skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Luckily remediating this is relatively easy: Use some indicator for "certified 2036 proof" NTP clients that's visible on the network (a different port, an extension, ...), then observe the network to find legacy traffic.

Won't catch absolutely everything (e.g. local containers), but will probably get pretty close. Especially if modern NTP client versions have some way to resolve the ambiguity, e.g. a hardcoded "it's after 2020".
Looking at those, it seems the sample apps are way more complex than what I envision. The Django one starts with these dependencies:

Django==3.1.12
greenlet==0.4.17
gunicorn==20.0.4
meinheld==1.0.2
mysqlclient==1.4.6
psycopg2==2.8.6
pytz==2020.4
ujson==4.0.1

The approach I want to show is: What are the minimal steps to get a working web application with routes, templates and user accounts. I know that at least for Django, this is possible with no additional dependencies.
>>take reasonable measures to protect the weaker and less powerful or capable among us.

Those measures, which you support, are what I described:

crudely generalizing an entire class of ostensibly voluntary interactions, as "swindling", and prohibiting them all on that basis, and then handing out exemptions from that prohibition on a case by case basis, upon a party receiving approval from a centralized gatekeeper

And yes, democracy can support laws that violate of human rights. Democracies instituted slavery for instance, often justifying it with claims that it was to protect the slaves from the dangers of freedom.

>>but people should understand why we make such rules based on history and have at least some amount of respect for what came before, imperfect though it may be.

I am definitely open to hearing about the arguments for those restrictions, but I have looked quite a bit, and what I've seen is those restrictions inflicting massive harm on society on the balance. Again I am open to seeing what evidence you have of the contrary.

And this is consistently the case when I look at different industries, and the reason I believe it's a universal effect is due to basic organizational dynamics: a free-er system has a larger range of options, and thus is more likely to discover, through trial and error and the natural tendency of people to seek out mutually beneficial configurations, superior processes.

I described what I see as strong indications of that with respect to healthcare in earlier comments. I've seen the same thing when I look at venture capital fundraising:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29756193
Last time I tried, I couldn't even figure out how to exit navigation using voice. I'm sure it's possible, even easy, but the combination of not knowing the right incantation, car noise, language issues (does it expect German or English commands?) and overall stress meant I just ended up muting the sound system, which is a physical button.
Yes, the article links to this form:

https://www.cms.gov/files/document/standard-notice-consent-f...

Which instructs the provider to list the "good faith estimated cost" on page 4. Presumably, this will then bind the provider to having to deal with you via the dispute resolution process:

https://www.cms.gov/nosurprises/consumers/medical-bill-disag...

Of course, the effectiveness of all of this remains to be seen, and will depend on what kind of teeth this dispute resolution process has:

>If after getting your bill you realize that any of your providers or facilities billed you for an amount that’s $400 or more than what’s on your good faith estimate, you can use a new dispute resolution process to request that an independent third-party, called a dispute resolution entity, review your case and determine an appropriate payment. This process is referred to as “patient-provider dispute resolution.” The dispute resolution entity will review the good faith estimate, your bill, and information submitted by your provider or facility to determine if you should pay the amount on your good faith estimate, the billed charge, or an amount in between the two. There’s a $25 non-refundable administrative fee to start this process.
You need to include the cost of battery storage to wind and solar to get a true apples to apples comparison. Comparing the cost of unreliable energy with reliable energy is like comparing the price of a high risk bond with a risk-free bond. People expect energy to be available, and if it's intermittent, they will need to buy batteries.
I'm taking a course on programming languages this spring. So I'm mostly going to learn about Lisp and Prolog
To be honest, the asteroids that could smite us in an "end of dinosaurs" event are very rare. Most of them have been cleared out of their orbits by either Earth or other planets billions of years ago.

It is still worthwhile to watch the sky for them, but the risk per year seems to be lower than any man-made disaster I can think of.
Does it only include JR lines, it looks to be missing other lines?
Edit: I was wrong, I see private lines.
Educate yourself on Android source code.

You can even start by the new entries related to Rust.

https://source.android.com/setup/build/rust/building-rust-mo...
The famous Alan Kay appearance:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11939851
It's absolutely crazy, but in line with what's going on with energy demand out of control due to cryptocurrencies sprouting everywhere: some countries banned non green energy sources, so we redefine the word green. Bravo! That's exactly what one can expect from corrupt politicians.

I would accept to go back to nuclear only in one case: whoever is pushing for it will build their house within 10 Km of either a nuclear plant, or where nuclear waste is stored.
I wouldn't want my main test suite to be dependent on anything external.

Ensuring a third party API is still doing what you think it's doing is a legitimate concern, but that test should be standalone and scheduled.
Surely we all read Hackers?
Could you share the datasource for this?
Network difficulty adjusts to pull the demand curve to the right.

That makes the GPU market supply-constrained. Any increase in supply will be met with a lower price equilibrium which will result in more GPUs bought and used for mining. Which results in a higher THR which will be met with additional increases in network difficulty which will pull the demand curve to the right ad infinitum.

I'm not sure how much more economics 101 I can make this. As long as GPUs are part of the system, the GPU market will be supply-constrained. The supply and demand curves will continue to drift to the right.
Ah that makes more sense now. So you're basically writing docs for all these different tools such that someone can copy paste and get a working installation.

What are your thoughts on docker which seems to do something similar? Also, how would you stay updated on every single framework if they ever change their installation scripts or other such parts?
Real-time machine learning: challenges and solutions
High power consumption though at 5 watts and even more at warmup.
I always take the opposite view of the development of Dwarf Fortress. I think it is a shame how much the game has stagnated, and it is frustrating when the creator brags about not bothering to use version control.

I love Tarn and I think there is some wisdom in the way he develops, and he is clearly brilliant.

But I look at the state of Dwarf Fortress now, and Dwarf Fortress 5 years ago, and I do not see a huge amount of additional features and design space that has been explored.

Even when Tarn decided: "Hmm, maybe making some money for a product I am proud of and work extremely hard on" when he decided to add the Steam version, it has been a long load to make it there.

The game still has FPS death when fortresses get to a certain, actually relatively modest, size. This is a big deal, it means people cannot dig in as deep as they want with their fortresses. Imagine if your Skyrim game choked to death after investing months into a character because of an unspoken, undetectable limitation.

It is an impressive project, but the lesson I always take from his talks is: "Take your time. Build it right. Someday you may have to make a new GUI front-end, and I don't want that to take multiple people multiple years to accomplish."
The knowledge has indeed existed for years.

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4128208
6. Carbon-Equivalent Emissions and Air Pollution
There is no such thing as a zero- or close-to-zero emission nuclear power plant. Even existing plants emit due to the continuous mining and refining of uranium needed for the plant. Emissions from new nuclear are 78 to 178 g-CO2/kWh, not close to 0. Of this, 64 to 102 g-CO2/kWh over 100 years are emissions from the background grid while consumers wait 10 to 19 years for nuclear to come online or be refurbished, relative to 2 to 5 years for wind or solar. In addition, all nuclear plants emit 4.4 g-CO2e/kWh from the water vapor and heat they release. This contrasts with solar panels and wind turbines, which reduce heat or water vapor fluxes to the air by about 2.2 g-CO2e/kWh for a net difference from this factor alone of 6.6 g-CO2e/kWh.

In fact, China’s investment in nuclear plants that take so long between planning and operation instead of wind or solar resulted in China’s CO2 emissions increasing 1.3 percent from 2016 to 2017 rather than declining by an estimated average of 3 percent. The resulting difference in air pollution emissions may have caused 69,000 additional air pollution deaths in China in 2016 alone, with additional deaths in years prior and since.
This is not true for Monero, that hides the sender, receiver and amount for all transactions by default.
For another perspective on this I recommend Peter Daszak etc. in the This Week in Virology podcast explaining their efforts to trace the origin of COVID19:

https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-760/

A memorable quote is this: When you mix science with politics, you get politics.
Well, that's somehow buried in my third and fourth points but admittedly not as worked out as you've put it here. I tried to focus more on the credibility that your maintained online presence gives you, but of course it also builds your brand.

Thanks for the feedback!
The intertwined nature of country, financial and personnel relationships is not easy for people to understand.

I was just at a gathering the other day where a woman couldn't comprehend that the lab in Wuhan is a joint venture with US public resources, US private sector resources, Chinese resources, and personnel from both countries and others, which includes Dr. Fauci.

She had, until that point, mostly been enamored by Dr. Fauci and mostly been quite angry at Wuhan as a general disavowal of the CCP.

There is nothing to conclude from any of that observation alone, aside from noticing gaps in US federal oversight. Many people will just spiral into some other rabbit hole since nuance isn't their strongsuit. We still have to react to the pandemic whether that bolsters a lab leak hypothesis, or leads to a smoking gun, or not.
In their defense, likely predictions are boring.

For example who cares if you predict that …

- Google will continue to be the top search engine

- Apple will release a new iPhone

- Xi Jinping will continue as president

- Biden will continue as president
Yes, and it will be incredibly insecure unless you either convince a ton of other people to spin up nodes and act honestly in concert with you to run your network, or you build it atop Ethereum etc. Almost the only way to spin up your own is to come up with a world-changing idea, write a whitepaper and sell it to VC. So realistically people build atop Ethereum etc, and that still takes VC money because getting anything done on the famed World Computer is like booking time on a mainframe in 1976.

You don't need VC money to boot up your own HTTPS server on a traditional stack. There are lots of ways in which traditional stacks are not very censorship-resistant, and there are many ways to improve it. But at least anyone can participate on their own terms without having to either write a pitch deck and get funded, or accede to majority rule over some really important parameters of how their network operates. VC money alone is a much more pernicious influence on what will be acceptable behaviour than installing Nginx. The money required is just as heavy censorship as having to go through Visa to accept payments.

If you think "but what about email? Isn't it prohibitively expensive to run your own email server securely?", then you have fully understood the point about blockchains actually facing the same pattern of centralisation that the rest of the web does, but worse, because the alternative (your own big enough, secure enough chain) is comparatively even more difficult to adopt than the mainstream (Eth). You don't need ten million dollars and your own cryptographers and formal verification specialists to write or run an HTTP server, IMAP server, or IP network. Each of which you can do exactly as you please, essentially nobody else dictating how you do it and with costs at the bare minimum, and all of these interoperate with other people's just fine.

If you want an example of a "web3" technology that's not subject to these arguments, just look at IPFS. It's just a bunch of 20-year old ideas combined (bittorrent-esque peer discovery, mixnet routing, content-addressed blob hashes in git). None of the above problems are any worse than they are in Web 2.0, and it is leaps and bounds more censorship-resistant. You could plug in a permanent node or two today, subscribe it to a stream of authenticated tree hashes, and use it as your personal dropbox. If more people used it, you could just publish web pages there, by dragging and dropping a folder. If you have another technology that you think is a Web3 candidate, please compare it to that.
Self-driving is way harder than I thought, says Elon Musk
Yes, the intensives handed out are a bit out of hand. Specially if you can stack them. You can literally buy EV in New Jersey and resell while making a profit from stack.

Its pretty clear that there is very little overall strategy, its just a bunch of politicians doing one thing or another depending on the situation. And it happens on all levels. And its mostly about retoric and what you can sell, not a smart strategy.

The government could do much better things for the environment and spend the money much better for the EV revolution. Making gas more expensive but specially making new gas car more expensive. Doing large scale investment and financing in local and green EV supply chain. Helping to set up a EV charging network (depends on how the nation organizes streets and highways).

Also I think helping people buy cheaper EV makes much more sense. Rich people shouldn't get help buying Model S or Porsche. And that number should go down over time, 5-10 years ago intensives for an expensive car, to support the technology.
Web3 is less centralized in that the user data is exposed and freely available to be composed upon.

For example, when someone makes a deposit (say of ERC20 USDC to earn interest, around 3.0% currently) on https://compound.finance, that data is freely available and the "receipt" becomes another token (the ERC20 USDC cToken). [1]

This token can now be used for other things, on any other protocol, without the involvement of compound itself. For example, there is a "compound" pool on https://curve.fi that allows users to deposit cTokens so that they can earn interest on their stablecoins while also providing liquidity for stablecoin swaps and earning swap fees as well on top. [2] In fact, with this pool, the user can deposit/withdrawal just pure ERC20 USDC instead and curve will deposit/withdrawal that into/from compound on behalf of the user, again, with no involvement of compound at all. (other than interacting with its "immutable" smart contract)

This deposit then gives the user back another ERC20 token "cCrv" that can then be used in other DeFi protocols without the involvement or authorization of curve.

At this point people are talking past each other because "centralization" can be used to refer to many things. The author's analogy is arguing about the direction/standardization of the technology, and the proponents of the technology are talking about the user data.

[1] https://compound.finance/docs/ctokens

[2] https://curve.fi/compound
GAN
The incentive created by a profit cap is to launder the profits through something else. If 80% of the spend has to go to medical providers then the insurance company or its parent owns or gets some kind of kickbacks from some of the medical providers. The purposeful complexity of medical billing makes this easier to do and harder to detect, so who knows if it's happening, but incentive to do it exists so it probably is.

This also lines up with the PR benefit in being able to claim a low profit margin and overhead on paper.
Agree, it's not possible to create something like sars-cov2 completely de-novo. I assume this is what you mean? Claims of impossibility here need to be quite specific to be meaningful, I think.

On the other hand if you have not read the DEFUSE proposal you are in for a real treat. It is absolutely plausible that sars-cov2 could be an output of this line of research.

We also don't really know what backbones they had.
Are we comparing web3 to FAANG or tcp/http/etc.

As the article describes at a protocol level web3 is definitively not more open, it's more centralised as opens you to noisy neighbours.

At the application level it may enable finance to be decentralised, but that's only a small part of the web.
The author thinks that to be decentralized, you should have your own chain. Holochain has one chain per app, more similar to what the author wants. It's not exactly a blockchain though. There are quite a few other non-blockchain projects
in development also.

Found an overview that shows non-blockchain projects. Not sure whether or not it's an accurate comparison of features, but it's the best of list I've found of alternative crypto technologies.
https://i.postimg.cc/05RJqbYB/SN-Comparative-Analysis-v4-1-I...
For one, the author pointed out that Opensea NFTs are stored on the Google Cloud Platform, one of those trillion dollar monopolies.

Proof of stake means the largest stakeholders can unilaterally reject transactions. Technically the chain could fork. Practically, convincing everyone to move to a new chain seems about as difficult as everyone moving off Facebook because a few people get banned.

Proof of work means the richest people can afford more miners and completely control the chain.

So where is the decentralization? The only realistic decentralization I can make out is that its possible to build alternative chains, but that very thing is possible today. Its possible to build an alternate payment processor or social network if Visa bans your business, the really hard part is building it and getting the entire ecosystem to actually use it.
Arguably, colonizing Mars is easier than uprooting ancient prejudices and dismantling a thick set of special interests that is the politics (worldwide, not just the U.S.)
There's 5.5 million tons of known uranium reserves. If you took our current reactor fleet and replaced it with fast breeders, this would supply it for 30,000 years. There's also 4.5 billion tons of uranium dissolved in seawater. Then there's thorium.

You're missing that.

Technically not renewable, but in the long run, neither is the Sun.
So if I don't trust Big Tech, I'm somehow supposed to trust groups of sketchy people who do things like give up their US citizenship (as an immigrant to the USA - the privilege is real) to move to {insert sketchy country or a known haven for certain activities - its legal there!} so they can now facilitate millions of dollars moving each day outside of any government jurisdiction.
Thank you so much for both being open about your monetization strategy (which seems reasonable to me) and having a well written, easily found privacy policy!
> My main concerns with Web3 are that it is "pay to play" in many aspects and it's less democratic than the existing Internet.

You could say that Web3 is WebBourgeoisie.
You don't need a new definition, you just need to follow the official Unicode security guidelines.

I recommend the Moderate Restrictive Security profile for identifiers for mixed scripts. TR39. Plus allow Greek with Latin. This way you can identify Cyrillic, Greek, CFK or any recommended script, but are not allowed to mix Cyrillic with Greek. And you still can write math with Greek Symbols.

What we don't have are a standard string library to compare or find strings. wcscmp does not do normalization. There is no wcsfc (foldcase) for case insensitivity. There's no wcsnorm or wcsnfc.
I'm maintaining such a library.

coreutils, diff, grep, patch, sed and friends all cannot find Unicode strings, they have no string support. They can only mimic filesystems, finding binary garbage. Strings are so rthi g different than pure ASCII or BINARY garbage. Strings have an encoding and are Unicode.

Filesystems are even worse because they need to treat filenames as identifiers, but do not. Nobody cares about TR31, TR39, TR36 and so on.

Here is an overview of the sad state of Unicode unsafeties in programming languages: https://github.com/rurban/libu8ident/blob/master/c11.md
>Outside of what is minimally mandatory under health insurance laws and regulations

This is what I am referring to when talking about determining what is and is not medically necessary. If there is clear evidence of a lab or medication being helpful, then it will be covered due to stipulations in the ACA regardless of how expensive the insurance coverage is, since it is proven medically necessary.

Of course this gets into shades of gray, but such is life. However, I have not seen a treatment or lab well supported by data to not be covered because someone was on a worse insurance plan and the treatment or lab happens to be expensive.

One example of a controversial medicine to cover off the top of my head is palivizumab (Synagis) for RSV in babies. There is very sketchy data on its efficacy and in what conditions

https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/134/2/415/33...

But lots of health plans will have varying levels of coverage with varying pre authorization criteria for it because it is extremely expensive. So would it be classified as medically necessary? Probably not in most cases. But still some plans might cover it for whatever political reasons.
> Otherwise people won't know what you're talking about.

That's a good point!
Ah, thank you — it makes sense now.

Good luck with your project, the calendar looks really neat.
The reality is that we now work and already have technologies that increase solar efficiency (and some really clean solar collections) coming to market within next 5 years. Thats not enough to construct even one plant. As well in field of batteries there's some extremeley interesting stuff coming to market. Batteries that can have 10 time more recharge cycles are coming. Same with lithium replacement. Prototypes and ready ones are already being tested with multiple different materials.

650 billions dollars as for now to clean up... What about costs of keeping that stuff safe for next 50 years? What about costs for next 300 years? I dont want grandkids of my grandkids to pay for that. You can buy a lot of powerwalls for that. Thats why tesla got contracts to reduce tensions on electrical grid in california.