skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It may be, that the legal issues, surrounding (commercial) YouTube Video production, require getting the explicit consent of the subjects. But this has quite a disturbing effect on the very meaning of what we consider Street Photography to be.
Many "Photography Influencers" that show their process on tiktok or YouTube ask all the subjects of their pictures for explicit consent before taking pictures that I would consider to be more in the realms of fashion or model photography than in the true spirit of street photography. Street Photography is, to me, an art form that requires capturing unstaged moments and not just staged shots outside of the studio. It is the more artisticly inclined cousin of photojournalism, at times prefering form over function and serendipitous beauty over obvious significance and timely message.

BTW It's notable that YouTube in particular seems to steer viewers to channels that celebrate hobbies which if they don't require expensive purchases can at least benefit from them.
The "Photography Influencers" are a niche that owes its growth to the massive advertisement Dollars surrounding the space. The more people watch photography content, the bigger the audience Alphabet can sell to Sony, Canon and thousands of accessoire makers. So there is an incentive to push their almighty recommendation algorithm to steer users into this niche and grow demand. At the same time on the supply side, content producers, are incentivized to go into this niche by the higher availability of niche adjacent sponsorship deals for their videos.
This dynamic obviously plays out in other niches as well, whether it be cars, gardening or golf. Potential sponsors and advertisers for math youtubers like blackpenredpen however are more limited so google is disincentivized to grow their niche. Does this, over the long term, push peoples preferences toward more materialistic pursuits ? I guess we'll find out.
> Control by a majority, not a minority. (democratic)

In what way is that even remotely true for any major cryptocurrency?

>Open ecosystem that visible and able to be analysed by anyone (transparent)

Right. How is that Tether audit going again? And how did all that transparency prevent this week's multimillion dollar Oopsie?

> Immutable (no one makes up assets without everyone knowing about it)

Except, you know, the entire thing being made up by people who automatically get ridiculously large shares of the pie as "early adopters".

> Fair. Same price for everyone at all times, no chance of a monopoly.

See above. And do you have any idea how rampant market manipulation is?
So this person lives in a place they can't trust banks...

But they have access to computers, internet, enough money to pay the tx fees of cryptocurrencies... amazing
The F-35 isn't completely stealth, it only offers a reduced sized signature for an aircraft of its size (no aircraft is completely, but the F-35 isn't even the best the US has in terms of stealth it isn't even in the top three).

Before stealth small nimble aircraft avoided anti-aircraft fire by flying low where the horizon and or terrain would keep them shielded or provide physical barriers against missile intercept. That of course requires good low altitude, long duration flying which is also something the Super Tucano happens to excel at.

I'd argue that the SAMs is an argument for "morer is betterer" since you're essentially pretending that the F-35 has perfect stealth instead of limited stealth, and relying on it being never shot down as your win condition (as opposed to building in losses and utilizing strategies not dependent on a technological advantage).
How is it true and factual? The inflation rate is set, it is high now and will be lower in the future to account for that. If you are planning to keep millions/billions sitting around in cash for a decade, instead of investing into assets where it works for you and everyone else, you are the reason we have the inflation rate and deserve to lose out to inflation.

A set yearly inflation rate incentivizes actual investment instead of currency speculation. Basically the system we have now exists to prevent what crypto enthusiasts are trying to push on us: a return to a super volatile currency that when it crashed wasn’t able to be fixed by just printing more money temporarily.

When you hear about things as complex as Monetary Policy, it is best to assume that lots of people have thought about why it is the way it is and why that’s preferable. The “gold standard” and the hoarding of wealth allowed things like feudalism to exist where lords just sat on their land and gold and were richer every year.

Yeah you can pull the “the rich get richer today too” card but so do poor people if they invest in assets, and the difference is that every wealthy person has almost all of their wealth invested in the US economy in order to beat the risk free and inflation rate.

I really, really am sick of the bullshit around the big L Libertarian party (and the crypto enthusiasts who identify with them.) Spreading lies about the evil fed and the evil inflation rate, both of which are a huge improvement over the constant depressions we had prior to this century.

It took thousands of years for people to develop the sophisticated monetary policy we currently have that allows our economy to be extremely stable and continuously grow, generations of very bright people, and anarcho-capitalists want to throw that away to go back to “basics.” At the very least you could do all those people, and the citizens of the world, the courtesy of understanding why were all in favor of yearly inflation (even if we bitch about prices going up.)
I fully agree; we need to be more transparent about our process, intentions, and ownership. We'll work on that.

Here is a good Reddit post about the fake reviews from Kape Technologies: https://www.reddit.com/r/VPNTorrents/comments/r160ll/spottin...
Central bank digital money normally means normal bank account but held directly with the central bank
Except that 1. It’s the west (in particular the US) that is strangling the semiconductor supplies in order to hamper Chinese industry, and 2. China is completely uninterested in military aggression, as opposed to US, which just finished a war and is probably looking for another one.
This is great news. We really AWS IPv6 at a prior company I worked for that had about 25 million IPv6 nodes that needed to be addressable, and we had a super ugly back end - 26+ 64GB/8CPU servers (which was a lot back in 2008). We really could have used the flexibility of AWS back then - but, were completely blocked by Amazon's inability and absolute unwillingness to even consider supporting IPv6 on their internal network. Took them almost 8 years (around 2016sh) before they supported IPv6 on their internal networks.
At this particular moment in time, I think so.
>The easiest (and probably the only) way to prevent a war with China is to convince the US to not start it.

Noam Chomsky recently wrote similar to this. The military threat is really against china.

The point of a cold war is to prevent a real war. So when you hear about dick waving of the US military and allies. IT's about warning China from doing anything.
Eh... He's always had... peculiar ideas. It's just that previously his detachment from reality was mostly in relatively harmless directions ("The Secret" type stuff, lack of belief in gravity, etc). I would buy that his current delusions might be genuine.
Secure deployments with OpenID Connect & GitHub Actions now generally available
Not to mention an important vehicle in enabling NK's nuclear program: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58719884

And all the other crimes that are made much more efficient/difficult to detect.
It seems like there's another side to this story you're not mentioning... I think I read about it in history of the 19th and 20th centuries?
Maybe no single entity is literally in full control but large mining pools and the developers of the software both have extreme influence over the chain.
> In the same way that the immigration or globalization doesn't exactly make the working class reach for free markets... it's actually the complete opposite. So they're definitely not reaching right in that sense.

There was an under-examined switch between anti-globalization being a "left" thing round about 2000, and its current status of being "right" thing. Obviously the financial crisis happened in the middle of that, but what happened ideologically?

Part of it is just the general uselessness of labels, especially those applied externally in bad faith; anti-racism being labelled as "Marxism", for example. It also fails to capture the various internal factions and rifts in both movements and parties.

It's fairly clear that the US Republicans contained a pro-international-free-markets faction and an anti faction, and the anti faction won a significant victory in the Trump primary which has led to substantial capture of the party.

> Progress is fundamentally just change.

Normally this is defined differently, see "whig view of history", such that "progress" is by definition better. What you need to ask is "for whom?"

Speaking of labels, the early Luddites were proto-socialists; see https://libcom.org/history/machine-breakers-eric-hobsbawm
Q. what is geometry?
A. Adjoint functor to algebra
I felt exactly the same, until I did some research and realized it's bullshit all the way.
In that case, I think the point is that some "crime" is ethically justified and worth supporting technologically. The OP's statement implies that all crime is bad.
For instance, I wanted to know why my custom systemd.conf unit file is causing my custom daemon to restart whenever the Ethernet cord gets unplugged or its netdev goes offline.
How Not to Stage Your Own “Murder”
Right, but it's not. The idea that inflation "dilutes" wealth and is therefore bad for rich people is not true.
I am strongly in favor of the right to photograph anything and anybody in public places, but from a moral/ethical/legal point of view, "intent" is indeed everything.

You make it sound like it would be secondary and not really relevant, but for example, intent is the difference between murder and involuntary manslaughter.

In candid street photography, I think what people fear is exactly that: bad intent, a willingness of the photographer to exploit the images in order to show ridicule or maybe even obtain sexual gratification.

And it's also an easy way to do some virtue signalling. It's striking that in the article, it's not the people being photographed who object, but complete strangers to the scene, who know absolutely nothing about the specific circumstances of how the image was taken and whether or not consent was granted.

Of course, intent lies not just in the pressing of a shutter; one can also select stills from security footage with intent to ridicule. And indeed, as a general rule, access to security footage is limited and controlled, probably for that reason.
The difference between investment and speculation is pretty established, isn't it? For example https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/09/difference-betwe...
> Whether you agree with that perspective is another thing. Many crypto enthusiasts, whether they are explicit about it or not, like the idea of creating an economic system that everyone can participate in that doesn't involve countless middle-men.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the whole blockchain thing depend on an uncountable number of middlemen to verify transactions? They just don't have to trust them. Not to mention they have to count on a market existing for the coins to give them value.
As an aside, the times square kiss is kind of messed up. They didn't know each other, and the woman didn't want the kiss. It's kind of weird that such an iconic image of celebration here is an image of sexual assault.
Bags of bytes is at least the honest, "we know that none of you know jack shit about encodings and if we gave you nice APIs some Go developer will ignore them to avoid dynamic linking so the only safe thing to do is poke file paths as opaque blobs and let people optimistically decode them.

MS's approach is better in the case where we're all good stewards of the filesystem but the edges are sharp when someone isn't.
> Your job is gone due to automation, immigration, or globalization? It's entirely reasonable to reach for the conservative button to make things go back. Populists promising your job back is an appealing message.

If you're a miner in a ex-mining town who lost his job, but the government isn't doing anything about it what are your options really? Either leave or vote for whoever is promising changes, even if that somebody is a known liar and/or radical.

On another note, I think that just as technological progress is making some people unemployed, it's also leaving some countries behind. It's just that countries can afford to be ignorant of this trend since it's not an existential threat in the _present_.
> Fake reviews are certainly a big challenge, even for companies like fakespot that try to detect them.

Not that big: If you cut away all 5 and 1 star reviews you'll have stripped roughly 99% of astroturfing (for and against a company).
Crypto isn't an exception to any of your concerns. Easily manipulated by foriegn governments, no assurance in import/exports, no assurance on value for employment opportunities, ripe for fraud and as for inflation - until Crypto actually behaves like a currency all your doing is betting against the dollar and if the dollar collapses then all you're doing is ensuring instability and perptetuating exactly what you say you solve
What I'd really like to see is proper, cheap(ish) PoE IoT devices. I don't need everything to be wifi, I'd like to just run standard cable to everything, all on a secure common network, with power over the same cable.

But PoE negotiation (chips) are apparently expensive, and eth chips more expensive than an esp.
> You can't use wheels

musl wheel support was added some time ago:

https://github.com/pypa/packaging/releases/tag/21.0

No idea how many packages actually build musl wheels though. From a quick glance at least cryptography and lxml has musl wheels.
This is what I wish for in an IDE in the future: https://twitter.com/TaliaRinger/status/1365433319572185092?s...

The year is 2030. You're a software engineer at a company, writing tests for your program.
After you write a few tests, your IDE is like, "hey, I noticed you were testing this; do you want this more general thing to hold?" and spits back a specification for you. You're not sure.
You say, "give me some examples," and your IDE generates more tests for you. One of them looks off, so you tell your IDE, "no, not that one."
Your IDE sends you another specification. This one looks better, so you approve it. Your IDE tells you to hang out for a bit while it tries to see if it actually holds.
After ten seconds or so, it generates a failing test. You fix your code and try again.
This time it's like, "I couldn't find any counterexamples, but I'm also not positive it's true. Can you help me prove it?" You say yes, of course.
It asks you a couple of specific questions about your code. Thinks for a bit, and then tells you that your code is verified.
In fact if you are an advanced user you can go check out the proof yourself. No need to, though.
A couple of days later, you change your code. Your IDE notices this and tries to check the specification again. It tells you that it is no longer true; but based on the change you made, there is an analogous change in the specification, so maybe you want this new specification?
You're not sure so you ask for some tests. It looks good. And this time the tool doesn't need to ask you any questions to prove it; the proof is similar enough to the proof of the old specification, so you're good.
After a few more weeks of this, your IDE notices something else, though. You keep changing that function, and changing your specification to go with it.
So it recommends a new abstraction for you that would have captured all of the past examples. It tells you, hey, if you use this, things might break less often to begin with .
It looks good so you're like, "oh cool, yeah let's do that." And it drops into a guided refactoring mode, helping you through the change, asking you just a few questions but automating all of the tedium.
Does this for your program, then for your proof. And your proof doesn't break again for months after that. Good shit.
I couldn't find that in the PDF at all.

What I did find:

• Cases have tended to be clinically mild
The problem with overseas contractors is - you get what you pay for. There are still excellent contractors out there who charge more, but still less than what employees get paid here. The second problem is discoverability. It is difficult to find those excellent contractors from all the not-so-good ones out there.
You are not a cardiologist, yes.
Over engineering also have a way to burn people out when a very vocal engineer say it is imperative that this and that should be scalable and secure. It delays actionable areas before people even want to hack you or use you
If the "new guy" can't set up their own development environment in a reasonable amount of time, I think you need a stricter interview process.
Indeed, PCI Express can be thought of in many ways like Ethernet; you can have switches just like Ethernet, though in almost all cases, PCIe is a local area bus (local to one server/machine), whereas Ethernet is still the king of networks.
I am running 2021.2.3 now. `ps aux | grep GC` still shows "-XX:+UseConcMarkSweepGC"
Paper title: Individual Vulnerability to Industrial Robot Adoption Increases Support for the Radical Right.

From the abstract:
>[we] show that individuals more vulnerable to negative consequences of automation tend to display more support for the radical right. Automation exposure raises support for the radical left too, but to a significantly lower extent.

Authors clickbated their own title in an academic journal
Are you going to disable or reweight user scores when they dunk on a VPN you're in a strategic partnership with, in the name of "preventing review bombing by white supremacist alt-right trolls"? Because that'd be necessary in order to achieve feature parity with RT...
I would assume that it is treated as (num1 <= date) <= num2. So (num1 < date) is true (1) or false (0) which is then (probably) less than date.
OpenBSD went through a similar transition, except they didn't even try to maintain ABI compatibility. See https://www.openbsd.org/55.html and https://www.openbsd.org/faq/upgrade55.html, the latter describing the rare "flag day" event. Long term this was good for OpenBSD as it saved a ton of unnecessary cruft and complexity that would have haunted OpenBSD for years if not decades, endlessly taxing developers' time, especially of core developers. And it was an inducement for all developers, those working on OpenBSD (core and ports teams) as well as those targeting OpenBSD, to carefully review code for 64-bit time_t safety. But it necessarily required that the broader community shoulder a large part of the transition burden.

Sometimes it's better to power through with a massive labor effort than to try to use fancy hacks to shield people from latent problems. All things considered, it doesn't sound like the Alpine transition was that bad. But it's the type of thing that most Linux users and developers are not accustomed to, at least those who don't remember the very early years. Ironically, musl libc might not exist if glibc hadn't accumulated so much complexity trying to maintain strong ABI compatibility.

IMO, small prices to pay for free software and Free Software.
Sure, but value without an enforcement mechanism is not very useful.

People usually want to trade stored value in exchange for goods and services (at least in a functioning value store - I don't really believe bitcoin serves that purpose at the moment).

So lets say we agree that I pay you 10k in bitcoin in exchange for you remodeling my bathroom (and ignore how unlikely this scenario is with real crypto currencies). I pay you 50% up front (to purchase materials), and 50% on completion.

Then you run off with my initial 50%.

Now what?

----

Every solution I've seen is riddled with pitfalls and gotchas

- Use escrow? Wait - now we're just trusting a central authority again.

- Use Eth contracts? Well, maybe - but it requires a perfectly written contract or you're open to all sorts of strange edge behavior and side effects.

- Sue over the theft? Now the central authority is just the government again, and we're back at square one!

You see the disconnect I'm getting at? Eventually, if disagreements occur about how value was traded, there has to be a reconciliation mechanism. Right now, even in modern crypto - that reconciliation mechanism is still a central authority: Your government.
Text can look pretty bad if you're using other JVMs without their patches.
There are two off-by-one errors. Should be checking value[length-1].
The fact that NordVPN is somehow #1 immediately discounts whatever algorithm you've designed for this.

Under no circumstances would I ever consider a VPN that's been breached even once as a #1 choice.
Yep, Debian is not even trying to develop a full OS. They are distributing GNU/Linux with few popular desktops (Gnome, KDE, Mate, XFCE, etc.), and popular applications.

GNU project tries to develop full OS for Linux kernel. GNOME project tries to develop full desktop for GNU/Linux. The Document Foundation tries to develop full office suite. And so on.
Even Gnome and KDE are not really "high level SDKs". They mostly have GUI support of various kinds, but not a full SDK for interacting with the OS (e.g. interacting with networking, with other apps, with system services etc.).
The technology doesn't really matter that much. If the US banking system wants to compete, it could try paying yield on savings. That's one weird trick that has made banking attractive for well over 1,000 years. A banking system that does not pay yields to savers is just a glorified collection of ledgers.
Proof of Work/Stake are both oligopolistic, not democratic. If you can buy yourself a larger vote, that's not democratic.
Yeah I get that, and I think that's the primary reason it's difficult to do well.

I think there _are_ ways to do it right. For instance, open-sourcing a Windows application is not necessarily problematic if 99.9% of your user base has never ever compiled something from source. Heck, my father is the kind of person who doesn't know the difference between "Windows" and "gmail". He has purchased software for his business once, it would've made no difference to him whether it was open-source or not.

Despite my believing that it's possible, I can't really think of any examples other than redhat and Qt from the top of my head...
`RegQueryValueExW`'s last parameter is in and out, so that `length` is set to the actual written length after the call.

It might cause an OOB write though, with a data race on the registry key (if the key's value happens to grow in length by a char or two between the calls, time of check time of use yada yada).
Ah, sure?

1) Don't use Qemu from the kvm binary.

2) Don't use VirtIO

3) Don't set the CPU higher than a Pentium for w95/w98/NT4, Pentium2 may be fine for w98SE.

>qemu-system-i386 -M help
isapc ISA-only PC

>qemu-system-i386 --version
QEMU emulator version 6.1.0
Copyright (c) 2003-2021 Fabrice Bellard and the QEMU Project developers

This should work for NT4

qemu-system-i386 -cdrom $CDROM -m 32 -vga cirrus -net nic,model=pcnet -net user -cpu pentium -hda $DISK

Also, if qemu enables kvm by default, set the machine acceleration method to TCG.

Bye, "virt engineer".