skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> This requires centralized RULES (ie. widely agreed-upon standards of behaviour)

yes, or even clearer: the rules for any holochain app are visible/public.

whereas today we meet in Zuck's living room and he dictates what we can speak/do, using the holochain framework (an end-to-end, open source, P2P app framework) everyone holds a copy of the rules themselves and everyone does their own computing and storage. no more black-boxing of the rules/functions. no more straightjacketed client-server relationships.

wanna set up an app with your friends where you can tweet with 500 characters instead of 240? holochain has you covered. the magic of holochain is it's inbuilt forking functionality which makes repurposing and remixing (evolving) any kind of networked app super easy.

one more example to drive this home:

"What I want is to see Uber’s technology become a protocol. Same with Airbnb, same with Postmates, same with other companies in the gig and sharing economies. Same with lots of other important technology companies, while we’re at it. Obviously this can’t happen overnight, but if the technology is useful enough to provide real value, then it’s too useful to be subjugated to the whims of profit forever. I would love to see these technology platforms either fully decentralised, or centralised in such a way that the entity running it is not-for-profit and, ideally, accountable to all stakeholders. The actual mechanisms for making this work are beyond the scope of this post, but I want to throw this idea out there and get people thinking about it, because it’s the only way of making the future work for all of us.

I suspect — and feel free to call me naive, but I don’t think I’m wrong— that the majority of people working on Uber’s technology would prefer to build a system whose social impact they could be proud of. Based on my admittedly limited sample size of people I know in the tech industry, I feel like lots of people working at companies like Uber are there because they want to solve interesting technical challenges and deploy useful innovations in the world. I believe that if given the choice, most would prefer to build a system that makes the world a fairer and more equitable place. The problem is that this choice is, for the most part, withheld from them, and whatever individual intentions they may have are inevitably co-opted by the [current economic structure] in which they make their living. By working together to counteract these prevailing systematic forces, though, they may be able to open up a space in which to envision alternatives."

-- Wendy Liu, https://medium.com/@dellsystem/dont-put-your-faith-in-uber-7...
> Do Gen Zers really think this is okay

No, we don't think this is OK. It looks ridiculous.

Remember that "textspeak" is just shorthand used to save keystrokes. I haven't seen anyone unironically use "2" instead of "to" since the days of flip phones -- on a smartphone keyboard, it's harder to type the number 2 than the word "to" because you have to switch to the numeral keyboard and then back.

Writing "u" instead of "you" is less common than it used to be, though some people still do it sometimes. But capitalizing the U is absurd -- remember, the whole point of shorthand is to save a small number of keystrokes, so you wouldn't waste keystrokes on unnecessary capitalization.

Any kind of shorthand like this looks ridiculous and out-of-place in a professional context, like a text message from a corporation. It signifies that you don't care enough to type out the whole message, which comes across as relaxed and casual between friends but as lazy and unprofessional in a form letter.

If I received a message liked this, I would immediately think it was written by some middle-aged manager who is trying to be "cool" and "relate to the kids." But a poor imitation of low-effort texting shorthand doesn't come across as "cool" at all; it's just silly and disrespectful. It gives the distinct impression that the whoever wrote the message thinks of me as "just a kid" rather than a normal, adult peer; as if I don't deserve the dignity of a normal, professional message.
So, it's like a makefile with some SQL to do ELT?
You could switch to a FreeRDP based client to avoid this, although it has had many CVEs before too.

https://www.freerdp.com/
https://github.com/FreeRDP/FreeRDP/security/advisories/
https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/source-package/f...
what intern? the same guy who created C#?
Holy shit. Click on random .cpp file. Browser hangs. O_O
pHashML: Perceptual Hash Based on ML
Ethereum Foundation had at most 6 percent of tokens, and today has less than 0.3 percent, because it liquidated the vast majority to fund various software projects that made the Ethereum network possible.
This is great. You can easily look up a definition within a definition. No more context switching when trying to find Theorem 17.23, and then Definition 2.7.
The submitted headline was "Podcast: Google's 'DeepMind' Does Mathematics" because the submitted URL was https://www.numberphile.com/videos/deep-mind-podcast.

Since the title of the article we changed it to is vague and baity, I replaced it with a representative sentence from the article body, i.e. where Williamson describes the purpose of the research.
I'll admit I had not been working on the quality of single term queries as much as I should have lately. However, especially for such simple queries, having a database of link text (inbound hyperlinks and the associated hypertest) is very, very important. And you don't get the necessary corpus of link text if you have a small index. So in this particular case the index size is, indeed, quite likely a factor.

And thank you for the elaborate breakdown. It is quite useful and very informative, and was nice of you to present.

And I'm not saying that index size is the only obstacle here. I just feel it's the biggest single issue holding Gigablast's quality back. Certainly, there are other quality issues in the algorithm and you might have touched on some there.
You are a executive, you could work really hard and find new lines of business, talk to customers and understand their needs to craft better offerings, or find another firm to form a strategic partnership with. But you won't, you'll just say "Start using 2day in the text messages, we will save 500k a year!" and move on to a new company in 18 months.
Non-interactive in this context, I think, means Alice does something and then Bob verifies it (perhaps with some piece in the middle that both Alice and Bob observe) but there is no back-and-forth, only that single one-directional flow of information.
Yes it will. As the value of an asset increases the less volatile it becomes.

Gold and the USD were very volatile assets in the beginning. Only recently has the USD become stable.

You don't need a central authority to direct the value.
They are responsible through licensing for huge number of cheap chips on the market. It really doesn't matter they don't sell it themselves. If they stop licensing it would have the same effect as if they werse selling them directly and they stopped selling.
It hasn’t been common recently, under Obama/Trump. The Biden Admin FTC seems like it’s serious about using antitrust laws to prevent the market from being too lopsided in favor of a few big players.
> (Another item on this scale: trademarks, which are entirely imbued with value by the owner’s exclusive right to use them. They are not time-limited as long as they are used because, to a first approximation, the value of “Levi’s” has nothing to do with the beauty of the word (which one could consider a limited ressource), but depends on the company’s interest in maintaining its status)

After subscribing to Disney Plus I immediately began to notice their use of a segment of Steamboat Willie in place of a static or simply animated trademark. It seems clear to me what Disney's strategy will be going forth: to get as far they can abusing so-called "motion marks" (i.e. animated trademark symbols) to re-capture as much of their expiring copyrighted content they can.

However far they get--it will likely take decades for the dust to settle after years of intensely testing the legal waters and lobbying Congress for various tweaks--I don't doubt that it will prove very effective. Trademarks can in principal provide protection in perpetuity, as you say. Motion marks let you significantly expand the scope of the mark (and art), so you can protect a broader array of merchandise as well as films--not much market for public domain copies if segments have to be removed. Plus with their army of lawyers they can widen that moat even more through sheer intimidation, so they may very well be able to squash alot of otherwise highly marketable derivative works.
What we actually have is representative democracy, where the choice is often nominal, and leaders generally come from the same class in practice (and represent the interests of that class). So the fact that people don't "vote them out" is not an indication that they don't care enough - they might care but not have the choice that would reflect it.

It is also susceptible to "don't let the other guy win!" type of propaganda, especially in FPTP electoral systems like the American one. So long as you can find enough emotional wedge issues to ensure that your base will never even contemplate voting for "the other", you can basically do whatever the hell you want.
Would you fight for your country in a war if conscripted?

I always think about this. If you were born at the wrong time, your government was essentially sending you off to die against your will at the age of 18. It's pure luck that this is not the case.

Compared to the 1 in a million risk of dying from a vaccine, I couldn't imagine what my ancestors would think of me.

Although funnily enough, many in the military and police are antivax. I really can't get my head around this one.
OP here. Here's a perceptual hash based on ML models. There's a demo at the link.
The article we are discussing is about laser and EM attacks. Anyone with a software defined radio, a directional antenna, and some skillz can mount ground-based EM hacking attempts on satellites, and there are many academic astronomical facilities with artificial star lasers which could pull off attacks to disable the imagers of spy satellites. (Note that individuals don't because this is the sort of thing that gets spooks knocking at your door.)
I dunno if y'all realise this but I'd pay for a search engine that black holes CloudFlare and any other sites that think bots shouldn't read their sites.
I was pretty skeptical on attempts to block this merger, still am tbh.
But I'm also very happy this is going to get the scrutiny it needs, both nvidia and arm are pretty vital to the tech industry right now, I can see it going either way, ARM needs better GPU patents, NV needs better SOC patents, the risk of a merger being a disaster is pretty high.
There are cases when cbz/tbz are very useful, but for loops they do not help at all.

All the ARMv8 loops need 2 instructions, i.e. 8 bytes, instead of the single compare-and-branch of RISC-V.

There are 2 ways to do simple loops in ARM, you can either use an addition that stores the flags, then a conditional branch, or you can use an addition that does not store the flags, then a CBNZ (which tests whether the loop counter is null). Both ways need a pair of instructions.

Nevertheless, ARM has an unused opcode space equal in size to the space used by CBNZ/CBZ/TBNZ/TBZ (bits 29 to 31 equal to 3 or 7 instead of 1 or 5).

In that unused opcode space, 4 pairs of compare-and-branch instructions could be encoded (3 pairs corresponding to those of RISC-V plus 1 pair of test-under-mask, corresponding to the TEST instruction of x86; each pair being for a condition and its negation).

All 4 pairs of compare-and-branch would have 14-bit offsets, like TBZ/TBNZ, i.e. a range larger than that of the RISC-V branches.

This addition to the ARM ISA would decrease the code size by 4 bytes for each 25 to 30 bytes, so a 10% to 15% improvement.
what's wrong with socialism? in the early days the internet was mostly a fully distributed communist space. the physical internet structure itself is still distributed/communist. it was the Silicon Valley venture capitalist client-server model that enclosed the web and killed it's potential (until now).

i love the Telekommunist Manifesto by Dmytri Kleiner for it's fantastic and concise material analysis of the web, specifically the chapter Peer-to-Peer Communism vs. the Client Server State: http://media.telekommunisten.net/manifesto.pdf

video version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YEzHDxn5nY
Well, Cuil had a lot of money and couldn't do it. I don't know how you quantify your assertions but I suspect that if you brought back 2005 Google it would be easily gamed and struggle to deal with social media sites where a lot of content people are looking for is now found.
Please make your substantive points without snark or swipes. We ban accounts that do the latter, because it's poisonous to the culture we're trying to develop here.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
I wonder if someone dares to say the same thing to a victim of any crime.
That's a pretty good list. I've also heard an increasing number of stories about concrete plagiarism instances with a power dynamic of, if you're established and have resources you can effectively coordinate some form of cease and desist, if you're unestablished you're in no position to stop others from using instagram as a free originality idea farm to cherry-pick from.

Very much how it feels on there for me right now. I find myself super hesitant to post artworks I'm really excited about knowing that a large percentage of my IG artist peers have essentially unlimited time / resources (don't have to work for a living... sigh) and that there isn't really a strong distinction between plagiarizing something and being influenced by something when your brain is in doomscroll mode.
I propose we stop attributing to DNS reliability problems caused by DNSSEC. It's not fair to DNS, which gets a bad rap already.

The bug here as I understand it: this hosting provider has a client whose DNS authority server DNSSEC-signs their records. That server is misconfigured.

When you look up a nonexistent record in DNS, you get a simple response back that says there aren't any matching records. Easy enough!

But you can't do that in DNSSEC, because denial "needs" to be signed. What DNSSEC does instead is essentially return a descriptor of a lexicographically ordered span of records that does exist, and doesn't include the record you were looking for. You notice that, and interpret as denial. See, simple! Oh, also, the names in those records are password-hashed, because otherwise DNSSEC would be publishing raw zone dumps to serve errors. Except those password hashes are very straightforwardly cracked. But I digress. The records carrying these spans in modern servers are called NSEC3s. Think of a tuple (start-name, stop-name, record-types).

If you asked this client's server for a nonexistent A record, you'd get an NSEC3 back that properly established the covering span of names in which A was nonexistent --- but it erroneously signaled that other record types for that span (most notably MX) were also nonexistent.†

The fun part of this bug is that it's effectively a vulnerability: an attacker can query random recursive caches for nonexistent record types to generate a cached denial records for records that do exist. Which is not something that can't go wrong in ordinary unsigned DNS! It's a vulnerability that DNSSEC adds to the DNS.

This is your periodic reminder that virtually none of the industry's largest tech companies (and concomitantly well-resourced security teams) use DNSSEC, which you can confirm quickly for yourself by running `host -t ds <domain>` and noting that they don't have DS records.

Previous (recent) thread, in which DNSSEC blew up (checks notes) all of Slack: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29378633

† (If I've got the particulars of this wrong, that makes it even funnier, since it's suggesting that it's difficult even to describe what can go wrong with DNSSEC).
Focus on early treatment. Drugs like ivermectin, hcq, fluvoxamine
If you want a Linux-capable SBC with similar cores to a recent mid-to-high-end smartphone, you need to look at the $400+ Nvidia Xavier NX or the $500+ Qualcomm RB5. Or get the $1400 Snapdragon 888 Developer Kit. Or wait til next year for the likely $1200+ Xavier Orin for something that's truly high-end.
Note that RiscV has just gotten the cryptography extension finalized.
Cost of developing what? New ISAs? Chip Designs?
That red plastic "mylar bag" isn't what should have been tested.

Red plastic == electrostatic dissipative. It is not good at conducting electricity -- it is still very good insulator. It just has ability to dissipate electric charge fast enough so that it will not accumulate in normal use.

What you have wanted to check is a clear bag with metalized layer (which is silver or gray looking). It should, per my understanding, act as much better faraday cage than an electrostatic dissipative bag. And I would be really interested in seeing that measurement.
Some of us do and have for awhile, but no one with power seems to know or care.
I just looked myself up in your search engine and I can confirm that it finds stuff old enough that google wouldn't find them (eg: and old patch I submitted on gnu savannah).

I tried looking up a game I'm interested in and the second results cluster from your search engine is a reddit thread about linux support for that game... I love this.

Great job!
Fuck it, I don’t know who made it. Shit sucks in excess, just use a little bit. The OP is using it like it’s ketchup on old McDonald’s fries. I get it, JS sucks, but your crappy JS sucks even more with drenched awful Typescript ketchup that looks like unreadable gibberish.

Nothing makes me lol more than?.a?.conditional? null check in a ‘type safe’ language. Just stop it, use C# Blazor to write your Frontends and call it a day. JS is not (your) tool for the job (because oh god, what if you don’t know a param is a string, lord have mercy, how did the web even make it this far without this type safety brilliance?).

Enough.
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit: if you didn't mean it dismissively and want to clarify that, I'd be happy to remove this comment. We unfortunately see quite a few comments along the lines of "so basically, this is just super-simple $thing and therefore this is dumb" and I interpreted yours through that lens.
In this example, I don’t think it matters if Google Ventures kept their shares or not. So long as they are treated as any other stock holder, I don’t see an issue. If they still maintain a board seat, then there might be an issue, but I don’t see a problem with simply holding shares.
Ha. We were called One Step Ahead. Sounded cool to a 17 year old me.
For the market to stay competitive, ARM must stay independent - we have enough oligopolies and monopolies already
Maybe they recognize global nature of this issue since Earth has just one Arm, and if it is damaged all people on Earth will be disadvantaged, including Americans, who, even though some of them don't recognize that, live on Earth not planet America.
"Pitch" is actually a useful rotation. Displays should be placed as far away as practical, with their top edge roughly at eye level, and tilted so that the bottom of the display is closer to the body than the top. Eyes have an easier time both focusing and converging closer in the bottom part of the field of view.

Viewers should sit up, with their backs and necks straight and plumb, and look around at different parts of the display by moving the eyes rather than tilting the head.
That's a fair point on the components themselves. But what about the plastics involved in the production of the components?

It's turtles all the way down.
> I believe that an average computer science student could come up with a better instruction set that Risc V in a single term project.

When you hear the "<person / group> could make a better <implementation> in <short time period>" - call them out. Do it. The world will not shun a better open license ISA. We even have some pretty awesome FPGA boards these days that would allow you to prototype your own ISA at home.

In terms of the market - now is an exceptionally great time to go back to the design room. It's not as if anybody will be manufacturing much during the next year with all of the fab labs unable to make existing chips to meet demand. There is a window of opportunity here.

> It is, more-or-less a watered down version of the 30 year old Alpha ISA after all. (Alpha made sense at its time, with the transistor budget available at the time.)

As I see it, lower numbers of transistors could also be a good thing. It seems blatantly obvious at this point that multi-core software is not only here to stay, but is the future. Lower numbers of transistors means squeezing more cores onto the same silicon, or implementing larger caches, etc.

I also really like the Unix philosophy of doing one simple thing well. Sure, it could have some special instruction that does exactly your use case in one cycle using all the registers, but that's not what has created such advances in general purpose computing.

> Sure, it is "clean" but just to make it clean, there was no reason to be naive.

I would much rather we build upon a conceptually clean instruction set, rather than trying to hobble together hacks on top of fundamentally flawed designs - even at the cost of performance. It's exactly these hobbled conceptual hacks that have lead to the likes of spectre and meltdown vulnerabilities, when the instruction sets become so complicate that they cannot be easily tested.
Using transformer-based technology to perform data encoding
I wonder how this standard would have been applied to past mergers?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_mergers_and_ac...
> In my estimation we are going a bit overboard demanding everyone take a novel injection

This was the same with every vaccine in the past, very few vaccines have received as much scrutiny as these, the biggest risk is the long term one and even there we have a fairly good idea of what the possibilities of materializing are.

None of these weigh up against the damage that a COVID-19 infection does.

If you think mandatory vaccination equates corruption and dictatorship then I am not sure we are on the same wavelength regarding the meaning of those terms.
You're taking extreme talking points on this and making it seem like it's the norm.

Vaccines don't stop being from transmitting, but it reduces the length of infection by about 2 days, it drastically reduces the likelihood of infection, which drastically reduces the transmission rate, and recent studies have shown that it does also reduce the likelihood of transmission directly.

Vaccinated people with breakthrough cases may end up in the ICU, but the rate of hospitalization, admittance to the ICU, and cases of death are considerably lower than those who haven't been vaccinated.

Using the extreme example, and pointing out that each argument is wrong, rather than extreme, while not discussing the facts is just another form of misinformation.
> But the f'd up part is the property-destroying riots, not the citizens trying to protect the community.

I disagree. It's all a huge mess. Armed citizens setting themselves up as effective vigilante defence forces is terrible both for the circumstances that lead there, and the action itself. It really looks like a broken society, and is something I'd expect in far less developed countries.

> Take away the 2nd, there'd be more damage

Maybe, but maybe there would be more people alive.