skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> If your blockchain is incorrect (i.e not the longest) your transactions on it are invalid

If your chain tip is on the dead side of a hard fork (i.e. if the majority of the network will predictably soon finish switching away from software which considers your chain tip valid, to software which considers your chain tip invalid), then nobody cares if your chain tip is the longest in the interrim, or how long you still hold out running the software that considers your chain tip valid. Your side of the fork no longer holds any economic value as a platform for transactions, so nobody will participate in it. You'll just be out there mining blocks all alone, blocks that say you earn all the virtual tokens, but where those tokens are worthless on your side of the fork.

It's a bit like how, in old pre *serv IRC networks, in cases of netsplits, you could end up on a partition of the network where you were the only one in a previously-moderated channel; and so you could effectively do whatever you wanted in that channel. But it didn't really matter, because nobody could hear you.
Tell HN: Goog
Please help bring this to the top.
Australia litigious? No it's not.
I wonder what the Fremen did without using steam.
The two things you recall are simple things that are only relevant when you’re bringing in a vehicle designed against different standards. When you’re making such a thing from scratch, you’ll consult with the standards documents (treating them as a checklist, to a considerable extent) and get it right from the start.
I haven’t read the article in depth, but transformer style self-attention is usually permutation equivariant, meaning that if you change the order of inputs then you get the same change in order of outputs, but the outputs themselves stay the same.

As I understand it all outputs are then added together / averaged into one vector. That should make the model ”hard” permutation invariant.
“Decentralization” has been the argument ideologues have fallen back on time and again in crypto. It’s never well defined and typically used to oppose policies that would promote low transaction fees or increased transaction throughput. It’s why things like Solana which is focused on massive scale and low fees have found a foothold. Ethereum is repeating the mistakes of Bitcoin
Scammers are having a renaissance in rebranding old schemes.
https://archive.md/UfweD
A couple Swedish public servants have called for a EU-wide ban. Sweden does not have an official stance on PoW mining.
One way of conquering FOMO is to totally write the thing off, and to stubbornly stick to that thesis.
Meanwhile NYTimes headline:

> With countries trying to close their doors to the variant, African officials note that the West’s hoarding of vaccines helped create their struggle.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/27/world/africa/coronavirus-...
Where I am all the houses sell for above asking, often before an open house. It seems hard to imagine a buyer would even have a chance to get scared off by the neighbors.
Any party with "freedom" in it will just turn into yet another libertarian cess pool. The reason so much stupid policy comes out of Australia is because we keep voting for conservative politicians because our entire economy is based on real estate and mining. It's just a backwater parochial shithole.
Nope, wholly accurate
These are arguably one of the smaller annoyances about apple when not using one myself (so, always) and they have become less relevant over the last years as sharing things via USB has become less common and I don't use dropbox or such with shared folders anymore. People who use git don't tend to check these in, when working with me at least, I make sure of that.

But it's a pretty darn good symbol for how Apple doesn't give a flying fuck about anyone's time/nerves, just dumping these on everyone without asking and letting us deal with their laziness.

Plus, Apple users then typically just rolled their eyes when I point out to them that I've now got all these files on my USB drive, thanks for nothing Apple.
"Why do you even care?"
Yeah, why do I? There's just no reason I should have to sort through these to keep them out of my systems, yet I don't want them there so no I have to, thanks apple... (this was before I got good on the terminal so it was actually quite annoying)

Bottom line: this still gets my blood boiling. Fuck apple, they're the new Microsoft in every way.
Sharing is caring: A path for security teams to exercise greater influence
I don't, it is a poor substitute for nvi, doesn't behave like the vim of old and defaults to angry fruit salad mode.

No, nvi or bust, man!
Your first statement applies to anything and everything though. If I make any decision that my junior devs aren't comfortable with, I should either do the work for them or train them up. But that's more time and/or effort, when the easier solution for both of us gets us there faster.

What programming languages abstract away all the as many details of the RDBMS as something like sqlalchemy?
Sqlite and postgres do enough things just slightly differently that I'd have to take slightly different code paths to support both. At the very least they'd both require different drivers.

In almost all instances where someone suggests that what is really needed is better software development practices, they're going to be outperformed by better tooling and people using the easier route for the most people.
That's an obvious joke.
Am I understanding this correctly; is the threat model that a block signer, some time later after liquidating their stake, can go and publish arbitrary versions of that older block?
Your first two paragraphs are spot on, your last one demonstrates clearly that Facebook posts are not a reliable source of information.

There are no concentration camps, no military round ups, and no forced medication* in Australia.

* There is no vaccine mandate per se, but some types of businesses face fines for admitting non-vaccinated people onto the premises. You might call this a de facto mandate, others have certainly made that point.
I'm not an employee, and didn't exactly get fired -- but I chose a cloud vendor for a client that seemed like the best choice at the time, with what I knew. The client was over-the-moon happy that we had found something to satisfy his needs. After switching, his costs went down dramatically, and his downtime went to zero (from rather high, which is why he brought me in). He was happy to sign a contract with the vendor

Then, about two months later, the client got into an accelerator, where they got free AWS credits. Suddenly, my choice didn't seem as good -- mostly because paying nothing is cheaper than paying something. (Never mind that the vendor I had gone with had stellar service, which was one of the reasons we chose them.)

The client told the cloud provider that I had been unauthorized to speak on the company's behalf (untrue), that no one had told him we were signing a contract (not true), and tried to wiggle out of the contract (which went nowhere). That didn't go anywhere. So he got angry with me, and canceled our consulting agreement.

As it happens, that client was simultaneously trying to figure out how to pay for taxes and pensions, and was getting rid of some other people. So it wasn't a direct cause-and-effect. But it did happen.

And this is yet another reason why I've been delighted to get out of the "regular" consulting world, and switch to only doing training.
What about delegated proof of stake?
Yes I'm sure those non-techies would happily agree that they need to be censored but we do not.
Happiness is when you finally discover and experience "counter rotation" all by yourself.
Welcome to (a large number of) cryptocurrencies in a nutshell.
I looked at this on mobile and on my first attempt had no idea what the point of this was. (Hint to others on mobile: scroll to the bottom of the search results page.)
Return YouTube Dislike - Extension
It’s because if you’re not decentralized, then you don’t need a blockchain.
I've found for down and dirty parsing, you can almost always parse simple log/structured output using operations like `split`, `substring`, `prefix`, and `suffix` where :

- `split` splits a string at an index or into substrings separated by a pattern
- `substring` takes a substring of a string for a range of indices
- `prefix` returns true if the start of the string matches a pattern, false otherwise
- `suffix` returns true if the end of the string matches a pattern, false otherwise

Python and C++ both have good standard library functions for these tasks. What's less important than a language for your parser is a language to plug the output into to make something useful.
I would love to see the same content / angle of this article re-written. I think it could be condensed to a few paragraphs perhaps, for those who already understand Proof of Work. I found myself getting stuck in the analogies (infinite lottery tickets) and not being able to make progress. But I'm interested in the pros/cons of PoW vs PoS if you have recommendations.
Isn’t it more likely that memory isn’t perfect? I can picture a bike in my head. I can rotate it, crush it with a giant boulder, splash it with paint etc. Those are very visual things in my head. But do I remember the exact configuration of spokes on my own bike? Not really.
They came down hard on a defamatory tweet this week https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-24/peter-dutton-wins-def...
Another commenter provided a link that I should have[1]. My point is not about drawing ability but that having access to pictures dramatically changes the kind of things people draw.

Unless you're a bike mechanic, or unusually attentive, you probably don't really know what a bike looks like or how it works. You have some of the basic ideas but not enough to wire it together. So, when people draw a bicycle from memory what they draw doesn't really make sense from a mechanical perspective. The bikes they draw couldn't work. It's not about being good or bad at drawing, it's a question of "are you poorly drawing a workable bike, or are you poorly drawing a nonsense contraption?"

If you could visualize a bike then you'd be drawing a poorly drawn bike that was fundamentally correct. As you cannot you just draw the same abstractions that I might. e.g. I know there are handlebars, pedals, wheels, connected together by metal poles. The fact that your drawing would be very different if you had a photo of the bike in front of you when you were drawing, no matter the objective quality, tells me that you probably don't have a picture of the bike available to you in your mind.

Regarding your one eyed friend, the solution is pretty simple. Demonstrate what you can do with binocular vision that he cannot with ocular vision. I assume you could estimate distances better, throw more accurately, similarly describe three-d visuals as someone else, etc. If you couldn't actually do anything to differentiate your binocular vision from your friend's vision then I'd say he has a point.

Same argument applies to aphantasia. If phantasia people really do have a mind's eye, I'd expect them to have some ability that aphantasia people lack. As is, I doubt that it's a real phenomenon.

1 - https://www.booooooom.com/2016/05/09/bicycles-built-based-on...
My point was about how well can a society work when there is mutual trust between leadership and followers, not about solving a problem efficiently. Although I did go off the subject with the anecdote.

What is your take on handling the Covid crisis in Europe?
My wife has aphantasia. She knows she has aphantasia. It isn’t that she gets no visuals in her head at all. It sometimes happen on their own. But she does not know how to voluntarily do it. So she knows that other people are capable of visualizing even if she cannot.

When I was a kid, in order to procrastinate school work, I would vividly visualize things. Sometimes, they were simulations. Others were of abstract geometries in which I practiced rotating or inverting.

I lost much ability in my 20s though I was still able to manipulate things in a visual-spatial way without actually “seeing” it. It started came back after working with visionary plant medicines. These days, I noticed that it has steadily getting stronger.

Just so you know, that test you have not only fails to test for people who can visualize, it also fails to test for people who have aphantasia. Ed Cartmull, co-founder of Pixar has aphantasia. They had a discussion, and it turns out there is a small population of Pixar artist who have aphantasia. They can’t visualize, but they can work out a bicycle on paper.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-47830256
You are even more optimistic than their own whitepaper:

>we anticipate the NBA will not be favorable to giving majority ownership to any faceless DAO/corporation in the near or medium term regardless of $$ offer.
Australia to force platforms revealing user identity or pay fines, a Tor ban?
Terra (YC W21) Is Hiring for Graduate Software Engineers in London
Maybe this the best place to ask this.
Unfortunately I've ended up supporting application and not actually coding so during interviews I can't get past technical parts. I feel very embarrassed by my lack of technical abilities. Anyone else had this issue? How did you rise above it?
I prefer "Write tests. Not too many. Mostly integration." - Guillermo Rauch.
I got a new vision prescription a few months ago. Strongest lenses I’ve ever had. They were terrible… everything was crystal-clear, but I couldn’t read my phone. When I went back for the checkup, the practice’s other optometrist droppedblthe prescription by .5 diopter in each eye, and gave the term “intermediate range” for a prescription that’s good enough to read a computer and drive, but which does not correct your vision to 20/20 at 100 yards.

The second prescription was still too strong. I ended up mail ordering contacts with my old glasses’ prescription.
The Bitcoin Core client includes a hardcoded list of DNS servers that point to thousands of nodes. These lists get updated frequently by different people. Other clients may use other lists. What is the threat model you're suggesting here, exactly? Do you know any other way to bootstrap a peer to peer network without centralised authorities?

All network participants are forced to verify the full chain from genesis. Some might be OK with validating block header signatures only, and not the full transaction set. It's a tradeoff.

You don't need to use those public key servers if you somehow distrust the CA certificates in your OS. Feel free to contact the repository maintainers or whatever else floats your boat.

Anyway, bitcoin is an open source protocol, not a particular client implementation. If you distrust everything and everyone, no one can stop you from building your own client that works with the rest of the network.
Has anyone raised on a SAFE after doing a priced round?
SAFEs are becoming more and more common for early staged startups in my country (NZ), for good reasons of course. However, our startup has raised multiple small priced rounds and our investors have pre-emptive rights on new share issues. It's super confusing how pre-emptive rights apply to SAFE notes if investors don't waive their pre-emptive rights. I can't find any examples online explaining how pre-emptives are applied to SAFEs. Would love to hear about anyones experience in this area :)
"The majority of the article frames distributed consensus mechanisms in an extremely sophomoric understanding of asset value and the PoW security model"

This is one of those sentences that reads like it is saying a lot but might actually be nonsensical. Care to elaborate on this? i.e how exactly does the article 'frames distributed consensus mechanisms in an understanding of asset value'.

I read the article and I didn't see anything about asset value (whatever that is). As far as I can tell they point out that the article you cited pretty much agrees with what they're saying (about PoS by itself not being self-certifiable or irreversible) but disagree with the position that this can be acceptable in the real world. Whether you agree with that is subjective but the main criticism in the article seems to be directed at those who selling PoS as a sufficient distributed consensus algorithm to replace of PoW. There are blockchain projects raising literally Billions of dollars on this false guarantee so it is valid to criticize them.
Sci-Hub restrictions duration extended by Indian court
"the issue" refers to the audio latency of speakers, I assume? If not, please elaborate; my understanding of the matter in practical/human terms is fairly fuzzy due to most of this being very domain-specific knowledge I haven't been in the right places for.

Oh, I know USB-attached-SCSI (the good USB3 storage protocol) is nice in latency due to actually exploiting the dedicated TX/RX lanes for latency benefits. It just shoves command packets towards the drive, and receives response packets when the drive has them ready.

However, USB still has comparatively severe driver overhead due to the MMIO-level protocols, to a similar (but iirc worse) extend as AHCI (with NVMe being the better replacement).
The gold standard was decentralized. Over a century of monetary policy has shown that decentralization isn't aligned with political or economic goals.
Thanks. It might include more than I expected, but still "exchange-traded and long-only funds" would be missing anything that's not considered a fund, like individual stocks, that are still nonetheless in my mind part of "Stocks" in aggregate. Maybe they account for this, maybe not, it's really hard to understand without real sources in the article. All it really says it is some BofA report without any link to it.
How to Setup GPS Module with Raspberry Pi
Because providing this information to the consumer would be much easier to implement, face much less resistance and have an arguably greater effect (if there's a law saying that every washing machine must last at least 5 years, for example, that doesn't incentivise manufacturers to make something that lasts for 20).

Also, to be honest, it just seems "neater" mathematically/economic to not set hard borders anywhere.
As far as I can tell, they're collecting cellular data on all of us constantly and when someone tests positive, they match that cell to all those who were in its vacinity during the past x days. I.e., this is more of a 'flipping a switch' for a cell model (hoping that a switch exists...).

Once you're cell is matched, you get an SMS stating the fact and that you should self quarantine (pending time or tests, not sure). Someone might check up on you to make sure you're quarantining and if police check your details when walking outside they'll issue a 5000nis fine.
I think he meant whole systems. M1 Pro comes with 256bit bus (2 custom LPDDR5 chips) and 200 GB/s, M1 Max with 512 (4 custom LPDDR5 chips) and 400 GB/s. M1 is 128bit bus (2 custom LPDDR4 chips) and 60 GB/s?

400/60 = ~6
What is your source according to which Christmas lights and porn use more energy than bitcoin? I fear you may seriously underestimate the energy usage of bitcoin.

Even clothes dryer seem to be using less energy than Bitcoin. If you run the dryer for an hour each week, you're at 12-15kWh per month, which is 1-2% of your average household energy usage in the US, Canada or the EU. Now households at most around a third of the electricity in cold countries with a decent amount of electric heating for which dryers are much less, but let's run with it. That still sets the upper bound to 0.6%, which incidentally is the same as bitcoin.
> The difference in Proof of Stake is a lawsuit could force the distributor of the software to change the hash to one where coins weren’t stolen.

In Proof of Work, a lawsuit could force the distributor of the software to hard-code a transaction that reverses the coin theft. But in both the PoS case and the PoW case, anyone using that client would be partitioned off from the honest network majority.

> You mention “POW forks”, but Bitcoin’s POW has never been hard forked: you’d need to trust a Bitcoin expert to tell you if it was a good idea.

Bitcoin's PoW forked in 2013, when a database upgrade to the software made it incompatible between two recent versions. The Bitcoin developers had to jump in and tell people which PoW fork to follow and which one to abandon.
those bits on the net will sure come in handy when it goes to trial in "global court".
The problem with "single issue" parties is there's a whole range of other matters we also need representation on and they abstain from voting on those (or just vote with the government) so you lose your local representation.

An example from the bullet train party:

What are your other policies?

− Getting a Bullet Train for Canberra is our policy

− We aren’t trying to form government and run the whole show

https://the-riotact.com/meet-the-bullet-trainers/84110
No, SDD is a lot of the total transaction volume. Everyone has a mortgage, phone plan, energy contract etc. and that is all SDD.

iDeal is of course the default for webshops, it’s big too.

But the 90% I referred to are “person to person” payments.
Everyone thinks the other side is bots and trolls. This is necessary to nominally believe in democracy but also think you should always get your way. Easy if you are always in the majority and the other side only looks like it has support because of "bots and trolls."
that's just worse, but not in ways that really interact with the thrust of the article
https://archive.md/k9YXj
> The difference in Proof of Stake is a lawsuit could force the distributor of the software to change the hash to one where coins weren’t stolen.

And with proof of work a lawsuit could force the distributor to change the consensus rule so that a particular transaction is invalid - just as Ethereum did voluntarily with the original DAO.

> You mention “POW forks”, but Bitcoin’s POW has never been hard forked

Instead it’s been soft forked, which turns the consensus rules into a popularity contest. If a soft fork produces two competing branches of the blockchain, old clients will go with whichever branch has more mining power. Which means you open yourself up to interesting attacks like convincing 51% to literally steal the funds of the other 49% (which is much worse than a mere double spend). Or, more realistically, in the case of a contentious soft fork that ends up roughly fifty-fifty, you could ‘just’ end up on a different side of the fork from the people you want to transact with. Either way, soft forks don’t make the downsides of policy changes go away.
My visualization as a kid was more vivid than they are now.

Lately, since I had been taking Lion’s Mane as a supplement, my visualizations and visual experience has been slowly regaining in clarity, stability, and fidelity.
> There are no concentration camps, no military round ups

Yes there are, not a troll, straight from the horse's mouth so to speak. https://youtu.be/vQok3GMMSAI

> and no forced medication* in Australia.

That part is true but I never said there were yet. I said clueless information walled gardens were constantly advocating for them with very little push back exactly because they're in walled gardens where that is the narrative they want pushed.

> There is no vaccine mandate per se, but some types of businesses face fines for admitting non-vaccinated people onto the premises. You might call this a de facto mandate, others have certainly made that point.

I do think it is to an extent. But there's definitely a gap between that and forcibly injecting people against their will, and that is what I was seeing many posts advocating for along with those military round ups and concentration camps that are already facts on the ground and are only being varnished with more PR friendly labels just like they were in every single deployment in history.