skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Funnily enough this is exactly how we started the project, just with a different Thinkpad model.

Separately, Lubos, the creator of ToF Viewer, is very helpful to the ToF community and constantly answers any questions about APIs or sample code. I'd recommend talking to him if anyone wants to get started with ToF-based applications.
That's certainly an opinion that C fundamentally makes things easier to write than C++, but not one held by Google in general.

A major problem with scalability at Google is that the CPU heavy stuff has often already been isolated and what is actually needed is a sort of ambient performance rather than just focusing on hot loops.
If you're consulting I would suggest not billing by time but by value provided. I'm not a developer so I don't know how impossible that is to convince clients but this is something I do as a marketing consultant and it works extremely well.
Yeah...I may compromise and make that last car a PHEV. My normal daily driving is under the all electric range of most PHEVs, and since they have smaller batteries than full EVs battery repair/replacement should be cheaper.

The plan would then be a PHEV sedan mostly used just on battery, the CR-V for when I need more cargo capacity, and either the CR-V or PHEV for those rare longer trips depending on how much stuff I need to carry.

A plus for that approach is that since the PHEV would not be used much in ICE mode I hopefully would get a very long lifetime out of the ICE side of it. If I go for a PHEV SUV instead of a PHEV sedan, then I'm even covered if the CR-V dies before me.

I have hope though that as EVs become more common battery repair/replacement will come down. In particular I'm hoping multiple manufacturers standardize on using the same cells in their batteries and make the individual cells replaceable so that battery repair becomes a standard thing you can have done at a typical independent car repair shop, rather than something you have to go to the dealer for and has to be done with parts from the car manufacturer.
Making email collection mandatory seems ludicrous to me.
> I would really be interested to understand which use cases justify using an actual blocking call to retrieve random bits.

The only case I can think of is when you've mass produced a million devices that each need unique certificates that are generated on first boot. If no good source of randomness is available, there's a decent risk you'll have duplicates.
Kind of agree. I learn all the time, through writing posts, using an mooc platform, coding sites, I search in scholarly search engines, read books.

There is not one "learning" platform that covers all these cases, let alone cover well. The activities and the learning modes are too diverse, I would not trust any single entity to cover all of them.
There's a well-known retro theme for GTK+ too. Works quite well in LXDE and Xfce.
Any programmer should be able to spot the syllogism here, yes.

Just because something is a security best practice definitely does not guarantee that it will be followed universally by architects.

Not all the castle builders were up to speed on CVE-1271-53 “left-handed spiral staircases enable swordsman overflow attacks”, and more importantly their clients didn’t know how to evaluate a competent castle architect either. Maybe they should have had some sort of certification scheme. But even then, once a pen tester gets in and tells you your staircases were built backwards, what are you going to do? They’re made of stone and built into structural walls in a tall building.
Personally I view it as a successful project for the client.

The client wanted something done but they only had some time/budget to work on it. The developer looked into it and was able to get the project done. It's great.
Moodle has adoption by a lot of companies for integration. Having the text book companies have plug-ins that allow battery quizzes and such.

I will agree with others that Blackboard has made it very difficult for entry.
> But the interesting bit was each individual task was inaccurate - lots were wildly underestimated, balanced by those which were wildly overestimated.

This is called random luck. Something tells me that if we repeated the same experiment with different projects, that distribution of errors wouldn’t cancel out most of the time.
How Do Elephants Know Where to Go?
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what process is used for coming up with estimates and delivering.

Regardless of what you think your process is, somewhere near the top of the leadership pyramid, it all boils down to a customer promise upon which hinges your organization's reputation.

In non-dysfunctional organizations people at all levels can understand and adapt to curveballs that cause deadlines to slip. In such places you make estimates to the best of your ability with limited time and resources and communicate constantly with stakeholders on how things are going.

The hard thing is it all requires honesty.

Probably the most angry I ever got at work was once when, at the end of a project, I was on one of those bullshit status update conference calls with 20 people on the line. Throughout the project the team was I was on was led to believe that we were constantly behind and the deadline was from the beginning impossible to meet yet magically got pushed out several times to give us "grace-time". We cut corners like mad-men, amassed insane levels of tech-debt, and all but put a midget in the machine to make it work. What happened on the call? The product management team congratulated the PM for delivering so far ahead of time. I was so angry I couldn't even talk. Basically, the PM got accolades, the customer got shitty product, and we hated our jobs.
"Now what? Seems like they just don't have smart phones and torched a pretty productive part of their economy"

So you are saying Google / Apple are above the law, capitalism is more important than democracy?

Where does this end? They might as well start acting as mafia, resort to raketeering and break you legs if you don't show up for work.
Not being able to escape the sandbox is meaningless if data corruption makes an exploit possible.
> For validity, RCTs depend utterly on reliable sortative diagnoses

Huh, that's a really good point (which I somehow missed in your original post).

That being said, it's incorrect that it's essential for RCT's to function, they'll still work, but with an attenuation based on the actual treatable population.

> Or, are you saying you know how to design the protocol for an RCT when you have no idea which, if any, of the participants actually suffer the condition your medication is supposed to treat?

Well I don't design said protocols, but I suspect the vaccine manufacturers may be able to point you in the right direction.

I think that your point about reliability of diagnosis is interesting, gonna need to think about it a bunch more, but in general, no diagnosis is without error (as most diagnoses are implemented as checklists, and there's some room for arbitrariness).

Just to note, if your point is correct then it's basically all mental-health, expectancy, placebo, psychotherapy RCT's are essentially worthless, which I suspect is not the right approach to take.

Does it matter if we can diagnose people effectively? Of course.

Does it make it impossible to run an RCT in the absence of effective diagnosis? Not impossible, but it definitely adds an interesting layer of complexity, as well as massively increasing the sample size required.
And especially the most obvious ones?
>Certainly no one can be an expert in everything, but regular audits from third parties of one's business at semi-regular intervals is prudent. We call in an external IT security auditor regularly ourselves to make sure we're not missing things and still following best practices.

You're absolutely correct, up to a point.

As an InfoSec professional, I've been on both sides of such audits. Sometimes they're quite good. Sometimes they're awful. Usually, they're somewhere in between.

What's more, just because an audit has been performed (even a really thorough one), there's no guarantee that the recommendations will be applied, or even if they are, that they will be applied competently.

Leaving that aside and assuming that everything is done properly and thoroughly, regardless of all that hard work, it just takes one non-technical resource to click one link, and ransomware could be loosed on your network.

There are, of course, mitigations and, hopefully they are all in place and just the one desktop/laptop system is compromised.

All that said, many organizations don't have the time, money or expertise to properly secure their environment, let alone bring in outside auditors.

Medium/large companies with such resources should absolutely do all of those things. But the vast majority of companies in the US are SMBs who likely don't have those resources.

I'm not making a value judgement either way about the value of mandatory reporting, but I don't agree with your assessment.

Edit: Fixed typo (word --> work).
> https://www.gov.uk/using-mobile-phones-when-driving-the-law

> https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/legal/mobile-phone-laws/

> It’s illegal to hold a phone or sat nav while driving or riding a motorcycle.

> the police can charge you for driving without due care and attention or careless driving.

Everyone already thought it was illegal, inluding the governments own website and the highway code.

This seems to be a tough new law (we are tough on crime, your taxes hard at work) designed to make the current law the law.

Note: The article and other similar articles are all reguritations of the press release on the matter. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/any-use-of-hand-held-mobi...
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-0948_article

>Despite common use of cloth masks in many countries in Asia, existing infection control guidelines do not mention their use (13).

>Rates of infection were consistently higher among those in the cloth mask group than in the medical mask and control groups. This finding suggests that risk for infection was higher for those wearing cloth masks.
I'm not sure that it's a conclusive yes here. We have a procedure to remove the effects of background reflection saturation by constantly analysing the maximum reflection size. So if there's a large reflection in the scene, we walk the user back til we have all reflections at the same size or smaller than the the larger expected hidden camera reflection. This works fairly well.

However, if the camera reflection is always within a larger reflection for all possible distances and angles, then I doubt this will work.
I agree with your sentiments on decentralization and the dystopian aspects of what our current web has become.

However I still have yet to be convinced of any real value or need of an NFT. For example let say I am the owner of a famous “Tweet”. This NFT shows exactly what … a unique token saying it’s mine ? A token with no legal recourse to stop others from using what I purchased? If you think about it from an opposing viewpoint in many ways you really own nothing except what people believe you own … which in this case is a small minority of people. A very small subset of people will currently even recognize what an NFT is and an even smaller subset will acknowledge and believe I own anything … reducing its value. Further the information and value of the “Tweet” (or digital art, or whatever) is not contained in the NFT at all.

Let’s say I buy the NFT to some cool digital artwork. Nothing is stopping anyone else from using this artwork… I have no legal recourse to say “heh I own this”. Only a small subset of people will recognize this as any form od ownership at all.

Sorry from my point of view NFT’s seem like a get rich quick fad… maybe am just a grumpy old dude at this point but honestly just don’t much real lasting value here.
> There is nothing weak going on here

The type for your static version of div is:

def div(x: Int, y: Int) -> Optional[Int]:

The precondition for the dynamic behaviour of div is that the divisor is non-zero. If you want to think of it in set terms this means y must be a member of Z - #{0}. But your encoding allows any member of Z. This is a larger set and therefore a weaker precondition.

Likewise the postcondition of the dynamic version is that an Int is returned, but yours only guarantees an Optional[Int]. Again in set terms this is something like Z + #{None} which is a larger set than Z and therefore a weakening of the post condtion.

Your version encodes the dynamic behaviour of throwing an exception in the return type, but I'm saying that

def div(x: Int, y: NonZero[Int]) -> Int

is a more precise static definition of the behaviour of div, and if you're going to add types to the dynamic version you should prefer this approach. Our two definitions are not equivalent since your function can easily be implemented with mine:

def yourDiv(x, y) = map (fun nz: myDiv x nz) (fromInt y)

but you can't (safely) implement my version using yours since it returns an Optional[Int] and an Int is required. This shouldn't be surprising since algebraically (Int, Int) -> Option Int is a larger type than (Int, NonZero[Int]) -> Int.

> You're not seeing the bigger picture. The only way to avoid a zero divisor is to use your made up type NonZero[Int]

Obviously I know this because I suggested using NonZero[Int] in the first place. Your version accepts an Int divisor and just encodes the partiality in the return type. But this doesn't force the user (i.e. caller) of div to handle a non-zero divisor at all, it forces the user of the return value to handle a potential missing value without any context for why it was missing. Propagaging this missing value isn't 'handling' the error at all, since that can only be resolved by ensuring the divisor is non-zero before calling div.
The article jumps from detailed hour-driven estimates, to just duking it out. Why does everything have to be so black or white? Why does it have to jump from hour-level to prophecy?

Here is what works at a project level:

* When estimating, never go any step beyond the Feature level (don't split tasks, most of the time not even stories – just Epics or milestones are enough)

* Do RELATIVE COMPLEXITY estimate. Not time. If <epic1> is a medium, then relative to it, is <epic2> large or small? Stop at that level. Don't split it down any further.

Now compare just one of the epics to past history. That's all you need to estimate the rest of the scope, as it's all relative. It takes not more than a few hours for due diligence.
https://www.odoo.com/app/elearning

Not exactly a LMS but the open source ERP system Odoo offers a lot you need to sell and provide courses. You can also do live trainings using the Jitsi integration.

Odoo is solid web-software built with Python (and HTML, CSS, JS of course). It's quite easy to extend.

There's a demo at https://demo.odoo.com

(Disclaimer: I'm an official Odoo partner)
> But whenever risk compensation has been subjected to empirical scrutiny, the results are usually ambiguous, or the hypothesis fails spectacularly. And when risk compensation does play a part in behavior, it tends to do so in small and specific ways...

> The question—for driver safety, sexual activity, or public health—isn’t whether some individuals change their behavior in response to perceived risk. It’s whether, at the population level, an intervention makes the world a safer and better place.

Just to make it clear how the article is arguing that "risk compensation" is generally a bogus concept.
I've never used Rails. I used Sinatra in the early days and over the last 8 years I've used Roda[0] and Sequel[1].

Our stack is front-end heavy with a very mature JS framework and the back-end is mostly an API server. Databases range from SQLite to Postgres.

Development is usually done on SQLite and staging / production on Postgres. Quite a few projects with SQLite DB in production as well.

[0]: https://roda.jeremyevans.net

[1]: https://sequel.jeremyevans.net
Ransomware predates crypto. It does not rely on crypto, crypto just has some superior characteristics which make it attractive to both legal and illegal ventures. Criminals regularly adopt new tech faster than businesses as they are naturally less risk averse. The implication that someone or some industry is acting antisocial simply because they utilize a tech that criminals also utilize is short sighted.
"without software support, their smart devices weren't useful to users either."

Therefore, logically, Apple should be the one paying app developers 30% of their revenue. Witout them iPhone would be an overpriced paperweight.
This was the CDC's position pre-pandemic. Their studies showed wearing cloth masks was worse than no mask.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-0948_article

>Despite common use of cloth masks in many countries in Asia, existing infection control guidelines do not mention their use (13).

>Rates of infection were consistently higher among those in the cloth mask group than in the medical mask and control groups. This finding suggests that risk for infection was higher for those wearing cloth masks.
>The paucity of open source LMS likely reflects the uneasy relation of the public sector with open source more broadly. You'd think its a marriage made in heaven: public funds, procurement etc leveraged optimally for common good infrastucture - where that makes sense. But in practice this mode seems entirely marginal. It may be corporate capture, lack of savvy people among decision makers or other factors.

This is interesting. I had the exact same experience working in a major bank. Corporate would usually rather buy anything than "invest" in open source.

Partly it's a question of "support" (getting RHEL instead of CentOS) even though in practice support is often rather poor and distant. More frustrating is when we buy what are clearly simple reskins of OSS with terrible support from eg Oracle. You get all the disadvantages of using OSS (sometimes poor documentation, too many configuration options etc) while also not having code access or control over the platform.

I've come to the conclusion that corporate is sketched out by OSS because there is no one to sue of something goes awry, and that they just don't trust in-house expertise over basically any vendors. To be honest, they are not entirely wrong about the second one: this kind of corporate culture makes good engineers leave.
NOBODY will like this idea, but if you really want to keep using IPv4, then:

If the goal is to stick with ipv4 because it is easier then I think you would get more traction if you could convince governments to work with ARIN / RIPE / AFRINIC / etc... to do eminent domain forced consolidation and buy-back of horded IP space. Give companies, organizations, government DISA, DoD, Military and others a year to consolidate their actual usage into smaller CIDR blocks, then governments buy back the unused space at market value. I am not a fan of eminent domain but this would be a valid use of it and could actually happen, accepting there would be a myriad of law suits, stalling tactics and so on. Provide some incentive for people to willingly consolidate in a timely manor such as paying a higher market value for those that get on board early.

As crazy and possibly unethical as that suggestion may be, I think it would at least get some momentum and you could possibly gain more than 419M IP's and have less network fragmentation. As a bonus, no need to update router firmware, IoT firmware, operating systems, application configurations, firewall OS, firewall rules and so on.
We should be stirring in the low bits of image pixels on attached cameras, and the bottom bits of mic and radio receiver input.
Oh, I must have misunderstand, since the root comment was talking about detection methods. But yes, jamming is a good option, and there have been papers to make areas "unrecordable". I don't have my citation manager on hand now, but I think it was an early ACM Sensys / Mobisys research work.
You know what's easier than doing that? Not doing it.

This discussion feels a lot like what's happening over in the thread on The Spiral Staircase Myth <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29274875>

The onus is not on anyone to explain why React shouldn't be used. The ordinary state of the world is not React. It's not a naturally occurring substance. The onus is on you to show why the React ritual and all the boondoggle that comes along with it is justified.

To put it another way: "I don't understand your criticism. Christine has a workflow. (As it happens, it doesn't involve running a build step.) What's the problem?"
> do most users of web2 services want their data collected, processed, analysed, rebundled, and resold to the extent that it is?

People vote with their feet. At least today, the answer is "yes." A compelling alternative may change their mind. A blockchain-based social media network is difficult to image doing so for the majority of people.
Whatever you say. Facebook, the right, black people, and the LGBTQ+ are all on a level playing field, and everybody's bullying Facebook. It's a terrible, incoherent analogy, entirely unable to comport with the actual relative power of these groups. Which is why you're here shuffling goalposts into entirely new sports fields with me instead of engaging with others elsewhere who brought up inconvenient factual information about what's actually going on; you're unwilling or unable to answer any questions about the New Zealand shooter, for instance, because that sort of real-world example exposes the inanity and indefensibility of your position. You're unable to acknowledge that one of the groups provably, successfully censures the others, continuously, worldwide.
More People Are Moving to NYC Now Than Before the Pandemic
The epic lawsuit has quite a few details about google preventing manufacturers from installing epic software/epic store on devices.
But you're using that precedent to mandate another treatment, so in a way they did stay around.
In which I suspect I’ll be able to find a few full cans of grape soda (though dented of course) and inexplicably, an entirely unmolested first aid kit.
No, he's not. Ivermectin is one of the safest drugs on the planet. As evidence was emerging that in some studies it MIGHT work, people should have been taking it, just like masks. Because why not? Risks are low, and it might work.

If you are arguing anything else than you aren't actually being consistent in your reasoning.