skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I read it as “total opposite” and unless the GP has found a way of rewriting both my memory and bypassing HNs automatic hard limit of a 2 hour edit window, I’d say the error is yours.

Plus total collapse doesn’t even make sense given the context of post whereas total opposite does. So that alone should have prompted you to re-read their post.
Correct. Library genesis itself (see https://libgen.rs/ or https://libgen.fun/) is run by volunteers on a strictly non-commercial basis and does not charge for access or accounts.
> a couple Swedish public servants

- Director General at the Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority

- Director General at the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency

I’m not sure who you think is more qualified to have a stance that represents Sweden?
This is sort of off topic.

>users who post defamatory comments

Wouldn't that be more like Twitter Mob. Does the word "Troll" means something different in Australia, or is it the headline written by Reuter using the word "Troll" differently to what I understand, or does "Troll" means something differently in the US given Reuter is an US media. Just what is "Trolls"?
On Cagots:

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29362391

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15390951
Regarding time and timezones, it's best to not prematurely optimise. Ideally store both. It's much more valuable to track the timezone from your source then to have to worry about it later. ISO8601 is the universal standard.

A case where you see this issue play out is the horrible Strava-*device sync. You track in a different timezone and they store+visualise activities against some weird client-side profile setting, which causes morning runs to render at 11pm. Only adding timezone later on. They totally mess this up.
> Technically hard isn't the only kind of hard
Yup that just about sums it up. The reason FAANG are so big is mainly legality, as well as PR, and having a big pocket to wait out the competitions. Nothing is really on technical merit in the real world.
Ask HN: Questions about Crypto.com's “On-Chain Market Sizing” Methodology
Hi y'all,

I recently read Crypto.com's original "On-Chain Market Sizing" publication [1] and I have a question about the methodology.

In order to determine the number of wallet-holders on the Bitcoin blockchain, they count the number of deposit addresses connected to various exchanges:

Most exchanges use an architecture called “deposit sweeping” to
handle crypto deposit inflows. By counting the deposit addresses via
on-chain data, we can approximate the number of users for that
exchange.

However, I did not think that each exchange would use a single deposit address for each user. In the past when I have deposited funds in some exchanges I would get a different address each time. Therefore, wouldn't this mean that rather than counting the number of users, this method is more likely counting the number of deposits? Since each user may have several deposits with a single exchange, this may be inflating the projected count of users by anywhere from 2 to 100+ times, depending on the average number of deposits made per user per exchange.

The methodology doesn't make any attempt to correct for this, and actually goes on to further inflate this value by scaling it by the inverse of the 'deposit rate', calculated from one of Crypto.com's surveys:

By assuming that the number of users on an exchange approximately
equals to the number of exchange addresses, we can state our first
formula [Formula 1]
However, on-chain addresses will only appear once people have
performed a deposit / withdrawal action, to account for the fact that
some people have never deposited into / withdrawn from the
exchange.
To estimate the true number of exchange users, we need to further
scale up the number in formula (1): it should be divided by the ratio
that people have deposited into an exchange.
We calculated the deposit ratio by blended metrics from our internal
data, survey data and industry benchmark.

This assumption that "the number of users on an exchange approximately equals to the number of exchange addresses" feels like a very strong assumption to me, doesn't align with my own experience of using exchanges, and can potentially skew the results by an order of magnitude!

Can someone with a better understanding of the different exchanges included in this report, and the 'deposit sweeping' methods and wallet structures used by these exchanges, provide their take on this assumption and the potential for error here?

[1] https://crypto.com/research/article?category=data&page=on-chain-market-sizing

Thanks!
The more complex is the math, the more opportunities to screw up, or should we say, optimizations.

VDFs are far too new, at best bleeding edge research, nobody is going to gamble serious money on the robustness of such new constructions.

You would need unanimous agreement from the entire cryptology field.

However, yes, there are some workshops on quantum and implications for mining, and some other fanciful stuff that are also just research at this point.

The current setup of PoW relies on rather well understood, battle hardened primitives, that have been in actual usage under adversarial conditions for decades.

Do you think any major central bank will hold any asset that's secured by a paper written last year?
> not the people actually running energy companies

I’m not sure if the people making the most money from crypto-mining’s energy usage, are to be believed?
The average person prefers passwords to key files?

The average user isn't even aware of the potential option of the key file.

I think the popularity of password managers shows that users preferences are opposite to what you say. The user wants the machine to store the secrets rather than memorize and type them.

Recovery mechanisms is a separate issue from whether you use passwords or key files.
You can already digitally sign documents in LibreOffice (including "qualified electronic signatures" issued by European countries). I would be surprised if you can't do it in Microsoft Office too.

However, qualified electronic signatures are harder to manage than what eIDAS simply calls "electronic signatures" (i.e. anything you put your name on): DocuSign value-add is a third-party to record an audit trail (time and date, IP address, assurance signatory has access to a particular email address...), basically, someone with no interest in misrepresenting facts about signatories to a document.

There's a lot of legislation around this too, and that can be costly.
Sorry again world.
Everyone should also consider that our current PM in Australia is going into a terminal death spiral with his government. I wouldn't expect this to get out through parliament too quick if at all.

It's best seen through a lens of a lazy right wing government that's been out led by every state leader for the last two years. They are just looking for a good headline.

If it does get legislated, then I REALLY hope that social media companies just abandon Australia and lock us out. It may just be the best unintended consequence ever.
The one thing that I find is not helpful, is the “litmus test” approach.

i.e. “You are a bad programmer/engineer/scientist/person, because you did not read this book, or know this technique.” Thing.

I see this frequently. As a [mostly] self-taught software developer, I’ve been on the receiving end of a lot of this behavior.

In my case, I have a real “Oh yeah? I’ll show you!” streak. I became expert at stuff, simply because some e-bully told me I was bad at it (because they were the only ones fit to judge others).

Not everyone has that kind of stubbornness. I suspect that a hell of a lot of truly gifted folks never realized their passions, and that our industry has been robbed of significant talent, as a result.

Maybe I’m looking at the past with rose-colored glasses, or I was fortunate to run into the people I did, but I don’t recall encountering a lot of this behavior, when I was getting started. I needed a lot of help and nurturing, when I was younger, until I reached the confidence level required to have an “Oh yeah?” response. I’m grateful that I got it.

"A new idea is delicate. It can be killed by a sneer or a yawn; it can be stabbed to death by a joke or worried to death by a frown on the right person's brow."
-Charles Browder
A bit late but a coffee-loving tea drinker here who's struggled to buy a water kettle for their mother and found it completely exasperating.

Part of the problem too is fraud and its downstream effects on purchasing decisions.

I haven't bought a new kettle in about 12 years. Ours at the time was about 70 USD and now costs 250. In that time I've noticed counterfeits of our kettle become a problem everywhere.

A kettle is a simple thing. My wife's kettle she got for a tiny amount somewhere before it rusted out after years.

The first kettle we recently purchased for my mom, a well respected brand, rusted profusely within two weeks.

If you read reviews of kettles, they're filled with comments about them falling apart, rusting, the enamel chipping and the the steel rusting, and so forth and so on.

I doubt the company making this recent kettle wanted this spec; it probably is being produced under spec fraudulently.

What happens is, you buy an expensive kettle, and its a fraud, either because it's a knockoff, or because it's authentic but the actual production models are different from bidding prototypes. So now you're out the same as if you bought a cheap one. Is buying more expensive worth it?

After awhile it becomes pervasive because it's everywhere. It's hard to separate signal from noise in purchasing.

I completely agree about problems in the race to the cheapest, but sometimes I think even when the consumer is willing to pay a bit more for higher quality, if you can't discriminate anymore because of fraud it becomes rational to save your money.

(FWIW, we returned the kettle and got an even more expensive one — we'll see how this one goes.)
Love the people who downvoted me who optimistically think a 2 man corporate web dev team would have the bandwidth to push OS patches through too.

Hilarious stuff.

Edit: and getting flagged for pointing out how ridiculous these idiots are too. Fanboys must be out in force this weekend.
Show HN: Headless CMS for Small Projects
> (though I have no idea if that's his only gig).

Pretty sure it's not. From what I've gathered, watching his videos, he's also doing consulting/training for companies on physical security.
Yep, isn't it great to get slashed for being DDoSed?

Amazing breakthrough, realy. Now ddos blackmail can be actually measured in money.

At least you could point to avalanche or something else that's better constructed. Eth is a dinosaur at this point, albeit with the fattest treasury.
I actually find the opposite.

Many books belabor the point and take a chapter to explain what a paragraph could.

It might sometimes be useful - for example, to explain a scenario to a newbie who can't relate from their own experience - but for someone who's been in the industry for a while, most of that information is just not useful.
If you look deeper it’s easy to find research that supports either point of view. And really, it’s not convincing to see articles showing basically no effect and articles showing 100% effect being included in meta studies that conclude 50% effect.

Just as the article you quote, it doesn’t actually study the effect of some specified type of masks on the spread of covid, it states ‘the consensus is that covid spreads this way and the masks help against that kind of spread’.

Sorry, but if it really is that clear why doesn’t it consistently show in practice?
> Git itself decentralizes source control, and yet we all want to use single-point-of-failure Github.

This is pretty much why many organizations out there, as well as i personally for my homelab use self-hosted GitLab instances: https://about.gitlab.com/

Though in practice there are a lot of other options out there, like Gitea (https://gitea.com/) and GitBucket (https://gitbucket.github.io/), though maybe less so for alternative source control systems (e.g. SVN has been all forgotten, however that's a personal pet peeve).

Not only that, but i also utilize my own Sonatype Nexus (https://www.sonatype.com/products/repository-oss?topnav=true) instances to great success: for doing everything from mirroring container images that i need from DockerHub (e.g. due to their proposed removal policies for old images and already adopted rate limits), to mirroring Maven/npm/NuGet/pip/Ruby and other dependencies, so i don't have to connect to things on the Internet whenever i want to do a new build.

That not only improves resiliency against things on the Internet going down (apart from situations where i need something new and it's not yet cached), but also improves performance a lot in practice, when only the company servers need to be hit, or my own personal servers in the data center for my cloud hosted stuff, or my own personal servers in my homelab for my own stuff.

Admittedly, all of that takes a bit of setup, especially if you happen to expose anything to the web in a zero trust fashion (permissible for my own stuff, as long as i'm okay with manually managing CVEs just to probably get hacked in the end anyways, but definitely not something that any corporation with an internal network would want to do), but in my eyes that's still worth the effort, if you value being in control of your own software stack and the ecosystem around it.

It's probably much less worth it, if you don't see that as a benefit and don't want to be the one responsible for whatever project you're working on getting hacked, e.g. if you'd fail to patch out the recent GitLab CVE where exiftools could execute arbitrary code, which is probably the case if you don't have the resources to constantly throw at maintenance, in comparison to companies with 100x - 1000x more resources than you have for that sort of stuff.
Time to watch this one

“Locksmith says my videos are BS… Loses $75 (Maybe)”

https://youtu.be/NSuaUok-wTY

Also if you actually watch this keynote half the problem isn’t locks you can actually pick but stuff you can just open with very basic tools that don’t even require the skill he has. Like combs, rakes, hammers, slithers of metal, etc.
No mention of function points.
You are going to extraordinary lengths to insist an internal mental phenomenon you don’t experiment doesn’t exist. Your argument is basically: I don’t experience it and everyone else is too stupid to actually be able to do it. So weird.
and every other PoS chain that relies on USDC and major exchanges.

So probably more than 1 guy. maybe 5-10.
Reaqtor – Reliable Rx at Scale for High-Performance Event Processing [video]
I am good at drawing, but only for things that are in front of me. Issue, is I can recognize face in split second, but I cannot recollect face. And, as I cannot recollect I cannot describe, if I say let say friend John, what I get is just abstraction of John, void blob. Someone already mentioned - imagine there is hash function, so once someone uses his password (face) I exactly know who is the person, but if you say persons name, nothing comes back, even remembering what he said, how he behaved or else, will not give me picture of person so I can use it from memory do describe and give distinctive features except he has two ears, nose, two eyes, maybe glasses, is bald... issue is you could explain same way most of the people.
Of course we need to know origin of virus. Man made virus is bioweapon. No matter if you think it is conspiracy theory or not. We need proofs and transparency both on virus origin and vaccine development.
I think because you somewhat misunderstood the point of the keynote at this security conference. Giving advice about how to buy better locks is either going to be too basic or too lengthy & detail oriented for a presentation of this kind, meant to promote the practice of picking and give historical context. (And entertain.)
No idea why you’re getting downvoted.

Search, language server engines, even code reformatting, all the stuff that really separates VSC is an external executable and thus not part of Electron.

If any of these fanboys spent even 5 minutes looking at the config of VSC (never mind the source) they’d see just how many references to other binaries there are.
Finally someone actually mentioning the code. In PoS "trust" must exist along several points in time before you can engage with the system - and the most notable point being trusting that the rules (written in the code) are of your desire.

With PoW you don't care about the software code. The rules are dominated by the PoW because it literally proves to you which is the chain where most people are interested in, because literally no single entity could burn that much electricity.

With PoS on the other hand you kind of need these checkpoints in the actual software and then you have to activate this entire new trust model where you have to trust the client code, and where it came from etc. I could literally come up with an entire fake chain on my computer and present it to you and without client-checkpoints there would be no way for you to not accept my chain compared to your current one.

With PoW I don't have to trust anything. If the majority next year decides to change the rules, so be it. The majority has spoken.
It's literally an implementation of a Kafkaesque judge that can never be reasoned with, will never explain itself beyond pointing to the rules and can never be overruled.

Why this is supposed to be a good thing is never explained.
That's a problem with our laws.

Copyright should just be a contract between seller and buyer.
You promise not to redistribute this.
If you didn't buy something, you have no contract with the seller and you can be free to download whatever you want or build whatever software or service you want.

The onus of finding who is the buyer breaking the contract and dragging them to court is on the seller.

We shouldn't have things like DMCA which allow you to censor anything tangentially related or being able to scare people off, but that's what you get when you have a corrupted government that does the bidding of Big Business.

Similarly, patents shouldn't be a thing.

You came up with something, you already have first mover advantage.
If someone comes along and does the same thing better, too bad, they were better than you.
If you have a manufacturing secret, protect it with contracts and sue for damage if they get broken.
The copyright laws need an update so authors are not kept hostage to journals. The amount of work and (almost no) money corporations put into running scientific journals is not proportionate to the power they get.

Also the Antitrust Division of DOJ and the Bureau of Competition of the FTC should look into this. These companies do misuse the monopoly position and even collude and synchronise their actions.

Authors have to publish in current journals, do not get paid and then are not allowed or limited in sharing their work.
Gasp! Billionaires! And they have their own website which people can post links to! Gasp again!

Those dastardly billionaires with their media websites.

If only I had known this website was run by evil billionaires I could have found some other website to read links people post about tech stuff.
Project website: https://reaqtive.net/

Github repository: https://github.com/reaqtive/reaqtor

I personally found their text documentation too vague and abstract, their website is especially difficult to understand. But the video and their demos are interesting to dig into and easier to grasp.
I think the issue is that there would be insufficient audio sources to generate new spoken language.
> The only way to get an objective answer is by writing benchmarks, so here they are. The results will be highly dependent on your specific system, so I would recommend simply running those benchmarks yourself if you’re curious. However, I’ll share my findings from running these on my ext4 XPS 17 and an APFS Macbook.

He says exactly that right there in the article.
A friend of a friend went through this a while ago and I was called on to help. Insta was totally taken over and so I made her start going through the linked gmail account because there should be a message in there from insta about the details changes. Nope. You use the same password, don’t you. Yup.

So it’s - access insta, change email, phone and password. Access gmail, delete notifications from Instagram, profit.

In her case she had about 60k followers. They sent random emails the moment she tried to do a password reset, so they obviously back the email onto an automated random service.

The fact the insta even allows changing all of those details in quick succession is one thing. The impossibility of contacting them next is another. Took a few days but they eventually flipped the account back to her with about as little fanfare as taking it away.
I'm trying to understand the central technical argument being made here. Please tell me if I got this right.

---

Somebody has a stake in a PoS crypto currency. They can now do two things: 1) sell their stake 2) sign something fraudulent (like a double spend).

Since there is no decentralized timestamp service, a node validating those two actions doesn't know how to order them, so different validating nodes come to different conclusions, and no global consensus is reached.

---

Is that what the article is trying to say?

And if yes, isn't the solution fairly easy? Within the same "chain link" of the block chain, require each action singed by the same private key to have a strictly monotonic sequence number, and if two actions appear with the same sequence number, discard both these two and all actions signed by that private key.
This is one of the things that's still useful about agents. They want to keep doing deals with each other, so the selling agent is motivated to pass on information like this.
One reason is perhaps because the dislike button is used to show political discontent. Just look at any whitehouse.gov youtube video, which clearly get brigaded with dislikes (or perhaps people really aren't that enamored with their politicians...)

This extension works flawlessly.
I was only saying that tracking adjacent cellphones to find possible Covid carriers is low-tech. It's something that has been done since the 90s and Israel is definitely not some pioneer in the field. And it has not much to do with terrorism.
The 20 best gadgets of 2021
The academic world is too entrenched in the established order, and while many inside it would agree with you, the incentive structures in place often work against individual action like this because the first priority is usually publishing in high impact-factor journals, open access second.

Despite some laudable efforts, academia as a collective has proven themselves incapable of fighting the publishing cartels. As a result, it's turned out that the only viable pathway to true open access is large-scale civil disobedience on the part of sci-hub and its users.

This is a very interesting case to watch though as it could finally provide a legal basis on which sci-hub can operate, even if only in India.
It's interesting to see a new generational take on lucid dreaming. For me, it was always more exploratory -- discovering the power of the human brain to construct reality out of nothing. There was no desire to play out an entirely scripted event.
I would probably (mentally) look down on the locksmith if he/she just going to drill it out without trying anything else first. I own a power drill too and I know how to use it to break a lock myself with zero knowledge on how lock works (for some weak locks, even a flat head screwdriver is enough to get it done).

On the other hand, if the locksmith clicked my lock out in just 30 seconds, I would probably ask him/her to sell me a better (and sometimes more expensive) lock based on his/her professional opinion.