LCD screens + funky optics" is getting us close enough to trial some VR experiences and play around with the interaction models, but I think it's got too many compromises (shitty resolution and no differential focus, among them) to really be the technology that takes us to the "promise land" here.
And labeling people as conspiracy theorists if they dare question it, even if they are in a position to do so. A lot of people will just start self-censoring and not bring up the questions. It takes someone with impeccable credentials, integrity and enough FU money to rise above that, and we don't seem to have many of those left. They know if you google their name and articles with "conspiracy theorist" come up that they are basically blacklisted from their industry, which is too big of a risk for most to navigate.
All NFTs have a verifiable chain of providence baked-in; you can see the wallet address of the account which minted it.

So, I present GPG signing not really as a novel mechanism for establishing authenticity given a lack of any other method; the NFT itself is the authenticity. Today, zero-trust creators may publish their GPG public key; tomorrow, maybe they publish their address; "the only legit NFTs are the ones minted from this address"; this is cryptographically secure.

But, maybe a creator is more "well known" for their GPG public key, or wants to mint from a large number of addresses for whatever reason. They could sign a phrase which includes the wallet address which minted the NFT; when combined with the verifiable providence blockchain already offers, this is a compelling and secure solution for them.

Blockchain has all the same "zero-trust bootstrapping" problems as GPG does; where does the artist actually broadcast "this is my address", and how can fans know that it was actually the artist who said it? It's something GPG has struggled with for a long time. Ultimately it usually falls back to centralized authority; that doesn't mean GPG doesn't have value beyond the authority who told you "Yeah, this is Deadmau5's public key".

The idea is simply presented more-so as a bridge between the old and the new. Many people here understand what GPG is and why it is valuable, but don't understand how blockchain delivers an extension of that value. GPG is great at asserting authenticity; blockchain extends this and asserts both authenticity and providence ("is it real, and where did it come from?"); this is a critical addition required for a concept of ownership. But blockchain's ability to assert this ends at the blockchain, as you'd expect; the world will still need centralized authorities to jump the gap between the blockchain and a human being.

IF that matters in the context of a given NFT. There are tons of NFTs which created 'virgin value' so to speak; value of thin air. No one cares who minted them; the token itself is what is valuable.
Swiss startup Coteries launches milestone French language model
Without the XR (or the ever increasing richness of media), you're just talking about the internet as it exists today.
It's never been made illegal to use, or even ask for, an SSN.

You can refuse to provide it (unless it's required for tax/employment purposes) but whoever's asking can then just refuse to transact with you.
As an aside, where is the line between dissent and contrary opinion and the teaching of falsehoods? For example it's one thing to debate matters of society and ethics but another thing to promote disproven scientific theories. Where is the line drawn?
That’s not “hassling,” that’s “clarifying criticality.” The notion that we can’t even pass complaints along to support agents isn’t helpful. In my case when I lodge a complaint or turn down a solution it’s not meant as a personal attack. I legit want the company to know that they’re falling short and that I’m probably looking for alternatives.

Obviously don’t start getting angry, but if there’s a point of frustration please pass it along.
The iCoin - Completely revolutionary digital coin, 400% better than bitcoin.
Julia is also excellent for working with units (Units.jl, IIRC).
Using a built in database feature if often a lot simpler
https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2020.12.3%20... references two articles:

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006132/software...

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/29/style/testing-schools-pro...
This also scales well with size, so you will see that with NYC, Paris, Tokyo and most large "world cities".
And now you can buy a digital scale for like $20. It's the 21st century, weight measurements are way more accurate, easier too for small quantities.
Fugaku
It depends what I am trying to do; often the first command will be cd (to access whatever directory I will intend to work on), but not always.
The problem is that the blockchain substrate you're talking about is actually a very poor fit for decentralized applications.

Let's compare it to it's earliest predecessor technology: Git[0]. This is a very useful technology within the problem domain of how to store and synchronize source code repositories (although it's UI sucks). However, individual users still need to choose who to synchronize with and what commits to accept. What blockchains add are restrictions to this model that make sense for the problem domain of digital currency: namely, you need to burn energy in order to commit, and you have to follow specific validity rules in order for your commit to be valid. These rules are specifically crafted to ensure scarcity and control over the resource the blockchain ledger tracks.

The problem is that most decentralized applications do not need a notion of scarcity. The whole damned point of P2P is to punish artificial scarcity. If I want to communicate to someone else over a decentralized network, I don't need a Sybil-resistant ledger to do so. I just need a private/public key pair and some means to match interested recipients and senders. Same with a lot of other decentralized use cases, which also don't need to be able to track scarce assets.
IE could you do an experiment with two boxes of quantum entangled particles, one box is read, the other box in a 'sealed room' for a set amount of time. If the entanglement through time is possible, and altering a entangled particle so it's sister particle responds is possible, would there be a chance that when you changed the entangled particle in the sealed room after it was unsealed it would change the particle in the observed room?

Or would it be like where entanglement through time may be possible, the original measurements in both boxes would change instantaneously if the 'later' box was changed so it's, as far as we know, unmeasurable?

Could you create a black box of entangled particles and a code to read them and post it and just hope someone would write to you from the future and you could read it? Sort of like Hawking's time travel party nobody showed up to but for information and just hope something shows up someday. So the code never changes, but the entangled particles in the box can. This could potentially get around the problem of not knowing if the particles were switched in the box. You know the code which doesn't change so you could simply read the box every day and hope that someone from the future had set the particles to a definite state that was readable. I understand that if the particles are observed it doesn't automatically change the particle, but if the particles are observed one way and are continuously observed then they must stay that way, and then the entangled particles must be the opposite of that. From what I understand you're saying it'd be a one and done transmission, but then it wouldn't break the no communication theorem and would be ftl (using a slower than light method, the code which would travel through time at regular speed, to jumpstart the process).
No you don't get that. A tracing JIT is not capable of producing an executable like that under normal circumstances. If a certain path is not taken during execution it might not be compiled at all. The point of the first futurama projection is that you get a fully runnable executable that is semantically equivalent to running the original program in the interpreter. A JIT only produces what it sees during execution. I guess it might be possible if you carefully run your program with inputs that exhaust every possible path.
Yes, sorry if I seemed too dismissive, I agree and like the idea on the surface, it's just to me what makes the format and ease of consuming Wikipedia good is that there's one page for everything, not a bunch of conflicting entries for the same thing. (Well, any encyclopaedia!)

But you can't achieve that with recipes, because they're not encyclopaedic entries, they're one person's opinion piece on how to make a nice <whatever>, like a blog post.

I suppose the slight flaw in my argument is that you can have competing encyclopaedia publishers - choose your namespace, your single source of truth, within which there's the one entry...
Good point. Phrasing it as a trade-off is the better approach. Agree with the downsides you listed, as well.

Better security guarantees, for sure, but if an unauthorized user gains direct access to your database, you might have bigger problems from a security perspective.
Windows 11 SE and the $249 Surface Laptop SE are made for school kids
Thanks a lot! Losing the 2 thumbs button in the worst case is an acceptable tradeoff, so I'll try to get one.
Please no. I am still fighting the battle of adding contextual information to the error using fmt.Errorf.

I am tired of seeing

SocketException: hostname.com

as full error message.
Let's hope they come to the conclusion that centralized pegged to USD Apple tokens beat cryptocurrencies in all important metrics. Then let's hope they actually implement it and compete with banks and credit card companies. We really need fast, reliable and cheaper system to transfer money and pay for stuff.
It would be nice if the steward of that was based in 1st world country and subject to oversight. It would also be very nice if they could iterate over inefficient blockchain into something actually suitable for the task like an SQL database.
Um that lines of code figure is nowhere near accurate.

I reported recently[1] that the zig compiler is 140,331 lines.

[1]: https://mobile.twitter.com/andy_kelley/status/14539106409432...
If you've never used it you have no idea if it makes you a better person or not because you don't use it. In the same way, it doesn't make an old person better because they proudly proclaim how they've never used used the internet and that makes them better.

I'm sure you've missed out on lots of memorable events, missed opportunities to rekindle old friends hips and reconnect, and let friendships fade that would not have due to social media. I know that's been the case for me. Like everything that is powerful, with great power comes great responsibility.
Thanks for the optimistic world view! :) Well, if warfare does become entirely automated, I think you would still need a nation willing to pay for that, and also willing to run the risk of it when, say, another nation tries to pick off Hawaii or whatever.

Plus, warfare waged via tariffs, sanctions, and embargoes, by throwing it back into economics, would definitely require a feeling of national solidarity to stand up to it. If a supplier of oil, coal, lumber, iron ore, etc. declares an embargo until your country changes some policy, do voters tell their leaders to cave in to keep the supply coming, or do they tell them to be uncompromising and tighten their belts? If they have no real sense of national identity anyway, I think it would be harder to get them to tighten their belts.
Okay I think I understand now where you're coming from and it was answered somewhere else in this discussion: when we receive a weird requirement we can ask for confirmation and clarifications and even express disagreement, but we will implement it after all that. Anything else would be at least disingenuous, if not worse.