skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That stress / lactic acid / meat quality relationship only really applies to meat that's going to be aged, and it's as much about preventing microbial spoilage as anything.

There's no time for it to be a factor for lobster, which is going to be alive or frozen until right before you cook it.
> In fairness to climate protestors/activists, which developed nation has really taken any significant strides in the past 10-20 years?

Europe and USA have both actively reduced emissions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement#/media/File:Pe...
> people putting a lot of thought into how to control/manage a community might be more of a negative sign than a positive one.

A counterexample is Hacker News itself. We all like Hacker News (presumably, otherwise we wouldn't be here) and it wouldn't be what it is without the intentions of the original creator and the current moderation team.
From that article, and from the mouth of AOC:

"This is a technique of the GOP, to take dry humor + sarcasm literally"

"Like the "world ending in 12 years thing", you'd have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge to think it's literal"

So you're either purposefully misrepresenting the quote, or you're a sea sponge.
The JTB model is wrong or at least misleading. Definitely outdated.

Our best modern models for both biological and artificial intelligence indicate that concepts or knowledge* emerges from networks of sensation/facts/data.

* Specifically referring to "system 1" cognition, which is what the article is ostensibly targeting.
> I think Rust is a great programming language, but to be honest all this drama discourages me from using it as much.

It has little to do with using the language.

Also I doubt there is more drama in Rust then in Python, Ruby or similar. It's just that in recent years everything rust get always a lot of attention.

There is also not just "the rust Team" there are many independent working Teams, as well as a foundation. I don't think it becoming de-functional or fork-splintered is something you have to worry about.
Are you in the know about the whole chat control fiasco? The legislation for non mandatory chat control/decryption is already there...
When I was younger I worried a little bit about this but now I'm perfectly happy to use my brain as an index instead of a data warehouse. As in, I don't bother committing to memory things that I can reach out and grab if they fall out of my "cache". As others have noted, I regularly reach out to SO/Internet to "remember" how to do basic language features if I haven't worked in said language recently or I've just forgotten the syntax. I can speed 5min+ racking my brain and/or reading docs or I can search and find it in a few seconds. Often I just need to see an example to "remember" or kick start myself.
I think you misread me, or I didn't communicate clearly. By "lengthy" I was referring to the policy, not password length. Indeed max password length itself is another common bit of foolishness, for sanity reasons arguably it shouldn't be infinite but ~150 characters should be fine so that if people want to have a long diceware passphrase that's fine. To the extent passwords are used at all it should be exclusively as input to a KDF or adaptive-hash anyway so storage-side it should all be normalized regardless of input length.
Because the only way to fight slavery is with more slavery, obviously.
I've had one for about a year now and co-sign the author's review. Especially the "broken" OCR that doesn't allow search. Nor is there any way to create links to hyperlink between notebooks. Doing so would be a total game-changer.
Thanks for the very informative answer!
As I understood the abstract, participants are given general-knowledge questions (e.g. who was the fourth U.S. president), participant looks up the answer online, sees "Madison" and then thinks they must have know that (Washington - Adams - Jefferson - Madison). The participant will then predict that they will do well on subsequent questions without using the internet for reference (at least that's how I interpret "... [participants] predict that they will know more in the future without the help of the internet").

That's a foible fit for satire. I'm curious whether there is a process of rationalization like I just imagined, or whether there is just a fundamental confusion by the participant about whether they knew the information prior or knew it from the recent internet search. If the later, that could be horrifying (imagine you needed to find out how long Oceania and Eastasia have been at war).

I've read about teachers struggling to convince students of the need to actually memorize things despite the ubiquity of easy reference: you just won't make new connections or insights if you don't have any information already in your head. I would say this study would suggest the teacher's task is even more difficult if people misattribute recent searches for prior knowledge.
"really want" is a poor phrase, but it was intended to mean not "what people sincerely/honestly want" but instead "what people would choose if they really had deeply informed understanding of the options".

People's utterances about what they want are almost never in light of the question of what they "really want". We rarely have the space and perspectives to reflect on and learn about what we "really want" to be able to even answer that question.

Most of life is people having low-level fears about loss and acceptance and so on and expressing our wants from that position. We rarely settle into our deeper values enough to even ask what we "really want" let alone find answers.
My dyslexic ass read this as scantron.

I would absolutely refer to 7th grade as a 'scantron iron furnace'.
The tunnel where people pay to inhale radioactive gas
When you have locked bootloaders and non rooted devices you can totally outlaw math
Furthermore, that guard can be incapacitated, or easier still, bribed.
So... it's a WinAPI emulator?
fair enough. i value your opinion on the matters of hardware security and i am definitely not going to pretend i am an expert. i know you know your stuff. my point is that fighting for free software and fighting for security (software or hardware) can diverge

i think FSF fights against non-free software because it considers it an evil for a society. i have no problems them fighting this fight, and i dont see any other candidates able to fight that fight on their level. i think that people who care about free software should at least respect them

on the other hand, i think security and privacy is a seperate fight, extremely important. if you form an organisation that defends security and privacy as much as FSF defends free software, i will definitely support it and you
Well, the project's website clearly isn't with agreement with you.

> Wine (originally an acronym for "Wine Is Not an Emulator")

https://www.winehq.org/about
Am I unreasonable in hoping for optional type hints to be taken advantage of by a compiler to produce correct, optimized code, similar to what (sufficiently smart) Common Lisp compilers do?
Got mine two months ago - original backer. Last year Purism offered backers to choose the batch - I replied - put me in the latest one possible, because I wanted most up-to-date hardware. I could have gotten my device in May if I would have chosen an earlier batch.

Also moved twice in last 4 years and Purism accidentally sent it out to old address. When I noticed that and asked for help - they stopped the package and re-sent me a new one to the new address.

Very happy with the device. Very happy with service and support. Freedom is well worth waiting for.
you think governments aren't interested in analyzing the private communication of the population? There's a long list of intelligence programs listed on Wikipedia that suggest otherwise. Governments are obviously interested in both with interests going way beyond crime.

And another fact is that these bans can even give you access to the people outside of the law. Practical example, Australia's sting operation of pushing their own 'secure' app on the blackmarket to lure criminals in. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/06/08/fbi-app-arre...)
> You can actually hook algorithmic art from Houdini to GAN models and bake 3D art for later use.

I've seen some stuff like that but it's not really what I'm talking about. I want fully dynamic, spatially consistent generative worlds.

And that is pretty hard to do at 75 or so FPS in stereo.
I was just having a conversation yesterday about how complex it can be to follow 50 different state regulations, but also 200+ different national regulations.

Would the ideal case for you to be a federal (national) regulation or a global regulation?
That’s more or less the argument for liberalism. A climate of intense regulation will sometimes ban stuff you hate but also sometimes ban stuff you like.
I've been using Pydantic to validate inputs for one of my projects and really like it.
It's called "Guix System" :)

If you have hardware that requires non-free firmware you can use the "linux" package from the nonguix channel: https://github.com/nonguix/nonguix/
Except of course that this is entirely unlike speed limits.

In a nutshell, and in case it didn't register with you when it should have: attempts to curb cryptography have been made in the past. The phrase 'you can't outlaw math' is a simple observation: strong cryptography will be available to everybody that wants it regardless of its legal status. So a government that would love to read your mail would do better to realize that they will only be able to read the uninteresting mail and for the rest of it they'll be staring at white noise. Meanwhile the baddies, alerted to the fact that the government is able to read your mail will either resort to other methods of communications or will use channels that they assume to be overt to signal covertly using other methods. There are plenty of examples for this.

So, in conclusion, no matter how much you want to outlaw strong cryptography, those that want it will have it, better plan accordingly or all you will do is waste more time reading data that you will find stupendously boring.
You can't easily figure out which specific individuals are the ones "accelerating" the discontent.
Semantic shift happens, prescriptivism is dumb.
Yes, this. I wouldn't ever dare to put my development in the hands of some third party service. It's just far too risky. But self-hosting such a system is something that I'd at least consider.

Also, self-hosted or not, if the system is web-based, that's a dealbreaker.
maybe switching versions?

It's a bit slow, but not anything I do often enough that I care, normally the old project just has its own terminal tab.
I hate that the name of a well-respected technical discipline has been appropriated by a community full of scammers and con-men, but sadly I think this battle has been lost a long time ago.
Yes, that was the time when politicians and managers for some reason suddenly decided to exhume that 90ies buzzword (32C3 press conference montage from around that time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY6KkRsS26M).
the UK was the member state, and voted as one entity

Yorkshire or London didn't get a veto over leaving either, and both have larger populations than Scotland
In a day dream, it'd charge the batteries!
> No reasons or substance given.

All reason needed was given:

- Unacceptability of the core Team wrt. the CoC.

- A too small (maybe not diverse enough) moderation not being able to upkeep their own standards even ignoring the issues of the core Team.

Both are structural issues. There might have been person-specific issues too, but in the grater picture they don't matter and would just diverge the attention form the structural issues which need to be solved.
The Endless Droning
It's completely arbitrary, from case to case. To answer your question about "begging the question" I think the concept of "circular reasoning" is important enough to have a cutesy phrase associated with it.
New discovery of British involvement in “Operation Valkyrie” plot to kill Hitler
"by keeping the specifics close to the chest they both keep their integrity"

Odd code of honour there. They've made a lot of dramatic insinuations about other Rust contributors, basically asserted that they're all bad people, and provided no detail. That's the opposite of integrity.
I usually turn to SO in hopes of a quick and easy answer, but a lot of the time your specific use case isn't going to be well covered as the stackoverflow threads sometimes have some bespoke requirements from the asker.

What I find is that it can be faster to just look at the documentation that comes with the tooling. Usually a good stack overflow answer is just regurgitation of something that's already covered in the documentation that the asker clearly didn't read a lick of. When you start using a new tool, just skimming the documentation end to end can but you at such an advantage and set you up to get working with the tool in the correct way with a decent understanding of some of the caveats that might be at play with your particular use case (which is rarely something that can be gleamed from a terse stack overflow answer). Even just a pdf covering a language can be handy to thumb through the chapters and revisit common patterns like for loops that can vary in different languages, once again its easier to trod down a familiar pdf textbook than it is to try and trench up something relevant from google search these days.
It's inevitable, really. Things have became so complex and dynamic that you can't hope to have all the reference material you need at home.

We used to have these little folded cards with the complete syntax of Pascal or C and that would be enough. Nowadays, you don't even know all the languages and libs that are in a given stack.
seems like a bad take
If you put it to a vote, majority of Americans will allocate public funds towards stimulus cheques and not the military.... what majority of Americans would allocate funds towards is not necessarily the thing that gets done.
If you word a question correctly, you can also find evidence for almost any belief with Google (it is Nietzsche, you ask Google, and Google asks you). It is actually quite bizarre to have a conversation with someone online, that person has literally no real knowledge of the topic, they pepper you with "sources" (usually those sources do not provide evidence for what they are saying, they don't know enough to know that), and then (and this is very 2020s) act outraged when you point they are wrong and have no actual knowledge of the topic beyond Google.

In my experience, these people have usually integrated Google fully into their own perception of knowledge. They view themselves as totally rational, their views are all evidence-based because they can type the magic phrase into Google and get justification...but, of course, the feeling comes before the source and they have no real understanding of what "evidence" actually looks like. It is very odd trying to have a conversation with someone who is totally irrational but believes heavily in rationality (this is the "source? source? source?" meme of Reddit).

I think this is distinct from the SO stuff. Programming languages are very explicit so it is easy to forget exactly how to do something basic if you do it infrequently (for example, I can never remember how to get an env variable in Python, I do it in every project but usually only a handful of times per project...it is easy to forget) Once you get into more complex problems, you can look stuff up on SO but you still won't be able to do it unless you actually understand what you are copying (in my experience, I have usually copied something, something is slightly different, and then I spend time going through it/reworking/understanding).
Traffic analysis is a thing.
While I think some of hyperbole around climate change risks confusing people about exactly how bad the situation could be, the differences between 1.5 and 2 degrees are not trivial, and even 1.5 degrees is considerably worse than what we have now.

>The good news is that if countries uphold their commitments from the past several years to sharply cut emissions, the world will be in position to limit warming closer to 2°C, the long-standing international target for climate stabilisation.

The qualifiers here are doing a lot of work. If countries uphold their commitments, they will be in a position to limit warning closer to 2°C. Nordhouse dismisses Thunberg's comments as "adolescent cynicism," but there's a real gap between commitments and action. The Biden administration's Build Back Better bill with the CEPP provisions included would put the U.S. on a track to limit warming to 1.5 degrees, according to one analysis [0]. That target is more reachable than I think a lot of people pessimistic about climate change action, myself included, thought. However, the full bill is unlikely to pass. The recently signed bipartisan infrastructure bill will make only a small dent—the US would need BBB or legislature with similar climate ambitions to actually be on the right track.

Nordhouse's link [1] shows that if nations keep their commitments by 2030, it will be 2.4, which is much better than 3 degrees, but significantly higher than 2. Optimistically, warming could be kept to 1.9 degrees if long-term commitments are all kept.

So it's fair to point out that there's still time, but I don't think dismissing critics like Thunberg is fair. Without holding nations to their commitments like she's doing, it's much more likely we won't do any better than the current 3 degree projection.

[0]: https://repeatproject.org/docs/REPEAT_Preliminary_Report_102...

[1] https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-do-cop26-promises-keep-...
Pretty sure this was in Brussel's crosshair for years(as in 5+ years, to be precise).
And no, the bureaucrats and politicians don't give a rat's ass about your privacy, security, or data.In the vast, vast majority of cases it's the opposite.GDPR was not only useless in protecting customer's data, it was actually used as a tracking mechanism, but don't let me spark your bubble.

The EU should either reform or it will die off, and for good reasons.Obviously if the latter is to happen it will take at least a decade or two, but the cracks have begun to show frankly since it stopped being merely an economic union.
Why cant you start your own thing now, and then travel or does your own thing need a physical presence from you that will hinder any desires to travel?

Looking for inspiration?

Virtually everyone is living paycheck to paycheck, some live a frugal lifestyle others live an extravagant lifestyle and bang it on finance hoping judgement day never arrives. Even businesses are only as good as their long term contracts and share of a market, so are not much different to people, if we are to be honest about things.

Some big name companies are still only going because they have diversified, and that's it, so working many jobs is for most people just a form of diversification in all but name, but then spreading the risk amongst employers in todays world can be a good thing, reducing exposure is common in finance and there are parallels for people as well.

Besides running a business gives you access to finance/credit which will have less impact on your personal life if things don't work out, than taking on finance/credit in your personal life and things then not working out. Most shareholders of small businesses take out a lot of money which keeps their personal finances a lot cleaner. I don't know why more people don't do it?

The only other thing is remember that the global population is still going up, so prices will continue to go up as populations in develop countries can undercut developed countries, so choose your business venture wisely for a multitude of reasons.
You would think that their approach is a bit backward.
Yes I know that. But do THEY know that? I’m not so sure. Elon/Bezos seem to think you can hand wave/buy the radiation away like they do their problems on earth. Maybe with absolutely massive amounts of money they could find a way. And we would be the ones footing the bill for that.
Well that’s true unless it’s -10 F in Chicago.
Some of these combos are truly hilarious, while others are creepy and sad. Love it!
The quality of the displays Linux laptop users will tolerate always amazes me. Where's the HiDPI 16:10 IPS panels? Macs and PCs are delivering mini LEDs and OLEDs and all kinds of wonders. I can't imagine actually working on one of these.
Google Domains has indeed been a very professional and no-BS operation. Shame though that their other businesses are... not in a good spotlight.

Edit: Whoops, CRR operates certain gTLDs, Google LLC operates the buy-a-domain registrar.
Finally, an excuse for a big button with a safety glass cover on it.
> I could do a better job in my sleep.

when you're ready, you won't have to
The ones who really want strong encryption: the lawmakers themselves, because their communications are of course exempt.
At least from the comments, I kind of see the attitude pairing: people defining themselves as introverts think about themselves being smarter and generally superior to the extroverts. The self-defined extroverts on the other hand only criticize the social awkwardness of the introverts, no quality judgement otherwise. Conclusion: as usual, rationalization doesn't help much.
>overreacted to, and/or taken out of context.

change the race and/or sex in those quotes
This sounds entirely like a personal relationship problem. Funny to see it come up in a company survey.
I remember learning "Hauppauge" was pronounced "Hop Hog"
I grew up near scranton and never heard of these before. Was an interesting read.
Container shipping Q3 profits surpass tech giants
>is this is a public letter, the intended audience is everyone

Just because something is public does not mean the intended audience is also everyone. Something can be intended for a subset of people, but broadly published. But I think this has been hashed out somewhere else in the thread.

I think "management knows what they did, don't believe a word they say, I'm out, peace!" is a bit of a disingenuous reading of the letter, but you have a valid point about the last paragraph and I'll walk back what I said a little bit.
Exactly. It's security theater.
I wasn't familiar with Curtis Yarvin, but in looking him up, you can't be serious, right?

>Yarvin's online writings, many under his pseudonym Mencius Moldbug, convey blatantly racist views. He expresses the belief that white people are genetically endowed with higher IQs than black people. He has suggested race may determine whether individuals are better suited for slavery, and his writing has been interpreted as supportive of the institution of slavery.

https://www.inc.com/tess-townsend/why-it-matters-that-an-obs...

You're upset that a Eugenics-lite writer was almost banned from a conference?
I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt. It still surprises me that the phrase "black lives matter" is partisan.
The Father of Digital Life
This is my favourite: https://tikolu.net/emojimix/%F0%9F%98%80+%F0%9F%98%B6

That was really fun! I'd like to see all the combinations rendered out as a matrix though.
Steam's hardware survey points to the majority of people staying well away from this cutting edge hardware.
> the legendary security support from upstream Debian

Anytime I do a vulnerability scan of a Debian image (updated via apt) using AWS ECR I get a laundry list of open issues including a few high severity CVEs. Meanwhile images based on Amazon Linux, Alpine or Oracle Linux are clear or have only few lower severity CVEs. I haven't looked at AlmaLinux recently but I'll need to soon; if it is anything like CentOS I expect the scan will be fairly clean.

Whatever rationale there might be for this it is difficult to explain to stake holders. In any case 'legendary' seems a stretch comparatively speaking.