skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don't think that is the case, or atleast that has not been my experience. Most teams would be happy if you do these, but not affecting the next deliverable. So if you are willing or can spend extra hours that becomes manageable, but one can't always be in a position to spend more hours working (priorities, family etc.). What would be best is team encourages your involvement and factors that in deciding the target date of your deliverables. This would win for both since knowing domain makes one to understand the problem better and program beetter.
Those are made up categories for a made up disorder.

That's like "depression". There is no one kind. How depressed are you? Very? Not so much?

How would you even know?
I’m sure the average person didn’t want to use keys to lock their house or car—we adapt.
The inspiration from JuMP is obvious however I couldn't find a list of supported solvers.
You need to fork at low difficulty if you want to significantly lengthen the chain from that point, because creating a high difficulty, long chain that is valid is hard.

But-- there's nothing to preclude you making big steps up in difficulty at the end of the chain. It means that one evaluating the length of the chain for authenticity really needs to integrate the difficulty over the entire chain and not just look at the number of blocks.
"nobody cares if your chain tip is the longest in the interrim,"

Except the people you bought something real-world from, once they figure out that their "tipcoin" is worthless. So now it's a question of convincing some people that your technobabble is valid enough. How hard is that?
No, a market maker makes (adds to) the market by placing orders.

A market taker takes orders away from the market by completing transactions, thinning the order books.
Did you mean I'm Your Man? I discovered 'A Thousand Kisses Deep' some years ago through a Jackson Browne cover and it felt so strange to rediscover Cohen, when I'd stopped at the classics.
9front has been adopted by WSL as the filesystem protocol, so there is that.

https://nelsonslog.wordpress.com/2019/02/16/plan-9-rides-aga...
Oh, hey, I had one of these when I was afk-ratting in an Ishtar in Guristas space, those were the days: https://github.com/ben0x539/eve-log-alert

I'd drop my Ishtar[s] in an anomaly[s], then tab out and probably read hacker news or something, and completely forget about it, usually leading to either dying as I didn't check intel channels or even look for hostiles in the local system, or wasting time as I didn't warp to the next anomaly after clearing the current one. With a simple ruby script, a janky sql query and a pile of ugly heuristics, most of that stopped being a problem, as a very loud noise would remind me to warp away! It hits a "sweet spot" of being totally non-reusable but doing exactly what I need it to while remaining just editable enough to hack in more special cases/heuristics...

It wasn't a super time-efficient way to get space-rich, but at least somewhat effort-efficient, and it netted me enough that I could probably have bought a titan or three. Of course I eventually lost most of my net worth by having it invested in shitty minerals and being unsubscribed as the floor fell out under that market.

Those were the days.
Indeed, a very strange phenomena. Willful ignorance?
They also cite Gru from Despicable Me, Willy Wonka and the BFG (i.e. the Big Friendly Giant!).

This is one of the worst argued pieces I've ever seen submitted here.
Great comment, let's do a TL;DR of the article:
- Clickbait title.
- Some of the claims can be debunked with a 2014 blog post.
- Tradeoffs pow/pos are known and accepted for a long time. Nothing new added except drama.
Similar here. Abstract and spatial models are easy, but I can't "see" them.

I am also unusually obsessive about what my code looks like, because even though I can't see it, my recall is very much linked to an idea of what it looks like. I can navigate code by remembering what the right part of a piece of code looks like on screen. Just writing that made me recall the visual structure (without seeing it) of parts of the text editor I use and develop, as well as the appearance of a page of a paper I read 25 years ago.
The Omicron Situation
You're not wrong, but you're missing a pretty fundamental point here, which is that all of the features you listed have been around since before computers measured things in gigabytes.
It's also the current right wing politicians who are currently trying to stifle free speech by suing everyone for defamation. But I guess sending an anti terror squad to a comedians house isn't 'authoritarian' enough for the grand parents post.
Would've been interesting to see the American era with war tugs.
I made a strong statement, so maybe I need to be more precise with my point.

Bitcoin has merits. So proof of work, being a part that is currently necessary for it to work has merits.

But the argument that proof-of-work has the merit of incentivizing cheaper energy sources does not stand up.

1. All uses of energy already incentivize the search for cheaper energy. This isn't a novel incentive that proof-of-work provides.

2. But proof-of-work does have a relatively novel disadvantage. It won't just incentivize greater energy uses as prices come down, as in normal supply-demand curves, but must keep up the original and even grow the amount spent on energy.

This would not be a problem in a market without negative externalities, but energy is famously a huge industry that will be struggling with negative externalities for quite some time and at great cost.
The most downloaded iOS apps of 2018
My understanding of the utility of Greek letters in notations was their correspondence to first Roman letter of the respective concepts being represented [1].

Just as Roman letters could be stand-ins for concepts in the context, say, v for volume or speed (vitesse), R for resistence, L for length, d for diameter, r for radius etc.

So, for example, quantity /variable of [l]ength could be represented by [l]ambda, [a]ngle by [a]lpha, [d]ifference by [d]elta, [s]um by [s]igma, [e]rror by [e]psilon, [ph]ase by [ph]i etc. Yet [e]fficiency is eta (not epsilon), maybe it's due to the [h]eat energy context. Perhaps azimu[th] by [th]eta, as in spherical coord (r, phi, theta) or maybe zeni[th]...

Not sure why density was expressed with rho or why pi for circle's L/d ... Maybe it was just a natural choice in Greek?

Of course, there is no 1:1 correspondence, it all depends on context and anyone is free to choose anything, especially where it does not need to mean anything, simply a stand-in.

So not feeling like using a,b,c or 1st, 2nd, 3rd? How about alpha, beta, gamma? Here's a handy table [2].

Btw, omicron is 15th.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_letters_used_in_mathemat...

[2]: https://www.rapidtables.com/math/symbols/greek_alphabet.html
I've heard of proof of time, proof of space, proof of authority... What other oddball mechanisms are out there?

eg. Anything like "proof of latency"?
> Essentially, VDFs take a certain amount of steps to compute and cannot be parallelized. However, the correctness of their output can be verified efficiently.

this...sounds exactly like proof of work?

Indeed, you can probably fix plutocracy with some PoW.
Billion kilo is already the same magnitude as tera (it’s kilo-> mega-> giga -> tera: 1000^3).

Did I miss something or is your comment factually incorrect?
Describing faces is like drawing. Drawing is like constructing.

If you don't notice the relationships of parts, don't break things down – you can't do it.

Don't be afraid of your dreams. They are part of you. Part of your mind, consequently brain, which is a body part.

When dreaming you can do much more than visualize. Dreaming is a different skill.

You can learn dreaming too.
> it makes me think visualization isn't real.

It is. The problem is that it's not a pixel-perfect reproduction of things on a screen. It's not a movie theater, or a computer screen.

The brain is a powerful pattern-recognition machine that gets exceedingly more complex with age and experience. So:

If you ask the person visualize a bicycle, the person will visualize an amalgamation of bicycles that roughly has two wheels, a saddle, and a handlebar. And this will differ from person to person.

A kid will vividly imagine the bicycle he/she has, or the bicycle he/she wants. Same is likely for avid cyclers. For most people it will probably be a superimposed image of many bikes they've seen over the course of their lives blurring together.

The reason is probably because recollection of details is costly, and usually not that important for our very ancient very lizard brain whose primary reaction to things is still fight or fight :)

But then if you ask a person to visualize "a yellow bycice with red tyres", the visualization will become clearer, but still fuzzy and different for different people. If you've seen such a bicycle (esp. recently), you will visualize that, with high degree of fidelity. If not, your brain will once again create an amalgamation of bicycles, and create an overlay of yellow and red that may or may not be of high fidelity (I can't imagine red tyres on a bike for some reason, but I can imagine red rims on a bike, go figure).

Kids are better at visualising and imagining things because they have fewer sources to draw from, and they don't interfere with each other.

For adults it's more like a combination of camera obscura and long exposure:

- You visualize certain details in a sea of recognizable fuzziness. Example: "vizualize a street vendor" can be something similar to this (long exposure): https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/kIDQANDGRgVD91zdzZpg...

- You visualize a regonizable pattern without specific details. Example: "visualize a passage" can be similar to this (camera obscura): https://i.shgcdn.com/dea29cf1-c27d-4f55-a029-9443222c0a0b/-/...
35% vaccination rate even with full stockpiles. A nation of fucking idiots!
The amount and quality of goods that even a working class person can afford far exceed that available to Royalty centuries ago.

All of this goes back to the fateful union of the precision boring of cylinders by Wilkinson, and the otherwise unbuildable steam engine design of Watt.
ζ and ξ are “squigma” while ς really is sigma.
> Money is fungible, whether held in highly liquid market assets or cash. As long as the government pulls in consumption (e.g. flows) that would not be transacted absent its intervention, it is creating money.

Please write more clearly and less stridently because this is very difficult to parse.

As best I can tell, you are redefining money to be anything "liquid", and then pointing out that if the government insures a bond or guarantees to repo it, for example, it becomes liquid and so total money has increased.

Well, OK, you can play definition games with your own private meaning of "money", and it's true that the term is a bit ill-defined, so more precise thinkers wouldn't speak of "money" at all, they'd speak of specific assets and liabilities (e.g. reserves, currency in circulation, deposits, etc) to avoid some interlocutor bumping in with "well akshually..."

But seeing as how I was on a public forum using commonly understood terms, I stuck with that informal language. Specifically, I was responding to a post trying to trace "where the money came from" to support an increase of ETFs, and I pointed out that it doesn't come from anywhere at all, because money is a stock and can support any flow. What matters is the return offered by the investment - if there is a good return, there will be money to fund the investment. That is true regardless of how you define money. It's a basic fact about stocks and flows.

A small stock can support a large flow and a large stock may have a small flow. The flow will be whatever it needs to be based on the return provided. So trying to trace "where the money comes from" when speaking of macro-economic investment is a goofy and unproductive thing to do.

But it's not nearly as unproductive as arguing "well akshually money is anything that is liquid and the government can make anything liquid" - as that statement adds no informational content to a discussion of ETF funding.
> Network operators don't just pass along their complete cell tower logs to the authorities

They do under a judge's order, a lot of murder cases or other heavy crime cases are solved that way.
The data is collected probably for these reasons or other emergencies.
It's possible that Israel is being more aggressive in using these measures but the ability to do this is trivial and I'm pretty sure the data is there in most countries. I don't know how much other countries use these ability though for Covid purposes though, it could be that they hold privacy as a higher value than tracking infected covid people.
It doesnt detract from your general point but I dont think any of these recommended books would qualify as very technical.

Pragmatic Programmer for example could be thought of as a very curated list of blog articles. Great book, but also not intimidating or deeply technical in that sense.
I think the biggest problem with his whole argument is when he wants to give some examples of community consensus being a problem, and gave examples from the PoW world (Bitcoin small block size decision, Ethereum bhard fork) - that to me complety destroyed his own argument that PoS is more community-dependent than PoW.
Anything with parser combinators or PEG support. I had to learn PEG parsing for a project when I was a kid, and that has been one of my most useful skills.
No, exactly the opposite of PoW mining.

Miners do not set the rules, they are merely a service that provides immutability to a ledger, with a nuclear option that will bankrupt all the billions they have invested, should they misbehave.

Large stakers can rent-seek and extract your wealth, PoS is the same system we have now, plus some code.

You are quite literally being exploited right this minute, by the same methods outlined in the article.
If electricity was an unlimited non-polluting resource, sure. But when my neighborhood mining rig coal power plant gives me cancer, it's not just a simple marketplace thing.
We're bootstrapping our SaaS, and all resources are precious. We can't build niche solutions and that's why we focus on the most popular frameworks. If we find a popular framework that is "minimalist, text-focused, animation-free, accessibility-friendly" we may consider adding it.

PS. Thanks for adding us!
What's the incentive in badly written phishing emails that look like jokes? Here it is the same, and I don't expect the quality to be much better.
ExpressBeautyOnline, Online wig collection
EXPRESS BEAUTY ONLINE has a large variety of hair and beauty products, all are national brands could be found here. We have 100% Remy Human hair extensions. 100% human hair wigs. Natural tape in hair extensions. Fusion hair, I-Tip and U-Tip Professional hair products. Eyelashes. Nyx makeup. Essie, OPI Nail Supplies and much more.
Not really, its unfair but not a scam. Can we talk about the actual scam known as layer 2 rollup chains? Optimism is completely centralized and even Vatalik is shilling it like a good thing. At least the PoS shill makes sense, it artificially benefits early adopters.
Bitcoin is not predominantly mined by a ton of individuals running an ASIC or 2. It is mined in huge warehouses, which have to go through state/federal bureaucracy for business licenses, etc etc. It would be hard to enforce a complete ban on anyone mining any Bitcoin, but the vast, vast majority of mining could be easily shut down in the US, as it was in China.
Yes. This is "your mind's eye".

This is how I went from not being aware "picture yourself on a beach" was more than a figure of speech to being able to decompose mechanisms and take measurements all in my mind.

This is exactly how you do it.

Your eyes have nothing to do with it. Your brain fakes your eyes seeing stuff for you, and it can fake other things for you if you ask it.
Friend was suckered by the exact same scam. Hers was NOT a deepfake, although I assumed it was at first. They cajoled her into making the video. She did so reluctantly, so she seemed a bit "off" in the video, but it was indeed her. She was out $300, was super embarrassed, and then completely tormented by how helpless she was in trying to recover her account.
Why Do DVDs Still Exist?
The argument he's making is, you could stake for blocks 10000-10005 and get your money back.

And then produce a big fake chain from 10,002 (in the middle of the time you were staking) -> 10,000,000 later, with an alternate history in which you didn't stop staking.

I don't think this attack is particularly realistic for a lot of reasons, but PoW does have some small amounts of additional strength against these scenarios.
People who can't draw typically don't draw what they see (or visualize). They draw symbols or icons. To draw a face, they draw a mouth, a nose and a couple of eyes. A house is a box with a door and some windows, etc. Pretty much everything they draw for the first time will be goofy, unless they can fall back on a standardized set of icons they have picked up from other drawings. They just don't have the skill to go from what they visualize to a drawing without the reduction to icons in between.
Although the paper deals with visual applications, in principle
it should be possible to extend to text and other data sources (input data is projected into numeric form ).
"A
similar setup to the CartPole experiment with extra noisy channels could enable a system that receives
thousands of noisy input channels to identify the small subset of channels with relevant information. "
This could be interesting - real time monitoring of a number of number of securities ticker symbols to hunt for a signal. Hedge funds and investment banks are buyers of data sets that often do not have any useful trading signals. A system like this might indicate point of focus for data set prep.
ANY acts differently between strict and non-strict[1]:

> The behavior of ANY is slightly different in a STRICT table versus an ordinary non-strict table. In a STRICT table, a column of type ANY always preserves the data exactly as it is received. For an ordinary non-strict table, a column of type ANY will attempt to convert strings that look like numbers into a numeric value, and if successful will store the numeric value rather than the original string.

So it has some utility in a strict table that you can't get otherwise.

[1] https://www.sqlite.org/stricttables.html#the_any_datatype
>incredible savings of not having to track and sign documents
True that. The technical debates on HN on miss the point of why people feel the need to use DocuSign. If only two parties are involved, I will print, put my signature and send the scan. This is what I will do despite having a DocuSign account.

multi party agreements and especially the ones where you are the one needing others signatures (e.g. share holder agreement) and DocuSign are a match made in the heaven. It can send reminders to parties, show you who to nudge and let you download the final version. Compare that to print and put signature workflow.
Yes, plus very expensive web hosting of published papers.

There is also peer review. But the peer reviewers typically don't get any money or even recognition for the time they invested. And that peer review happens before the paper is potentially published and then it will be in its final form.

Sites like Arxiv allow you to update your paper if there is feedback (aka post-publication peer review) which allows for a much larger audience of (constructive) critics.

Meanwhile SciHub and Arxiv host papers for free. So yes, it's pretty much only prestige that makes the difference.
how do I send a wire to DAI?
I can’t see any evidence a counter notice was filed until the EFF got involved, at which point GitHub immediately reinstated YouTube-dl.

Did GH ignore a counter notice?
It is not. At least, not in the usual environmentally destructive sense that people tend to mean by PoW. The idea behind VDFs is that they can only be computed in a single-threaded fashion, so you don't gain any benefit from computing them on giant server farms. This is the exact opposite of PoW which is designed to be computable massively in parallel. In this context, of course, not benefiting from giant server farms is good, because it means people won't wreck the environment to compute them.

The tradeoff is fundamental: because VDFs don't benefit from throwing computational resources at them, there is no disadvantage to computing a bunch of them in parallel. So if you had bad intentions from the getgo (and you had a majority of stake at the time), you could still secretly compute a fake bad chain starting at time t, and then release an alternative at time t+n that was as long or longer than the real chain; the security they provide is that if someone compromises your keys later (after you already lost your majority), they can't do this. Since in practice proof of stake chains start very centralized and then distribute over time, this is a useful practical thing to care about!

With PoW, on the other hand, computing a fake chain requires you to not use all your hashpower, which opens you up to economic attacks from someone else who is willing to use that hashpower. When someone uses more hashpower than you were, they'll be able to make a longer chain faster (before the difficulty readjusts again), so now all your secret chains have been made useless (and in cases of equal chain length, people tiebreak by hashpower, so you can't just maintain a little side network that eventually catches up when hashpower decreases, either). That's the theory, anyway: it's heavily based on economic incentives, so if some government decided that they didn't really care about the economics and just wanted to screw over chain users by pumping out hashpower, they could do so quite easily. Note that by contrast, proof of stake is not susceptible to this: you actually do have to compromise a majority of the active stakers no matter how much money you have.

Personally, I think this is a distinction without a difference because I don't think any cryptocurency can stand up to sustained attacks by large nation-states (which is part of why I don't think it's very useful). But like I said, that's an assessment of the threat model, so it's subjective and up to you to decide.
Also known as Practical EVE Re-Engineering Language?
It's likely not a deepfake. My friend fell for the exact same scam--they managed to get her to make the video herself.
To pick that, he would probably just make a pick and tensioner that has a similarly long flexible shaft.
Start with motion.

Focus on a point. Move that focus around.

Get to two points. Spread them apart, move them closer together.

Advance to tracing letters. One after the other, into a word.

Movement is key. Try reading that backwards.

And so on.

Myself, it took about six months from nothing to colored triangle.
In 95 IIRC I had a modem from work and a Win 3.11 machine. I went to a computer show with my teenage son we and decided we should try it out. A company called Demon were offering connection for a small fee. In those days (maybe now too) companies could make money from receiving phone calls so I think that provided some of the 'rent'.

We installed Trumpet Windsock and got going. Excited at first, the web, through Mosaic, was a much smaller place than it is now. Yahoo was the go to for finding stuff.

Got a free sub domain, again paid for by dialing into their numbers to update it.

Paid for a copy of Netscape.

Broadband, when we got it, was fantastic.