skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Don't record your accomplishments. Be humble. Make good deeds as the way of life, don't record your highs - if they are memorable, you'll remember, and will be able to tell later, and if they are not, they aren't worth it. Take example from high achievers - did Einstein, or Feynman, or Dostoevsky recorded carefully their accomplishments? Should those who are more modest achievers - perhaps - record them?

/s
>My money is that Omicron will bring record deaths that we'll start seeing a few weeks.

Are people still trotting out the "just wait 2 more weeks!" shtick?

Anywhere I can go to make this bet with you? Willing to put down $100 that there aren't record deaths in the US in the next 3 weeks.
"The Riemann Hypothesis conjectures that there is a way to know the distribution of primes in a higher dimensional imaginary math. That the unintuitive and difficult system that gives us primes in real number space is somehow contained in a larger imaginary space, with some kind of regular structure, and that they are immediately accessible and calculable once you know the trick."

RH does not imply this (under any reasonable interpretation of what you wrote; e.g. RH would not imply a fast algorithm that given n outputs the nth prime).

The prime number theorem says that the number of primes up to x (denoted pi(x)) is "well approximated" by Li(x). The Riemann hypothesis says that this is a REALLY good approximation. In particular, it says that the error incurred in approximating pi(x) by Li(x) is of size about sqrt(x). (More precisely sqrt(x)log(x).)
What sort reaction do you expect when you approach these sorts of conversations by essentially saying "your skin color tells me your entire life story, and disagreeing with me trivializes my own experiences"?
These are fair points, and I appreciate you pointing out that the IETF has a pretty dang good process.

But do you think if QUIC wasn't exactly what they wanted, Google would have signed off on it? I don't think so. I think they would have kept using SPDY. So I don't see much difference between QUIC coming from the IETF or Google itself, since I'm assuming the final output artifact is the same.

At the end of the day all I'm trying to say is we should be wary of the tech choices of big companies. Most websites probably don't need HTTP/2+, a CDN, etc, and the complexity that comes with it. Most startups probably don't need microservices. Most web apps probably don't need more than Mithril.js (or HTML forms for that matter). I'm not arguing against things existing or being good, just that it's important to be cautious buying in wholesale and assuming the way large companies do things is the way everyone should do things. If you're not careful you can end up in a place where the simple option is no longer available. For example it's basically impossible to make a web browser with a small team now.

I'm excited about HTTP/3 as long as they don't try to take HTTP/1.1 away from me.
What's DOH?
Woah woah woah. You’re saying that the majority of computer users treat their OS as a tool to run the software they care about and let the platform get out of the way and you’re looking down on them? That’s literally all an OS is for. Everything else is fangirling.

Macs are a computer with excellent build quality, great battery life, and let users do the things they want without fiddling plenty fast. Like put on your end user hat, what else could you even ask for?

There’s zero self-awareness why someone might choose to buy a computer that isn’t a spec sheet with the biggest numbers shoved into the cheapest injection mold plastic money can buy. Like we’re nerds — we’re the equivalent of people who drive stripped down street racing cars with all aftermarket parts and the metal struts exposed saying “haha look at those idiots buying Honda Civics, must be for the badge.”
I think if you gave KDE a try, you'd be really surprised. I too like fancy screenshots with drop-shadow compositor effects and transparent elements; the Spectacle screenshot utility does this perfectly for me, and can be bound to a universal keybind. Desktop utilities like 'peek' give you instant gif-recording capabilities for the more advanced stuff, and of course there are full-fledged apps like OBS for more advanced capture work.

> That said, I would be more than happy to pay a substantial annual license fee for a Linux experience that rivals that of MacOS.

Are you looking for BSD?

Joking aside, you're going to have to be a lot more specific than "rivals" MacOS. There are a lot of cases where MacOS has dug itself into arbitrary, insurmountable leads (eg. nobody is going to add haptics to your touchpad with a software update), but there are also cases where Linux whoops MacOS up and down the block (full WINE functionality, Vulkan drivers, Nvidia compatibility, system-agnostic filesystems, etc.)

> A lot of this functionality simply does not exist on Linux. With multi monitor setups, virtual desktops scroll on both screens. Gnome 4 is the first DE to pseudoreplicate MacOS's model.

This is tacitly untrue, KDE scrolls all monitors by default, and most x11 sessions can be configured to do the same afaik. The only holdouts are esoteric window managers like i3wm, where arbitrary desktop/monitor association is just part of their design paradigm. I'm pretty sure GNOME 3 could be configured to do the same, too (the developers just didn't put the option in the default settings app because they don't trust you, I guess). Not sure where you're getting this impression from, but it sounds like a misunderstanding.

> Screenshots and screen recordings are close but lack the nuance of MacOS (and Windows) that make them valuable. For instance no DE offers the ability to draw notes on a screenshotted area, copy the modified version to clipboard (rather than save a file).

Again, KDE's default screenshot utility ("Spectacle") has robust annotation and saving options. I just let it save the screenshotted areas to my clipboard, and it works fine. It should probably be compatible with your GNOME system too, if you want to try it out.

TL-DR:

Linux is not MacOS, for better and for worse. Most of the features you've listed are indeed configuration options, but nobody really ships a "MacOS clone" distro because it doesn't exist. You can't pay developers to make something like that because there's not a single other organization on earth with 200 billion dollars in liquid cash to spend on decadent UIs and eye candy.
I spent a week or two in Japan every month for 12 years. I have not been there for 2 years now and miss it terribly. It is such an amazingly unique place.
To me that is a specious argument. It's like asking why Python was invented when Cobol could suffice.

The dozens of ASN.1 specs are absolutely hideous and entrenched in obsolete telecom jargon. If the sole goal Protobuf was to avoid having Google engineers be required to refer to the dozens of ASN.1 specs when disagreements or confusions arose, then it would have been 100% worth it for just that reason.
It is a bit of a slippery slope, because at some point, you could just do "GameApp.AddScore(10000)" which is clearly not playing the game. The line of what's "fair" and what's not isn't too clear. I do think staying out of the game code is actually a fairly good line though.

EDIT: Looked down thread and basically saw a bunch of examples of just that!
You are not taking into account construction cost. For example:

"The USS Ford is the most advanced aircraft carrier the US has ever built. The tally for the total cost is $13.3 billion".

And that is just for the aircraft carrier. Even using your maintainance only numbers: 3 Tomahawk missiles a day is more than 1000 a year, more than 30000 Tomahawk missiles over the 30 year lifespan of an aircraft carrier. That is about 13500000 kg of warhead. If we add the construction cost of the aircraft carrier alone as well, we get an additional 6230769 kg of warhead from the Tomahawks adding up to 19 million kg of warhead. More than double the total dropped during Gulf War 1. You are welcome to also add the construction cost of the other ships needed to support the aircraft carrier. And also subtracting a percentage of the non-smart bombs since a lot of the bombs dropped during Gulf War 1 were non-smart i.e. a lot of them missed their targets.
Exactly. The same rules should apply, except for CEO's it's just their company they have to disclose ahead of time because their decisions affect that company, for congress it should be any company they trade because their decisions are more far reaching and can affect almost any company.
> Find a way to get paid before you put the work in.

Do you have an industry/example in mind where this is the case? All of the "profit from something created" schemes that I can think of require that the something exists before it can be sold. I can't think of anything that's sold based purely on promises, without extreme risk being involved. And when this is the case, it seems there's some partial initial payment (and initial debt put on the creator of that something) to mitigate some of that risk, with complete payment after the thing is finished.
As part of ETL or just basic understanding about the how the speech data is handled try this tool : https://github.com/wiseman/py-webrtcvad

It is a python wrapper for a library for voice activity detection. It acts as a starting point while working on speech recognition problems. Helped me understand and discover a lot of concepts related to audio signal and data when I was in your shoes.
It seems to be pretty harsh to call Animal Crossing toxic. Do you also call Minecraft toxic? I call Micecraft animated legos. I wouldn't call Legos toxic. Not sure why these games are considered toxic.

For me the games that push my "this game is too addictive" button are like simple solitaire (https://www.google.com/search?q=solitaire). For whatever reason I feel compelled to clear all the cards. If I can't I'll start another round. More than once I stay up 90 minutes past my bedtime playing. And even when I do clear all the cards I'll tell myself "just once more" and then it's another 45 minutes until I get lucky into to clear every card.

There's other similar games like Fun Towers (not sure it's real name) but they create the same itch. In the one I played recently you have a time limit to clear all the cards, plus the added challenge of what order your draw pile and stacks are. Every time I play I want to clear the stacks but doing so both in getting lucky about the cards, and doing it before my time runs out, don't know what it is but again I can easily lose 1-2 hrs

Basically I just don't play those games. But there's nothing really special the developer has done. Solitaire is the same with a deck of cards and has been for 200+ years.
https://www.armbrustusa.com/

American made N95, KN95, and ASTM Level 3 masks. See their mask testing database, click on each and see a video of their test:
https://www.armbrustusa.com/pages/mask-testing?mask=-review

You can find 20-30% off coupons for them online. I'm very happy with my purchases from them.
From friends and acquaintances in other industries with similar income distributions, "knock out 4-to-6 programming problems in a short amount of time" is one of the least-arbitrary and most accessible ways to jump from one group to the more highly paid one. Not to mention that if you can knock out those problems, you may not even be required to have a degree or other formal credentials.

That's not even getting into how hilariously unrealistic "trial periods", for instance, are. Why am I going to leave a job for just a trial period without any more thorough attempt to check fit before hand? Why would I invest that much time in side work if I'm doing it before quitting, when I could get a FAANG offer instead for single-digit-days-amount of brushing up?
I think there are two natural optimization criteria.

One is to try to maximize the expected information gain of your guess. If we have an initial set of 128 possible words, we begin with log2(128) = 7 bits of entropy. When we make a guess and receive a response, we narrow down the list of words to the set compatible with that response. If, for example, there are 32 words compatible with our response, then we now have log2(32) = 5 bits of entropy, and our guess was worth 2 bits. For a given guess, there are many possible replies each with its own information gain - in the best case, we get all greens, and are left with 0 bits of uncertainty (for a gain of 7), while in other cases we may get all greys, and learn comparatively little. Further, each reply has its own probability of occurring - all greens is only 1/128, but other replies might be more likely if there are several possible targets that would generate the same reply. Thus, we weight the information gain of each reply by its probability to arrive at the expected information gain for that guess. For the word list provided in the article, I get TARES as the best first guess by this metric.

The second strategy is to continue down the game tree, and find the guess with the lowest number of expected (or alternatively the lowest worst-case) number of guesses. In principle, we might find that while TARES gains us a lot of information as a first guess, it leaves us without a good second guess (since we are restricted to guessing real words, and those words might all be redundant in some way), and thus our total expected number of guesses is larger than if we had taken a slightly less informative first guess. My hunch is that in practice this sort of situation is unlikely to occur, and the best first guess by this metric is probably similar to that of the first metric, although I haven't tried.
I don't think that's fair. Much scientific journalism, by focusing on exciting unexpected results, leaves one with an impression that there is too much dogma and perhaps other errors.

Math is very hard, but has the luxury of correctness being better defined and easier to verify than about any other field. There simply isn't as much room for conspiracy thinking. And accordingly, the articles in Quanta Magazine are both great to read and don't have a side effect of causing any outsider smugness.

That isn't to say math doesn't have controversies. The utility of proof assistance and degree to which people should study and use unifying frameworks like Category Theory are examples of ongoing controversies. But it's very fortunate that to be immune to issues like widespread replication crises.

Math is really really different than Science.
> music industry execs are not familiar with the Streisand effect

The Streisand Effect didn't save Napster or Popcorn Time. It could only save these people from the RIAA if they actually made enough money to fight the lawsuits and win.
Could anyone please explain why we don't have commercially viable gas mask-style full-face respirators with replaceable filter cartridges?

The problem with the regular masks is that a huge amount of air still goes around them. You can do an experiment - firmly push a KN95 respirator into your face with 4 fingers and try breathing through it. You'll feel more resistance, you'll actually smell the filtering material, you'll see how the mask puffs up when you exhale. You let go and most of these effects go away, as the air is just going between the mask and your face.

P.S. I was researching the topic before taking a longish flight, looking to minimize my chance of catching COVID before a tropical vacation to ~0% and was rather astounded that full-face masks, like the gas ones aren't even allowed in the airports. I didn't catch COVID that time, but I wonder how much transmission could we cut off if we offered something like this in places where people are forced to sit together for prolonged time.
This is correct! :) Also, the extension's source code is not obfuscated so it's possible to download, extract, and go through the readable code.
If anyone's keen, just Google or Bing search to see how to do so (or lmk!). We haven't officially open-sourced as of now as the code still needs cleaning up, refactoring, etc :)
I'm aware of these things, although the last time I went looking it was hard to find major US brand masks. Seems to be a bit better now.

The KF94 masks I have come with a little hook that you can use to connect the ear loops in the back. This produces a tighter fit and also saves your ears.
I seriously doubt that this would be an issue at all if they believed it ended at "they kept it". They think youtube-dl (and similar programs) are enabling people to share these files widely, not just to save them.
I'm not a huge fan of scratch, generally. But I really like "machine learning for kids" by Dale lane. It is just a really nicely structured set of byte sized pieces on ai.
Thank you! That's what I meant to write (and what I did in the solver), but instead copy pasted from the line above. Check it out:

https://imgur.com/a/NGd8IHJ
I can assure you, 100% without a doubt, that this is where the vast majority of developers are. Including people working on the most cutting edge software. The only reason the people you interview(?) can regurgitate this is because they just re-read their course book yesterday and they expect algorithmic problems. Or sure, some of us do competitive coding and such where these things do show up. There's absolutely no need to memorize this. But if you do more power to you.

EDIT: I have made it through those interviews. That's not really the point. The way you make it through is by preparing, just like you'd prepare for the test in school. Doesn't show anything.
That is how it works, I thought that was the whole point. It's a game about greed. You can either play it safe and go up 1 by 1, or go fast. The max you can get is 5 if you press immediately, seems to drop down to 1 after half a turn.

EDIT: Found the code

(tapInterval < 500 ? 5 : tapInterval < 1000 ? 2 : 1)

So 5 points for under 0.5s, 2 points for under 1s, 1 point otherwise.
On Budget, On Time, On scope ... Pick any two <--- this one is more clearer
> The Mac’s Unix layer has been withering

Kind of a strange comment, updating those programs listed is a one-line string of text.
As a previous CTO and hiring manager, we did do trials, and it worked great. At the time I found an article showing that traditional interviews resulted in an 18% true-positive expectation of how they would perform, while a week-long trial got you to something like 73%.

We paid them for the week like a contractor, and made an evaluation at the end of the week. It weeded people out who were great at code but bad culturally, or people who worked great.

Sometimes we couldn't get a whole week to commit, but just a few days -- but these days made a huge difference.

Now, I work at a FAANG company and _hate_ the interview process. Give me 3 months and I think I could teach just about any CS interview how to pass it (without being specific to any particular FAANG company), but that doesn't mean they would be good engineers.

They are loosely related but different skills.
Looks pretty slick! A couple things I noticed:

- It wasn't obvious (is it even possible?) how to make or import my own deck aside from the default one of Spanish words.

- Fetching the next word over the Internet introduces some noticeable latency when going from the back side of the previous card to the next side. Maybe you could pre-fetch the next several dozen words in one batch to hide the latency?
Some guy did something similar a few years ago, livestreamed himself sleeping, allowed watchers to wake him up.
Can't remember if he monetized it. Also, found out that people actually do livestream themselves sleeping while looking if I could find it to link to it - unrelated & weird.
We don't have a herpes vaccine probably because it is considered a very mild inconvenience by most people. Most people that have the herpes virus do not even realize it. There are 100s of thousands of different virus species living in your body and if you were to vaccinate yourself for all of it possibly it would do more harm than good for an insane amout of money.
A few weeks ago I realized I had spent half of my life with high speed Internet, and half without. I tried to think of all the memorable experiences I'd had with computers, and pretty much every one I could think of[1] were from the pre-high speed Internet era. Most were from before having any Internet.

I mentioned this to a similar aged friend, and he thought about it and said it applied to him too.

Which leads to the question: Why am I spending so much time on the Internet? I spend a lot more time on the computer. Where is it going and why am I no longer enjoying it?

What did I do pre-Internet?

- Played games. Lots and lots of them. When I was younger I often felt I had played too many games and bemoaned the time lost. Looking back now at so many good experiences I had with games, I don't regret it one bit. I should get back into playing games (I stopped a long time ago).

- Wrote code for fun. Wrote simple silly games. Wrote programs to produce the Mandelbrot fractal. Today I write code to help me solve problems, but not for fun.

- Toyed with programs like POV-Ray

- Generally explored interesting SW

What do I do today on the computer?

- Read articles

- Write code to solve problems (automate boring tasks, improve my web site, etc)

- Email

- Productivity related stuff (TODO management, finances, etc).

- Looking up stuff (Google Maps, Yelp, Stackoverflow)

- Shopping, online banking, paying bills, scheduling medical appointments, booking flights, etc.

I'd say perhaps 90% of that time is using the browser. Getting a consistent interface is pretty much an experience killer.

I've certainly learned a lot with all that reading. And my code I write really does solve problems. But none of it is fun or memorable.

Conclusion? I traded enjoyable experiences for utility. It was not a good trade.

[1] And I could think of many!
> IR sensors perform poorly in maritime environments

Can you elaborate? One would think big open ocean that contrasts huge ships are prime environment for IR or optical sensors. I also think it's much more difficult to confuse multiple passive sensors enmass. Spamming EW will disrupt all kill chain in bubble / area, but a carrier group is probably not going to have enough dazzler to disrupt passive
sensor in a saturation attack. It doesn't scale.

>being confused by peer opponents for nuclear armed versions

...

> it's probably time to pull out the nukes. That's kind of the unspoken US policy if a CVN is sunk.

TBH I think that's just American exceptionalism thinking because up until now CONUS primary vulnerability was ICBMs and virtually no one had accurate ICBMs for conventional use. Same with ability to sink USN carrier groups. So there's this assumption ICBMs heading for CONUS is going to be nuclear/strategic. Or US can afford to scorch earth if CVN gets sunk due to massive overmatch in US power projection capabilities. But those illusions evaporate once adversaries acquire ability to strike first / retaliate conventionally, especially one backed by nuclear. Game theory has to shift to second strike.

Reality is US adversaries already carve out exceptions for US bombers or SSGNs whose ordnance can all be nuclear tipped anyway. The line between US conventional and strategic platforms is already blurred, but there's benefit of doubt just knowing US can strike conventionally. Same allowance has to be made when others acquire capability. If US sinks PLAN carrier in ocean, one has to expect PRC to retaliate in kind, even if means sinking a US CVN docked in west coast port with an icbm/hypersonic.

> end to military hegemony.

Maybe not, but imo proliferation of accurate icbms dramatically elevates small/middle powers ability to deter when big powers can no longer project force with impunity. It's something more attainable for the have nots versus maintaining a competent navy/airforce. That's like any country more developed than North Korea (including North Korea).
A collection of several falsehoods programmers believe lists, not just time:

https://github.com/kdeldycke/awesome-falsehood