skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
In C99, the modulo operator is defined thusly: “If the quotient a/b is representable, the expression (a/b)*b + a%b shall equal a”

Source: The draft C99 standard http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1256.pdf PDF page 94, physical page 82.

Yes, as someone who both gets open source bug reports and has sent out open source bug reports, what determines whether a behavior being looked at is a bug depends on what the relevant standards say.
It’s definitely a soft skill, but roughly for me it’s:
- assumes good faith
- doesn’t attempt to control others
- doesn’t show disdain of their out group

Obviously knowing somebody personally makes this much easier.
Economics and foreign policy are two areas where the fact checkers are most often cloaking ideology as facts. These are two massive and hugely important political areas though, so I think it's pretty widespread.

Comments about political leaders, especially if the leader is aligned with the fact checking group, are also suspect. But leaders are huge often huge bullshit artists, so the fact checkers are also often absolutely right.
What is happening --and will continue to happen world-wide-- is that the unscientific madness that "save the planet" and "fight climate change" have become are starting to collide with physics and reality.

Take electric vehicles as an example. I don't know of a single nation that will not have to more than double energy production capacity in order to fully convert all vehicles to electric power and abandon fossil fuels. This isn't conjecture, the need for massive amounts of additional energy is a matter of simple physics calculations anyone with basic high school math and physics can follow.

The US alone will need somewhere in the range of 900 to 1400 GW to go fully electric. For context, that's equivalent to over a thousand new 1 GW class nuclear power plants.

As for saving the planet. Well, we can't. There's nothing whatsoever we can do to materially modify the CO2 curve within any reasonable human time scale. This is a planetary scale effect that requires tens of thousands of years to achieve somewhere close to a 100 ppm reduction in atmospheric CO2 concentration. In this context, CO2 taxes are beyond useless. They are ridiculous. They do absolutely nothing other than cause economic harm.

And yet, given these realities, people support truly dumb ideas, like shutting down nuclear power plants (or not building lots more of them) as well as other silly stuff that can never and will never pass basic physics analysis.

Sadly, it's an "emperor has no clothes" scenario that might just take a massive failure before people and politicians finally understand they are making the wrong decisions.

I have devoted a non trivial amount of time going deep into these topics in order to be able to separate fact from fiction. I discuss the topic and provide data when the opportunity arises. I just don't know what to do any more.

When it comes to this topic, scientists are in fear of swimming against the currents created by politicians, zealots and the indoctrinated. And people allow themselves to be swept into the madness generated as a result. Some of what you see out there is virtually indistinguishable from a cult. A perfect example of this being what they did to Greta Thunberg, an innocent girl indoctrinated to use her for a cause without caring one bit that she was made to live in real fear because she was made to believe the end of the world is approaching within her lifetime. Shameful. Criminal.

We have somehow managed to replace reason with delusion.
So only 22 years ago :)

Are C programmers still using C89 and C90?
>>I would joke that I had a disease

Ha!I just say that I'm a bit crazy! For whatever reason I decided to build a physics engine from scratch, along with the game engine (not done yet). Not really sure why other than a really bad itch that I just had to scratch.
Yes but it seems a bit perverse to do this for an Open Source project.
> Back when cell minutes were expensive what Germany has made sense. Today nearly everyone in the US has unlimited voice minutes (in and out) and nobody worries about how long they talk to each other.

The thing is, the "flatrates" aren't flatrates under the hood. The providers still pay fees per minute to each other, they're just fractions of a cent now - but at a scale of hundreds of thousands of minutes a month, a robocall outfit can still generate five to six figures of revenue for the phone networks.
I was reading Crafting Interpreters about a month ago and thought of writing a fizzbuzz in the language taught in the book. The language doesn't have a mod operator so I wrote function for that. I tried testing it against python's mod, but it didn't match where different signs were involved. I thought operands should be treated as absolute values and the resulted be negated when two different signs are involved. Then I found that python did it differently from something like C.
What's your favorite PTT mic? I'm always on the lookout for great device recommendations!
Centralization of power and money is not a technical problem, and does not have a technical solution. Period.
ICANN is Blocking 23 gTLD transfers over blockchain fears
That's not what the article says. The article says, "cloth masks did reduce the overall likelihood of experiencing symptoms of respiratory illness during the study period"

The part about statistical significance says, "Although there were also fewer COVID-19 cases in villages with cloth masks as compared to control villages, the difference was not statistically significant."
One key difference I see is that web 2.0 kind of just emerged and we looked around ourselves and said "Hey, this is different. It's basically version 2 of the web, web 2.0". It happened, and we observed it, and gave it a name, which was then hyped and buzzworded.

Web3 seems to be going in the other direction: people have a vision for what the next paradigm shift might be, gave it a name, and are pushing it forward but it's not quite here yet. It might not get here, and if it does it might not be in the form that proponents are hoping for. Magic 8-ball says "situation hazy, ask again later"

If we do get a newly decentralized Web3, I suspect the pendulum may then ultimately swing back yet again to centralization with Web4, and so on. So it goes.
It's hard to tell from Wikipedia what the 6th-grade reading level is and how its measured. Google points me to Flesch Reading Ease. Not a very precise formula...

If I remember correctly, the NYTimes is written for the 8th-grade level. Similarly, many hospitals/healthcare facilities don't allow writing above the 8th-grade level. So, expressive, detailed, and stylized writing are all easily possible at the 8th-grade level. In fact, I probably write at the 8th-grade level, albeit less clearly.

What's the gap between an 8th grade reader and a 6th grade reader?
Thank you Bill Long, now everybody knows the place where to submit code patches to get them executed at the nuclear operations site
"Freshworks focuses on being found ‘organically’ (i.e. via free or low-cost channels) rather than with expensive paid marketing and outbound sales efforts."

Proceeds to rent a blimp.

To be clear I have nothing against guerilla marketing tactics but the "oh our customers just love us so much everything is organic and easy" really does a disservice to people reading these articles trying to figure out how to grow their companies. Many companies use paid ads, many companies that utilize SEO pay for links or for agencies to get links, sales isn't a dirty word. It reminds me of the silly serendipity founder legends people tell folks when the mess and figuring it out process would be a lot more educational.
Moving past the intuition for how division and remainders work for real numbers, there are other ways to look at "obvious" answers that suggests -7/2=4.

Consider x/3=y. For real numbers, it's trivial to manipulate this equation into (x-3)/3=y-1. However, this only works when integer division rounds down.

5/3 = 1 rem 2 or 1 rem 2
4/3 = 1 rem 1 or 1 rem 1
3/3 = 1 rem 0 or 1 rem 0
2/3 = 0 rem 2 or 0 rem 2
1/3 = 0 rem 1 or 0 rem 1
0/3 = 0 rem 0 or 0 rem 0
-1/3 = -1 rem 2 or 0 rem -1
-2/3 = -1 rem 1 or 0 rem -2
-3/3 = -1 rem 0 or -1 rem 0

One of these has a consistent pattern, the other doesn't.

All of this is a fairly moot point: The answer is it should do what the algorithm using it needs it to do.
I am sure there are lots of poor people because millionaires and billionaires still need cheap gardeners working for them. But they don't want them to live closeby but keep them out of sight.

Are you saying that the bay area isn't full of virtue signallers for whom poor people are more of a theoretical concept they better try not to get too close OT?
Perhaps I do.
Interpreter state ("what's been `use`d") completely changing the meaning of that expression sounds like the worst possible way to do it.
Even in write-heavy environments, I've used SQLite effectively with multiple thousands of concurrent (as in logged in and changing things at the speed of human site interactions, not as in simultaneous web requests at the same instant) users. In this context, SQLite is effectively a write linearizer.

With appropriate pragmas and database handles stored persistently between requests in server processes, the rate (in bytes of data affected by INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE) at which users could make DB changes got pretty darn close to the rate at which a file could be sequentially written on the filesystem, which is more than enough aggregate throughput for 1000s of concurrent non-bulk changes in most web applications, I'd imagine.
It's not global though, countries like Iran have had banks disconnected, and subject to various political interests.
Beyond that, if you're flying an airplane, I think you have some responsibility to not jump out at the first sign of trouble.

As the saying goes, "The captain goes down with the ship."
That is what the reality will be.

But the image that is being communicated is Web3 is decentralised and impervious to the kinds of moderation we have today.
You’re starting to get it with your last points. There’s a lot of factors that go in to determining trustworthiness. Being knowledgeable is a prerequisite for trusting somebody.
Public Domain Radio
> The guy who thought maybe you could cure Covid by swallowing bleach?

You have been misinformed. You should watch the video. I watched the video back when it happened and it was blatantly obvious he wasn't saying you could cure Covid by swallowing bleach. Unfortunately I can't find the video now but here's an article that lines up with my recollection of the events[1]:

> The former President did not instruct people to drink bleach, but he did suggest that the use of disinfectants as a treatment should be researched.

[1]: https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/677338a2
This isn't what users want in general, and you don't need crypto to get it. What you're asking for exists with things like mastodon. No one advocating how/why they think crypto will succeed when things like mastodon failed. Hell, RSS failed. The average user wants easy to use, easy to connect, free, and fast services. Crypto fails at all of these.
I just bought a big TCL TV, which has a built-in Roku interface, and the fucking remote control app shows me upsell ads. Its sole function on the TV now is to add an extra clicky step to get to my Apple TV interface. I can't believe how bad it is. And Roku specializes in building these kinds of interfaces. You could tell me that some other standalone Roku device was good, but I'd be inclined to disbelieve you after coming into contact with this iteration of it.
The announced end date is the goal. It just so happens that making the system reliable enough to last x days means it also has a high, but not sure, chance that it will last 10x days.
> I've grown fairly fond of JS implicitly named object parameters, and I always liked Smalltalk's named(-ish) parameters, and this seems like an interesting compromise. I'm not actually sure how Ruby works in this case? I thought its parameters were fairly normal. Are there other languages that do this?

Ruby allows keyword arguments, which are very similar to object parameters in Javascript:

# ruby
def add(a, b, *args, x:, y:, **kwargs)
puts a.to_s
puts b.to_s
puts args.to_s
puts x.to_s
puts y.to_s
puts kwargs.to_s
end

add(1, 2, 3, 4, y: 'bar', x: 'foo', z: 'quux')
# => 1
# => 2
# => [3, 4]
# => foo
# => bar
# => {:z => 'quux'}

there are also 'splats', which are pretty much the same as array/object spreading in JS:

# ruby
positional_args = [1,2,3,4]
keyword_args = { :x => 'foo', :y => 'bar', :z => 'quux' }
add(*positional_args, **keyword_args)
# => (same output as previous example)

One thing that's missing in Ruby (that I quite like in JS) is the ability to rename keyword arguments in the named parameter list, like:

// javascript
const example = ({ max: maxNum = 123 }) => {
/* ... */
};

# ruby
def example(max: 123)
max_num = max # can't do this in the parameter list
# ...
end

Honestly, this limitation is just about the only thing I think is missing from Ruby's parameter-list syntax.

> But in the case of one-parameter functions this seems unnecessary, the function name often makes it clear exactly what the first parameter is. And if you are going to support Subject-Verb-Object phrasing (as suggested later) then the Subject is another implicit parameter that probably doesn't need naming.

Maybe there could be a special sigil for positional arguments? I like the idea of gently discouraging them, but still making them possible. Maybe something like

// hypothetical language
function singleArgFunction(@arg0: number) { /* ... */ }
function mixedArgFunction(@arg0: number, foo: string, bar: string) { /* ... */ }
function standardFunction(alfa: number, bravo: string) {/* ... */}

singleArgFunction(0);
mixedArgFunction(1, foo: 'hello', bar: 'world');
standardFunction(alfa: 123, bravo: 'abc');
An uneducated population is easier to persuade to vote against its own interests.
"Honestly I think this is a good way to create more competition in the advertising space which is currently dominated by Google and Facebook."

I don't think it's a good thing that another trillion dollar company is trying to get a share of the advertising business. It would be much better if we had more small and focused companies.
Not always. In fact, I'd strengthen that and say that this is not a problem in general/in most cases with thousands of concurrent users. See my other comment one level up.
In almost 30 years of flying light aircraft here in the US, I have worn a parachute only when obliged to - during aerobatic flights. (Technically required only if you are not alone.) And the one time I intentionally skydived.

So, it seems odd to me.
I've wanted this for a while – thanks so much!
That's fair, but that seems like more of a feature than a bug. Why have a system we can't control if there's already one we can use for our interests?
> That's not the iPad Pro's fault, my carrier has refused to support 5G on the iPad

Shoot, my iPhone can't even use 5G because I have an "incompatible" plan. AT&T wants everyone to move to 5G devices, but seems to make it such a pain in the butt ($5 more per line at least, even if the other devices aren't 5G capable) that I don't see most adopting it until they force people to change plans regardless. LTE is fast-ish anyway.
Can the FCC revoke the major mobile operators' spectrum licenses if they fail to verify Caller ID records? I know that won't help with land-lines and VoIP but I imagine it would take away the bulk of the incentive for the perpetrators.
MacOS on a Apple silicon 16” MacBook Pro.

I write quite a bit of C++ and Java. Using the Jetbrain tooling and some custom build scripts, this thing is a beast.

I also use Omnigraffle for diagrams/white boarding and Omnifocus for creating todo lists.
We are one year away from Chrome effectively killing third party cookies. That’s a strange acquisition given how reliant on cookies AppNexus still is.
Also curious. I thought the last thing up would be a screenshot.
> The guy who thought maybe you could cure Covid by swallowing bleach?

He never said that or anything like that and we don't know what he was thinking.

You are spreading fakes. In a thread about fakes.

> I sincerely do believe Trump is that stupid.

When left-wing media does the fact-checking, Trump indeed looks bleak.
The richest countries, like the richest companies, are rich enough to coast for decades on past accomplishments, usually until external competition causes a problem.
"Apple is the only one making money on selling hardware."

MS is selling Surface. Google is selling Pixel. They aren't necessarily successful but they are trying. The only outlier is Facebook which doesn't try to sell hardware or services.
I honestly don't know what more I could realistically ask of my Apple TV. It's got device-wide search over all the services/apps I have installed. It plays all the music in my Apple Music account and keeps playlists synced. It does Airplay and Screen Mirroring from all my devices. It has a rock solid phone remote app. There's really only so much I need my TV to do; I don't immediately see what else Apple TV could do without trying to build a half-assed PS5 or Xbox One.

It's a weird thing, to me, to be jaded about. There's a lot to be said for just getting the job done and getting out of my way.
Holding isn't demand. Holding just reduces supply.

Miners need to sell BTC to cover their operating costs, so there's constant sell pressure. To maintain the same price, you need equivalent buy pressure. Hence the need for "a constant infusion of new investment".
The core thesis of any startup remains the core principle of capitalism: use the capital to serve the customer needs better than competitors. One of the mechanism under this principle is to build product for the ones who really need them. Nowadays most of the glamar is given to so called disruptive startups. Which for all things considered, are net negative to the world. For example, crypto...
Being forced as in you can't make things work without that support? If so, is parsing/processing blobs infeasible for some reason?
> all an NFT does is state "author X gives ownership of Y to Z",

Incorrect. As @saurik says, but I'll just restate: an NFT also tells you the ordering of all such statements within one context (a single blockchain). So you can know whether this was the first such transfer by this owner or a subsequent one. This is the entire purpose of distributed databases, including blockchains.
> claiming that literally everything is OOP

Well, "is" is quite the load-bearing word in those claims. I think it is kinda true in the sense that lots of things can be represented as OOP. A great example is how Scala represents ML-style ADTs as sealed class hierarchies.
I actually buy a second copy (paper or drm-free pdf) if I decide I need to remember an audiobook or take notes.

Even just being able to flip back to a previous section is something that paper books excel at. You get a sense of “what page something is on” (a sense of place) too, which helps the memory and referencing stick. Audio is for straight-through “reading” that doesn’t need to be as “active” because of that, and everything I read that needs to be remembered or studied does need more of an active reading approach
> You act like people that struggle with reading aren't capable of making a decision between usually only two candidates

A functioning political system shouldn't only have ever have 2 viable candidates. Much less have the only viable candidates belong to one of two viable political parties, both of which have cartoonishly stable views over time.

Maybe the broken, overly simplistic US political system is a _symptom_ of shockingly terrible education outcomes. Not vice-versa. Like many of the other social ills currently ravaging American society.
You just invent a thing called notaries. You'll have to go back in time to do it since they already exist but that's besides the point. Anyways, a notary puts their reputation/legal liability on the line and counter signs your transaction. Since they've been granted license by a real legal entity with guns and jails they commit to verifying a transaction occurred at X time.

Monies for the transaction can be put into escrow with a third party (you'll need to go back in time to invent that too). When the notary notifies the escrow holder of the signatures they can release the monies.

When you have a legal system to enforce contracts and people put their own money or legal liability on the line two parties don't need to trust one another to conduct transactions. People buy expensive shit all the time. They don't need to trust each other with the money or valuables because they involve third parties that proffer up (staking if you will) liability to let the two parties conduct transactions.

The blockchain model replaces the staked liability with "expensive" proof of whatever. The only problem is monied entities can these proof systems. They can afford to run a majority of miners, stake the most (or spam stake offerings), or whatever otherwise supposedly expensive resource. They're only expensive resources if you naively assume all mining will be done by randos in their bedrooms.

Blockchains are just a way to do something almost no one needs in a slow expensive way.
> that doesn't mean that the concept of "fact checking" is inherently problematic

Perhaps not, but I think there are wrinkles in it that you might not be considering.

First, if "fact checking" just means "consulting other sources of information to see if they say the same thing", then you have to deal with the question of the credibility of those other sources of information. No source of information is always right. Nor is any "fact checker" always right in judging the relative credibility of sources of information. Ultimately, unless you have your own personal knowledge of some fact, any "fact checking" is going to come down to which sources you trust and which sources you don't. Those are always judgment calls and there will always be some degree of residual skepticism, so citing "fact checks" as if they were authoritative is problematic.

Second, if you try to go beyond that and actually do things like independent experiments to check claims (for example, when scientists try to replicate experiments or studies), then you're not really checking on previous facts, you're creating new facts, which you are then going to use to judge the validity of previous claims. But those previous claims were not factual claims but theoretical ones (for example, doing study B to help in judging the claim "study A shows that treatment X is effective against illness Y"). And again, these kinds of comparisons are judgment calls (sure, sometimes you uncover strong evidence that, for example, the data in study A was fabricated, but study B alone won't tell you that).

> t could be that there is no way in our current culture of doing anything remotely like what "fact checking" probably needs to be.

The critical problem I see with the Facebook case is that their "fact checking" results in something more than just publishing whatever Facebook's ultimate judgment is on some website (as, for example, Snopes and other "fact checking" sites do). Facebook's "fact checking" has other consequences, such as blocking access to things people have posted. And since our current culture seems to be fixated on using "fact checking" in this way, not just to arrive at judgments which are then published as speech, for the reader to take or leave, but to take actions that amount to filtering, restricting, or blocking other speech, yes, I think our current culture is not really capable of doing the limited kind of things that "fact checking" properly done would consist of.
Graphene is legit. I've used it for a while now and have no complaints except being unable to cast to a Chromecast (yes yes, I know), but I have an old Android phone for that.