skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Data released by the DOL and insurance companies does not match with your personal experience. There's a reason 18 year olds driving shitty cars pay through their nose for liability coverage.
doing any activity indefinitely is not fun, is a day job
> Logan's Run

Oh god. I can't imagine anyone ever thought Box (the robot) didn't look completely awful.

It may lack good practical effects, but some of the matte paintings in that movie are gorgeous. I love when they get to the overgrown Washington D.C.
This is basically how I saw it also, but interspersed with scenes of a car chase and a fight breaking out and and cops evicting pensioners and beating them with their sticks and finally Graham in his old biddy outfit talking to the press afterwards mentioning how great of a country we are when we put vile hooligans like them behind bars, "Scotland is no place for that kind of rubbish!"

Camera pans back as Palin turns towards it to close out the news report and in the background a swarm of naked people jog blithely into the distance.
So it sounds like it's Simpson's paradox [1] at work. I had always wondered why many people are slow to accept self-driving cars despite the claims of them being statistically safer. I think that explains it --- to make consumers confident about the self-driving technologies, it is not enough for them to be able to handle the "easy" kind of driving (e.g. on highway and under relatively good visibility conditions) better than humans; they need to demonstrate that they can drive better than humans in the most challenging driving environments too.

I guess this is the classic scenario where human intuition is defeated by carefully presented statistics.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox
>I don't find the argument that "it's hard to track and manage that" valid or compelling for an organization which includes the IRS as one of its constituent parts

Doesn't this article highlight what happens if you haphazardly throw together a complicated relief effort overnight? The money ends up in the pockets of the rich anyways.

>Actually paying portions of mortgages would both keeps the banks solvent

Exactly, which is part of the problem I'm highlighting. Under this arrangement, the lenders and mortgage backed securities holders don't get punished at all. If the homeowners get to keep the their home, that means the lender gets everything that they asked for. If the homeowner receives government assistance and loses their home anyways, the lender still ends up with government money. Lenders are literally getting rewarded for their reckless lending.

Presumably with TARP, the Treasury negotiated the purchase prices with the banks to make sure that they were punished, but not so much they'd collapse.
She has a last name that is quite common amongst the Jewish people, although she isn't Jewish, but that's all it takes to get death threats on the internet and 4chan in particular as it has a heavy concentration of white supremacists and fascists. A woman with an opinion and posts it online makes it 10X as dangerous for her. There are a lot of crazy and violent people on the internet looking for a "cause".
Interesting idea however in my experience EC2 is generally not where I need to start optimizing my AWS bills. RDS & other state [1] are by far the largest line items on my bills.

[1] RDS / Aurora / Elasticache / OpenSearch
I kind of wish there was a verifier for function/statement comments to flag inaccurate comments (besides interface descriptions + general comment at the top of a function.)

Sort of a combination of a reverse github auto-pilot metric and checking how old a comment is based on it's surrounding code.

You could even syntax highlight based on how accurate it thinks it is like how down voted HN comments fade out.
Haha, yeah, there's that, but there are also things like "adding a dark mode." There are a dozen ways to accomplish that kind of thing, and every company's solution will diverge when you get down to the details.
Or more pedantically, Google knows where your device is to a sufficiently high degree of precision. They can't stop me from just leaving that shit home or in a faraday cage.
EarthBound’s Copy Protection (2011)
Except you can't trust function names either.

Remember the NSO iMessage exploit?[1] copyGifFromPath didn't really copy the GIF from the path.

At some point, you do have to trust that the kernel API's documentation (or whatever) is correct[2], simply because it's physically impossible for you to exhaustively verify that each piece of software you use (transitively) has correct documentation and consistent semantics. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't audit third-party code, do code reviews, write tests, fuzz your code, and use static analysis and formal methods - in fact, you should do all of those things, if you can.

But, "don't trust comments" is a gross oversimplification. Perhaps "trust, but verify" is a better pithy saying.

[1] https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2021/12/a-deep-dive-i...

[2] technically, if you did all of the above things, or found other people that did them, then you wouldn't have to trust documentation - but the vast majority of the time, most of the software you encounter will not have been thoroughly audited, tested, and fuzzed, with a nice formal specification
1) Indeed you should only use mmap for reads afaik

2) Was thinking more of an event-sourcing model, whereby you log the SQL statements first, then update a B-Tree in the background.

Read via mmap, write by appending to a log and asynchronously applying the changes to the file.

3) Rather than yet another QL, expose a higher level API that I can target in any language
I mean it's an issue tracking system not an app for the masses.
> If you mean anything related to philosophy, sociology or explaining how the world works at large - no.

I'm the wrong person to ask for sociological links, but here's a whole flock of actively maintained black swans pertaining to philosophy and other topics:

https://lileks.com/

https://stpeter.im/

https://www.philosophizethis.org/

https://antiqueradio.org/

http://attalus.org/
> This is the company that decided to have its cars not stop at stop signs. Normal rules don't apply to Tesla.

It's a driving profile which must be turned on that implements behavior extremely common among the driving public. My Honda with Traffic Sign Recognition and adaptive cruise control lets me set the speed above the speed limit, too.

Our traffic laws are in many ways ambiguous, such that even the police officers enforcing the laws will readily admit you're allowed to drive above the posted speed limit. When traffic rules are interpreted ambiguously, it's not that strange for a driving profile to do the same.
It might be an over-adjustment from the software designers. In the early days of software, there was a larger fraction of power users, who wanted lots of options and were willing to fiddle with them. However, settings were often an excuse for not having sensible defaults, auto-detection, context-sensibility and other things for a fluid user experience.

Then came a wave of companies focusing on UX with great success, who often dropped settings to focus on "magic" functions etc. This means UX becomes correlated with less settings, but removing options does not help users - on the contrary! But unfortunately it gives the impression that settings are bad for UX.
In that case apologies, I misunderstood you to be claiming that this sort of emotional instability was uniquely the domain of people who fall into fascism.
long time no see!

there's a couple levels there:

rote translating pseudocode into your target language isn't likely to pan out well.

so instead you run the pseudocode in your mind, develop an intuition on how it works, and that's the "replication" bit this post talks about with reviewing math papers.

but both the pseudocode and your code will likely have edge cases you didn't handle. this isn't a problem for math - that's the category of common trivial/easily fixable proof errors that don't really affect the paper. but they're a problem for machines that run them literally.

maybe a good compromise strategy for formal verification is to declare the insight of the algorithm - recurrence relation or whatever - as an axiom, and then use the prover to whack the tricky edge cases.
One thing that always frustrates me is that most "redesigns" end up removing useful settings, or hiding them. Hiding complexity doesn't make software less complex to use, it just makes it harder to find what you're looking for.
It doesn't matter what you are 'for' or 'against'.

Trolling happens for any, even mild opinion, the more popular the voice, the more trolling.

That is the essential nature of the trolling which I believe is misrepresented in the thesis.
Rust has the same advantages in malloc-free environments as well. Dangling pointers can still be a thing in non-malloc code.
Study: Covid-19 lockdowns in US and Europe had little to no public health impact
Sounds like SO needs a setting to hide old answers
Your conclusion relies on the - quite faulty - assumption that "situations that inherently difficult for FSD to handle" are automatically "also more dangerous for human drivers". In snowy conditions, humans do just fine, generally, at following "lanes", be they the actual lane, or the safest route that everyone else is following. Humans are also capable of deducting lane direction, orientation, even when there are contradictory/old lane markings on the road, a situation FSD regularly causes danger in.

Or that that negative effect is lost in the orders of magnitude of "all human drivers across all miles" versus FSD.
Fiat currency too, I’d wager.

Why is Jamie Foxx shilling for a betting app?
People don’t care about accurate comments, they care about comments they agree with.
So, what does it do?
I believe Google offers 80% time (4 day work weeks), but I'm not sure if they post positions like that, or if you need to be hired full time and then transition to 80% time.
I don't know if anyone has tried it, but it's not a very objective evaluation. We have no good measure of the coding ability of the "median level competitor" so doing better or worse than that, doesn't really tell us anything useful about the coding capability of an automated system.

So my hunch is that it probably hasn't been done, or hasn't been done often, because the program synthesis community would recognise it's pointless.

What you really want to look at is formal program synthesis benchmarks and how systems like AlphaCode do on them (hint: not so good).
It doesn't help that the govt openly uses funding as legal justification to set regulations for which they otherwise wouldn't have jurisdiction.

Medicare/ medicaid funding already has a stranglehold over providers, to where "voluntary" compliance in order to access roughly half the market prevents any real discourse or competition between what services are offered and how they may be provided.

And of course the other half of that is reimbursement rates, which technically are still based on "market" rates, but are increasingly a take it or leave it proposition. Universal single payer puts providers 100% dependent on the good graces of govt to pay a fair rate, with the only recourse being to go cash-only.
Seizures can cause memory loss, and brain-mapping research suggests why
Chronic + constant sinusitis and bloating vanishes.
I added some example screenshots to the README: https://github.com/statico/ycombinator1.com#readme
From my experience in ML, I'd suspect that the "crisis" isn't that the research is false so much as it's useless (algorithm x with parameter set w happens to work well on one particular dataset, conclusion: I have revolutionised the field).
So this was in 1988?

I would have suspected this story was out of the early days of the big airliners.
Well... I really wish I had a time machine; I want to know if this will help deal with funding issues in FOSS, or fragment the ecosystem and destroy communities by limiting who can even see the code. Maybe some of both.
Note that Ebert might be using "sensational" with either the first definition ("causing great surprise or excitement") or second definition ("presenting information with the intent to provoke intense excitement at the expense of other goals") given in most English dictionaries, rather than the third definition ("very good").
Looks like every man and his dog is an expert on North Koreans. Did it occur to you that most citizen there are hostages of the own state and may be fighting hard to get a piece of bread on the table? I highly doubt they give a shit to the US, or the internet or the hacker wars of any kind.
Curious if there's reasoning against just checking the user agent and sending back the HTML with OG tags for them, but then straight up HTTP redirecting in all other cases?

I feel like any reputable agent calling for open graph stuff is going to be labeled correctly, though I'm open to being wrong.
Is there any hope of a Grafana Cloud data access proxy that runs on prem and enables us to give the Cloud access to databases we cannot expose?
Yup. Autopilot on aircraft is very different because pilots don't have to be ready to take over on a moment's notice.

Of course they have to be monitoring the flight but they can be generally assured that the autopilot won't decide to just fly into a mountain with only fractions of a second for the pilots to intervene.
It kind if ignores the dynamic nature of science. Most of what is published probably has close to zero impact regardless of whether its right or wrong, but paradigm changing research generally asserts itself.

The problem is that psychology, unlike physics, doesn't really have a paradigm. There's the old saying, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." But for that heuristic to be effective, you need a standard for what counts as extraordinary. Extraordinary compared to what? In phsyics, there are two well-established paradigms (relativity and quantum mechanics), which establish what counts as ordinary, and what counts as extraordinary. So, for example, if you're making a claim that the distribution of dark matter in the cosmos more clumpy than predicted by existing models, of that the energy level of a particular field is 12 MeV rather than 10, those are ordinary claims, which can be accomodated by tweaks to the existing paradigm. But if you're saying that the speed of light has varied over the history of the universe, or that all subatomic particles are actually tiny vibrating string-like structures, well, that's going to require a lot more evidence.

In psychology, it's much more difficult to have that kind of intuition. Take the concept of priming, for example. Is claiming that people walk more slowly when they're encouraged to think of things that make them feel old extraordinary? It makes a certain sort of intuitive sense, but, on the other hand, there's absolutely no causal mechanism suggested. So when a number of priming studies fail spectacularly under replication [1], I don't know what to think. I don't have a good sense for how much of psychology is overturned by the replication failure, in the same sense that I'd have for physics if it turned out that e.g. the speed of light is a variable rather than a constant.

[1]: https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/16/how-replicable-are-the-soci...
Yes, I'm convinced tons of published results are flawed! I heard top researchers tell their students "don't spend too much time on the proofs, nobody reads them"). And much CS scientific papers don't get a lot of attention. But it's not necessarily bad, other researchers builds on top of this work and results consolidate over time.
There is an even more conservative option I haven't tried yet...

But to be fair, New Englander's are terribly impatient. Many of our ideas of road etiquette include: no loitering at a light for more than 0.25s after it turns green. And "yellow means speed up."
This comes less than a week after an $80 million exploit involving Qubit finance (https://web3isgoinggreat.com?id=2022-01-30-1), which is now begging whoever did it to "be a white hat" (https://twitter.com/QubitFin/status/1488809058526064640) while telling customers its "willingness to compensate." (https://twitter.com/QubitFin/status/1488339036448391168)

My questions are: Are the majority of victims in both exploits ordinary small-scale traders, investors in the companies that operate/promote these services and protocols, or other entities?

Is there any realistic hope to make the victims whole without the cooperation of the people responsible for the exploits?
I believe you, I’m just saying in a zero trust world it’s a risk but a small one.
I'm intrigued. What's a vacuum airship?
I understand wanting to look at different metrics to gauge progress, but what is the issue with this?

> not elo rating because that depends on a human reference
As mentioned elsewhere, just because a situation is difficult for FSD to parse and process doesn't inherently make it a dangerous situation for a human driver.
The idea was really interesting, though it's too bad the software didn't work for me.

Still, I learned a lot from the comments (e.g. the problem of a server overload and fix of switching to a distributed server as a workaround; the jitsi platform; the importance of user statistics (e.g. number of people chatting right now, average time for connection) to encourage people to stay on; and the bug that another user found that may have caused the software to work locally, but not when deployed [0].

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30183557
> The entire point of academia is to extend the current state of knowledge.

Maybe it once was but for the vast majority of people who enter academia the enter point is to increase their take home pay throughout their life.

Academia isnt some noble endeavor but a desperate game that people play in an attempt to win enough money that they can comfortably live their meager lives and hopefully raise their children to have better lives than they had.

Until economic necessity is decoupled from participating in the academic process the idea that academia serves some kind of abstract goal like the persuit of knowledge will remain an elaborate lie that people tell themselves to justify their life choices regarding academia.
It is impervious to gases in comparison with the 1-dimensional polymers, which have large inter-molecular spaces through which small molecules can pass.

There is no reason to believe that these 2-dimensional polymers are more impervious to gases than metals or glasses or covalent or ionic crystals, all of which have similar inter-atomic distances.
A bit cynical take is that it is harder to mislead in theory? Your mistakes will get caught and you risk losing your reputation so it less likely that someone will publish a proof without double triple checking. Theory subject has faster verificarion loops.

Verification and review is harder in experimental works and it might take few decades before someone finds an error, or even collect resources to verify the claim. So maybe it's harder to fight 'publish or perish' deamons in experimental sciences?
none of the real issues breaking the internet (which is not quite broken yet) has technical solutions. No better tool nor "more technology" will solve the problems at hand.

The problems are social and economical, they require "political" solutions, not more technology.
> It's not autopilot, by any measurable criteria

It does seem quite comparable in capabilities to the actual autopilot in aircraft. And that’s what’s confusing to people; most don’t realize that an autopilot is a control used by a driver or pilot to reduce their workload. (As a pilot, I am still logging flight time as the “sole manipulator of controls” during the time the autopilot is engaged.)
That seems like a lot of bikeshedding, tbh, though maybe I don't know enough about the details.
The Mac is Apple's new secret weapon
Have you considered that you are going through a mid life crisis (or equivalent event)? A feeling of certainty surrounding difficult topics like this is sometimes misleading. Explore your identity crisis (and whatever escapism is driving the aforementioned internet / games / porn avoidance) with a counselor instead of going straight to destroying your poor wife's heart.
Seems like the metaverse is not selling well to the Wall street in the real universe :)
Illustrated explanation of VQGAN (used for AI-generated artworks)
He didn’t get millennials to watch “The Last Duel”, so he’s trying another tack
Great catch. I've been using it on a M1 mac with constant crashing after a few hours of idle use, will try upgrading!

Never had a crash on Windows or Linux yet.
The new Grafana alerts do absolutely nothing to help with this.

I'm at the point where I would pay 5 figures a year for something purely to do better alerting inside or alongside Grafana. Clicking alerts together is a nightmare when I have a ton of identical systems I need to configure. Same for dashboards - the limitations of the current mechanism are too severe.

I'd build my own templating mechanism for it, but I still want the alerts visible in Grafana itself. Zabbix has the power to do all this but with a UX that is not ideal....
If that gets pushed to 4chan which primarily a wasteland populated by white supremacists, bigots, racists, and misogynists your chances of being harassed and being attacked go through the roof especially if you use your real name on the internet.
You know that most hacks don't involve physical access to the target device/infrastructure, right?
> this approach wasn't successful in "solving" Starcraft)

Why do you say that? As I understand it, AlphaStar beat pros consistently, including a not widely reported showmatch against Serral when he was BlizzCon champ.
In practice it's not possible to optimize "generally" for all possible target architectures your wasm will run on. You're going to optimize for x86-64 or ARM, and probably going to specifically optimize for modern intel, modern amd, or apple's m1. If you try to optimize for everything you're going to run into really painful tradeoffs and probably have mediocre performance on a bunch of architectures after a lot of hard work.
you need a therapist, not a bunch of strangers on the internet.

but as long as you’re asking, the one thing i can pick up from your post and comments is that you seem to be doing a lot of thinking for her instead of letting her figure her own stuff out. maybe she doesn’t want kids either. maybe she wants the same stuff you do. or not. you don’t really know because you’re not talking to her about this.

go find a marriage therapist and work this stuff out there. then find an individual therapist for after it’s done.
This article, and many of the comments here, commits a central mistake: declaring things to be true with no evidence. "Users love settings." Umm, prove it. Even more glaring, the author goes on to use his own anecdotal story to make his point. If there's one thing I've learned in decades in software development (and there's not), it's that my opinion is not a satisfactory proxy for "what everyone thinks/does."